Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
First I quoted a song, then a movie. I'm not sure what the point of your discourse about "faith" is going to be. It isn't a concept I can take seriously anymore.
The alleged arrogance of @Hans Blaster ? Your comment brought Matthew 7:3-5 to mind. Just saying.
I could go back and find the post in question, but when I mentioned "arrogance" I was referring to the arrogance of people knowing that other people had very different religious positions and still proclaiming that theirs was objectively true. I just could not, and did not, hold any such position.
As pointed out, this isn't new. It's also known as "furries," which the OP put me in mind of. "Furries" led to "fuzzy," then "fuzzy-wuzzy," and the next thing I knew, was quoting Kipling.
Yeah, especially when they are aware that other people believe similar, unsupported things that are contradictory.
Why should what other people believe have any input on what we ourselves believe? In what way is going with the explanation that best fits our experiences a matter of arrogance simply because there exist people who don't believe it? And how does your equally contrradictory current view built entirely upon your own opinions not equally tar you with the arrogance brush for genuinely believing it?
That's my point. There are lots of views about the nature/existence of god. Assuming that the one held is true w/o question as "objective" *is* arrogance. We are not talking about the number of protons in a carbon atom here.
What, what?
So believing that God doesn't exist is arrogant?
You seem to hold as objectively true equally contradictory views about the nature of reality, so how do you now accept that such beliefs are objectively true if it was a lack of "arrrogance" that prevented you from believing what you claim to have previously believed?
That sounds disingenuous, especially considering that you refuse to engage with discussions about the ontological structures you subscribe to that exclude the possibility of God in your worldview and take them to simply be obvious defaults.
This only holds for the assumption that all religious belief is created by the believer. If all religions are the creation of humanity, then there's the very real question of which, if any, is correct. An agnostic would say "Who knows?" An atheist would say "None of them."
The whatcha-ma-watchical structures? (And no it is not disingenuous. It is the only logical response to the lack of evidence for something -- withhold belief.)
It is disingenuos, because you subscribe to a metaphysical understanding that excludes God by definition and then express disdain at the thought of not simply taking that as the default. So your supposed "logical" response is nothing more than a charade of reasonability despite your complete inability to even entertain the prospect of God's existence.
It's certainly created within the believer. It could be driven by any number of sources. For example, I became a believer because I was indoctrinated to think it was true by people that were already believers. I stopped because it wore off.
It depends on what the purpose of religion is. If it is about making you feel good, then whichever one trips your trigger is the right one for you. If it is about finding the reality of the Universe, then no man-made religion can be "correct".
Agnostics are just cowards who won't call themselves atheists.
I have had no such communication. I'll let you know if it happens.
Have you met people?
