New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

[Hans Blaster]

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.

I just gave you the meta to my physics. It's simpler to just say "I am a naturalist." instead of writing all of that junk.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You will. Don’t miss it.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Fervent]

I just gave you the meta to my physics. It's simpler to just say "I am a naturalist." instead of writing all of that junk.

Yet you won't admit that you believe that God doesn't exist, but instead retreat to a claim of passive disbelief. It's a disingenuous cop out to absolve yourself of a burden by pretending you don't hold a belief. Just as you yourself said about agnostics being "cowards" for not owning their atheism.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yet you won't admit that you believe that God doesn't exist, but instead retreat to a claim of passive disbelief.

Oh, capital "G" God? That is one of many gods that I think does not exist. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to demonstrate that for you. As to the general concept of a god, I can't exclude all of them. Most possible gods haven't even been described.

It's a disingenuous cop out to absolve yourself of a burden by pretending you don't hold a belief.

Nah, the cop out is that this site prohibits general apologetics, particularly counter-apologetics. If you want to see those, there are plenty of channels on YouTube that will gladly walk you through it.

Just as you yourself said about agnostics being "cowards" for not owning their atheism.

Hey, I did use the smiley, a bit of a tease for my "agnostic identifying" atheist brethren. I'm not dogmatic about (a)theist being a hard binary as I do think there are people who genuinely aren't sure if they believe or not, though this seems to be mostly a transitional state.

I don't think Huxley's category of "agnostic" is a useful one generally.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is the only logical response to the lack of evidence for something -- withhold belief.

What happened to investigate?

You know ... testimonials, cause-and-effect, documentation, and other such things.

Or, as I suspect, can the scientific method take a hike now?

 

[Fervent]

Oh, capital "G" God? That is one of many gods that I think does not exist. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to demonstrate that for you. As to the general concept of a god, I can't exclude all of them. Most possible gods haven't even been described.

Feel free to PM your arguments. But your sudden "realization" highlights the disingenous nature of your feigning merely not having such demonstrated to you.

Nah, the cop out is that this site prohibits general apologetics, particularly counter-apologetics. If you want to see those, there are plenty of channels on YouTube that will gladly walk you through it.

Sure, blame the site rules.

Hey, I did use the smiley, a bit of a tease for my "agnostic identifying" atheist brethren. I'm not dogmatic about (a)theist being a hard binary as I do think there are people who genuinely aren't sure if they believe or not, though this seems to be mostly a transitional state.

Uh huh, but then you attempted to retreat into the typical agnostic posturing by denying that you're making a claim bout what is objectively true. So is it arrogant to think your beliefs are objectively true, or is it not?

I don't think Huxley's category of "agnostic" is a useful one generally.

It tends not to be since it operates more as a hidey-hole to avoid any real discussion on the issues at hand.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Feel free to PM your arguments. But your sudden "realization" highlights the disingenous nature of your feigning merely not having such demonstrated to you.

Sure, blame the site rules.

I've broken them in the past without realizing it. I am not going to do that again if I can help it. Whether I could prove it to you or not it wouldn't change the fact that I don't believe in your god and that is the only thing that is truly important.

Uh huh, but then you attempted to retreat into the typical agnostic posturing by denying that you're making a claim bout what is objectively true. So is it arrogant to think your beliefs are objectively true, or is it not?

"Agnostic posturing"? I just said I don't believe in 'agnostics". I don't believe in a god, ergo, I am an atheist. It has nothing to do with claiming or believing that there are no gods, generally or categorically. It just ain't the way this works.

It tends not to be since it operates more as a hidey-hole to avoid any real discussion on the issues at hand.

It' not the hole I'm "hiding in". It isn't worth breaking board rules and getting suspended to have that discussion.

 

[Fervent]

I've broken them in the past without realizing it. I am not going to do that again if I can help it. Whether I could prove it to you or not it wouldn't change the fact that I don't believe in your god and that is the only thing that is truly important.

Which makes your statement about "wthholding belief" disingenuous, because you're not merely withholding belief.

"Agnostic posturing"? I just said I don't believe in 'agnostics". I don't believe in a god, ergo, I am an atheist. It has nothing to do with claiming or believing that there are no gods, generally or categorically. It just ain't the way this works.

Your whole "I'm withholding belief" is a retreat into agnosticism, since you chose that route rather than acknowledging that you believe that God does not exist. As I said, your statement was disingenuous.

It' not the hole I'm "hiding in". It isn't worth breaking board rules and getting suspended to have that discussion.

Sure, but we weren't talking about demonstration simply whether or not believing your beliefs to be true is arrogant. So you did attempt to invoke a sort of agnosticism by claiming you were merely withholding belief.

 

[Tuur]

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.

Which - no offense - I find odd. Yes, I've heard that from another perspective, from a person honestly asking if they would be a devout Muslim is they had been raised in a Muslim home. It's sort of a Christian asking why they are a Christian.

But I used to think about these things (ponder is too weighty a word for the musing of a child) during lulls in the service and at other times. All sorts of questions. Simply accepting something is, with no questions, seems strange.

Since there's no point I recall without questions, what group I happen to be in had no bearing if I've reached the conclusion that something is true. If, having reached a conclusion about something, we hod to that regardless of what those around us may think, then changing groups shouldn't matter.

Maybe others just think differently. Maybe I've just always been a cynic. I don't know. But having always had questions, at least as far back as I can recall, not having questions at all seems....odd.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Which - no offense - I find odd. Yes, I've heard that from another perspective, from a person honestly asking if they would be a devout Muslim is they had been raised in a Muslim home. It's sort of a Christian asking why they are a Christian.

I assume that if my parents had been Muslims and so were most of our town, I'd have probably been a reasonably faithful Muslim. (At least for a while...)

But I used to think about these things (ponder is too weighty a word for the musing of a child) during lulls in the service and at other times. All sorts of questions. Simply accepting something is, with no questions, seems strange.

I can't say I didn't have any questions as a child. I guess they were answered to my satisfaction.

Since there's no point I recall without questions, what group I happen to be in had no bearing if I've reached the conclusion that something is true. If, having reached a conclusion about something, we hod to that regardless of what those around us may think, then changing groups shouldn't matter.

Maybe others just think differently. Maybe I've just always been a cynic. I don't know. But having always had questions, at least as far back as I can recall, not having questions at all seems....odd.

It did eventually break down and it was from asking questions. There is only so far you can get with "the people I trust most believe this to be true" as your "evidence".

 

[Hans Blaster]

Which makes your statement about "wthholding belief" disingenuous, because you're not merely withholding belief.

Your whole "I'm withholding belief" is a retreat into agnosticism, since you chose that route rather than acknowledging that you believe that God does not exist. As I said, your statement was disingenuous.

I don't believe in any of the entities categorized under the group/generic name "god", therefore I am an atheist. (not "agnostic")
When we get to the specifics, I do not think your deity, known as "God", as described in your scripture and theology, is compatible with reality.

THere are so many people on this site who mix up the two that often I just don't pay attention sometimes. This often happens with the more philosophically oriented posters who start making generic god claims and then forget and capitalize it anyway.

Sure, but we weren't talking about demonstration simply whether or not believing your beliefs to be true is arrogant. So you did attempt to invoke a sort of agnosticism by claiming you were merely withholding belief.

I don't even believe in agnostics.

 

[public hermit]

I don't even believe in agnostics.

 

[Fervent]

I don't believe in any of the entities categorized under the group/generic name "god", therefore I am an atheist. (not "agnostic")
When we get to the specifics, I do not think your deity, known as "God", as described in your scripture and theology, is compatible with reality.

A belief that obviously excludes those who disagree with you..so why is it not arrogance for you to believe that it is objectively true?

THere are so many people on this site who mix up the two that often I just don't pay attention sometimes. This often happens with the more philosophically oriented posters who start making generic god claims and then forget and capitalize it anyway.

The issue is you tried to escape owning your belief by couching it in negative terms. Which is what makes it disingenuous.

I don't even believe in agnostics.

Neither do I. But I know a lot of folks who like to hide by presenting themselves as such in one way or another.

 

[public hermit]

Which makes your statement about "wthholding belief" disingenuous, because you're not merely withholding belief.

Your whole "I'm withholding belief" is a retreat into agnosticism, since you chose that route rather than acknowledging that you believe that God does not exist. As I said, your statement was disingenuous.

Sure, but we weren't talking about demonstration simply whether or not believing your beliefs to be true is arrogant. So you did attempt to invoke a sort of agnosticism by claiming you were merely withholding belief.

Belief isn't something we can just pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and simply choose. Trust, however, is another matter. And trusting a god, who one does not believe exists, is a supreme act of faith (pace Simone Weil). But it is not to be expected, right?

 

[Fervent]

Belief isn't something we can just pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and simply choose. Trust, however, is another matter. And trusting a god who one does not believe exists is a supreme act of faith (pace Simone Weil). But it is not to be expected, right?

The central issue isn't belief or disbelief per se, more the fact that atheists suddenly become agnostics whenever it is convenient for them. If it's arrogant for a believer to believe that their beliefs are objectively true, then there's no reason to let atheists of the hook when the same conditions that they claim make believers arrogant exist for their position. In fact, I'd say it's even more arrogant since atheists tend to put their full confidence in their intellectual acumen to support their belief while believers place their trust in sources external to themsellves.

 

[public hermit]

The central issue isn't belief or disbelief per se, more the fact that atheists suddenly become agnostics whenever it is convenient for them. If it's arrogant for a believer to believe that their beliefs are objectively true, then there's no reason to let atheists of the hook when the same conditions that they claim make believers arrogant exist for their position. In fact, I'd say it's even more arrogant since atheists tend to put their full confidence in their intellectual acumen to support their belief while believers place their trust in sources external to themsellves.

I have some sympathy with what you're saying. I believe we all fall short of a full picture of what is actual. We fill in spaces and we strive for meaning and security. But do we really know squat? What we do know, via maths and sciences and best guesses, hardly touches the things that we all care about. I have firm beliefs that I hold gently because 1) I have been wrong before, and 2) the beauty and goodness and whatever else does matter, they can hardly be captured by words. At any rate, we can enjoy this moment.

But sure, atheists can be annoying.

 

[Fervent]

I have some sympathy with what you're saying. I believe we all fall short of a full picture of what is actual. We fill in spaces and we strive for meaning and security. But do we really know squat? What we do know, via maths and sciences and best guesses, hardly touches the things that we all care about. I have firm beliefs that I hold gently because 1) I have been wrong before, and 2) the beauty and goodness and whatever else does matter, they can hardly be captured by words. At any rate, we can enjoy this moment.

Yes, certainly. I share your seeming attraction to a slight philosophical skepticism, if I read you right.

But sure, atheists can be annoying.

Honestly, atheists are gonna atheist...if anyone is annoying to me, it's people who confess to have Christian faith but then act like we are just making up the rules to the game ourselves and hold values indistinguishable from those held by atheists.(to marginally re-connect with the threads topic lol)

 

[public hermit]

Yes, certainly. I share your seeming attraction to a slight philosophical skepticism, if I read you right.

Yeah, I do think we grasp way more than we know. But I am comfortable with that for a number of reasons, none of which are important.

Honestly, atheists are gonna atheist...if anyone is annoying to me, it's people who confess to have Christian faith but then act like we are just making up the rules to the game ourselves and hold values indistinguishable from those held by atheists.(to marginally re-connect with the threads topic lol)

We are human, that is the base line. Imago dei, for my taste. What follows? I think certain good things will obtain, but hardly any of them dwell in the realm of certainty. That's not a problem (especially for pragmatic Americans). Value has to come into the picture if there is to be meaning, and I think that can be done in very broad strokes. Moreover, I think those are sufficient for the observing, even though there will be disagreements. Is that a bleak picture of humanity? I don't think so. I don't need everyone to be Christian. I would like if Christians would fulfill that role. But, I do believe we can all be human, and that entails all we need to get along. I think there is solid ground for a common humanity, even if they don't agree on a common deity.

 

[Fervent]

Yeah, I do think we grasp way more than we know. But I am comfortable with that for a number of reasons, none of which are important.

Yeah, me as well.

We are human, that is the base line. Imago dei, for my taste. What follows? I think certain good things will obtain, but hardly any of them dwell in the realm of certainty. That's not a problem (especially for pragmatic Americans). Value has to come into the picture if there is to be meaning, and I think that can be done in very broad strokes. Moreover, I think those are sufficient for the observing, even though there will be disagreements. Is that a bleak picture of humanity? I don't think so. I don't need everyone to be Christian. I would like if Christians would fulfill that role. But, I do believe we can all be human, and that entails all we need to get along. I think there is solid ground for a common humanity, even if they don't agree on a common deity.

Sure, but there are also clear causes that at the very least would call on those who believe in Christ to not associate with certain individuals and practices. There's room for common humanity, but questions about deities cannot be trivialized nor can those of us who call ourselves Christian give any indication of approval for the sort of lawlessness that is all too frequent among a culture where morality is treated like a buffet line. If Christ is true, then there are clear moral lines that a Christian cannot cross. And there are many anti-Christ philosophies that people often bring to the faith that lead us down the garden path.

 

[public hermit]

Sure, but there are also clear causes that at the very least would call on those who believe in Christ to not associate with certain individuals and practices. There's room for common humanity, but questions about deities cannot be trivialized nor can those of us who call ourselves Christian give any indication of approval for the sort of lawlessness that is all too frequent among a culture where morality is treated like a buffet line. If Christ is true, then there are clear moral lines that a Christian cannot cross. And there are many anti-Christ philosophies that people often bring to the faith that lead us down the garden path.

That sounds like fear and I get it, but I don't think that is best. If the Lord is Lord, then it will be fine, that's why we have joy. You have to let it all go, even your certainty. In my prayerfully considered opinion, your (my) best idea of Christ is a trifle compared to the reality, much less compared to your (my) fears of getting it wrong.