New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

[Fervent]

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.

It's not born of fear, my convictions on such issues are hard-fought as I am typically a live-and-let-live kind of person. But if we truly believe that God exists, then ultimately His dictates must be central to us. Not the Jesus that is friendly with the world because of His welcoming attitude, but the one who is hated because He testifies the world's deeds are evil. When we serve the crucified Lord, we must carry our offense with us and testify to the world's evil. Gently, and with humility, but firmly and with conviction. Walkin the line is difficult and requires us to pay attention to the Spirit's leading, but we must remember that being friendly with the world is being at enmity with God.

 

[public hermit]

It's not born of fear, my convictions on such issues are hard-fought as I am typically a live-and-let-live kind of person. But if we truly believe that God exists, then ultimately His dictates must be central to us. Not the Jesus that is friendly with the world because of His welcoming attitude, but the one who is hated because He testifies the world's deeds are evil. When we serve the crucified Lord, we must carry our offense with us and testify to the world's evil. Gently, and with humility, but firmly and with conviction. Walkin the line is difficult and requires us to pay attention to the Spirit's leading, but we must remember that being friendly with the world is being at enmity with God.

I reckon. Look, I support you in your seeking. If it is difficult, then may your way be made smooth. May God bless you with all the good God has for you. I am certain that will happen.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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?

I don't recall claiming that. It's pretty clear that my non-belief in gods generally and my assessment against the existence your god specifically are opinions. That hardly makes them objective as those opinions are dependent on me.

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

Boo hoo. For most gods I know too little to make an assessment, and without any positive evidence of existence I lack belief in them -- that negative you find to be a dodge. For a few claimed gods I know enough to see that the claims about the god are incompatible with my understanding of reality. Therefore I believe those few gods to not exist. Unfortunately for this conversation, one of those few gods is the only one I once actually believed in.

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

So do you believe in agnostics or not? You seem to think I am playing something that does not exist. Your post lacks consistency in this aspect.

 

[Fervent]

I don't recall claiming that. It's pretty clear that my non-belief in gods generally and my assessment against the existence your god specifically are opinions. That hardly makes them objective as those opinions are dependent on me.

So you don't really believe they are true? They're just opinions, like your favorite ice cream flavor? You're being disingenuous again.

Boo hoo. For most gods I know too little to make an assessment, and without any positive evidence of existence I lack belief in them -- that negative you find to be a dodge. For a few claimed gods I know enough to see that the claims about the god are incompatible with my understanding of reality. Therefore I believe those few gods to not exist. Unfortunately for this conversation, one of those few gods is the only one I once actually believed in.

Do you believe what you believe is true, or do you not? Your process is irrelevant, only whether or not you believe that your understanding of reality comports with objective reality in such a way that they are either true or false, and you believe them to be true. If you do, how is that not a mark of arrogance while your former belief would have been?

So do you believe in agnostics or not? You seem to think I am playing something that does not exist. Your post lacks consistency in this aspect.

I believe there are atheists who use "agnostic" as a shield and argument tactic, but I have never met anyone who truly lives up to the title of "agnostic" and doubt I ever will.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you don't really believe they are true?

Beliefs are opinions about what you think to be true or not true or unproven.

They're just opinions, like your favorite ice cream flavor?

Exactly! The correct answer is Butter Pecan and failure to agree represents a moral deficiency.

You're being disingenuous again.

Hardly.

Do you believe what you believe is true, or do you not? Your process is irrelevant, only whether or not you believe that your understanding of reality comports with objective reality in such a way that they are either true or false, and you believe them to be true. If you do, how is that not a mark of arrogance while your former belief would have been?

It is my best understanding of reality. I am not infallible. (That I leave to popes.) I could be wrong, but I am satisfied with my conclusions, so I shall act as if they are correct.

I believe there are atheists who use "agnostic" as a shield and argument tactic, but I have never met anyone who truly lives up to the title of "agnostic" and doubt I ever will.

When I joined one of the choices I had was to be an "atheist" or an "agnostic" or even a "seaker". I am not seeking anything "spiritual", so that was off the table. Since I believed in none of the claimed gods, even the ones I hadn't heard of (prehaps especially as how can you believe in a prospect before you hear it), I went with the correct label of "atheist" even though I *knew* that some posters would mistake that for an assertion that no gods exist. I have no desire to be considered an "agnostic". If someone wants a more "soft" designation, "non-believer" works fine.

 

[Fervent]

Beliefs are opinions about what you think to be true or not true or unproven.

Sure, but there isn't confusion about what a belief is.

Exactly! The correct answer is Butter Pecan and failure to agree represents a moral deficiency.

Cool, I suppose from your perspective it may as well be.

Hardly.

You're playing a game by reducing your belief to an "opinion" as if you don't for all intents and purposes take it to be true objectively.

It is my best understanding of reality. I am not infallible. (That I leave to popes.) I could be wrong, but I am satisfied with my conclusions, so I shall act as if they are correct.

My question wasn't about your behavior, it's about your beliefs. Keeping room for doubt doesn't alter whether or not you believe that it is objectively true. I can only assume that you don't believe that your belief has any effect on whether it is true or not, so playing at the margins isn't really relevant.

When I joined one of the choices I had was to be an "atheist" or an "agnostic" or even a "seaker". I am not seeking anything "spiritual", so that was off the table. Since I believed in none of the claimed gods, even the ones I hadn't heard of (prehaps especially as how can you believe in a prospect before you hear it), I went with the correct label of "atheist" even though I *knew* that some posters would mistake that for an assertion that no gods exist. I have no desire to be considered an "agnostic". If someone wants a more "soft" designation, "non-believer" works fine.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to have to do with what I stated, as there doesn't appear to me to be much of a difference between believing that no gods(that you are familiar with) exist and an assertion that no gods exist. It's a distinction without a difference, and generally only serves to engage in arguments from ignorance and special pleading about burdens.

 

[Tuur]

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

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".

Mine weren't always. Still aren't A favorite was "What is nothing like?" Not emptiness, absolute nothing. Didn't know about space-time then, but nothing included no space-time. Absolute nothing.

As an example, sometimes the answers given caused more questions. A secular example is how our church never objected to different races attending. and this was during segregation. When I asked why, was told that we were all the same in the eyes of God. Still remember that day, because from that point on thought "If we are all the same in the eyes of God, then why is there segregation?" From that point on was never comfortable with the practice, even though I had been raised around it.

But when I felt I couldn't trust the assessment of the adults, did what research that I could. With no Internet in existence and no world wide web, that meant what books I could find. It's kind of like being scared about nuclear war and trying to find all you can about it. Then you start questioning that information, and do more digging. What I found what that arguments for the accuracy of scripture and early penning of the Gospels hold up better than arguments to the contrary.

Maybe it's just being a cynic. I don't know, But not questioning anything just seems...odd.

 

[Ophiolite]

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

My profile identifies me as agnostic. I don't rule out the possibility of some sort of entity who might have had a hand in the creation, or evolution of the universe, and who may or may not take various levels of interest in humanity. However, the evidence for this entity is whimsical at best.

In regard to the Christian god and any other gods I've considered to any extent at all, I am wholly atheistic. I see zero meaningful evidence for their existence and have no reason to waste further time considering the same tired arguments over and over again. Present new evidence, or a new argument and I'll consider it, but I have seen none. (If I didn't have one eye on the look out, I would be less likely to spend time on this forum.)

 

[AV1611VET]

For most gods I know too little to make an assessment, and without any positive evidence of existence I lack belief in them --

Do you know what evidence to look for?

Some people see Thor as the Norse god of thunder and lightning, or a Marvel comic book character.

In other words, just a legend.

I see Thor as a fallen angel who haunted the Scandinavian countries.

If I wanted to confirm my belief, I certainly wouldn't demand evidence.

I wouldn't know what to look for.

 

[AV1611VET]

My question wasn't about your behavior, it's about your beliefs. Keeping room for doubt doesn't alter whether or not you believe that it is objectively true. I can only assume that you don't believe that your belief has any effect on whether it is true or not, so playing at the margins isn't really relevant.

Agnostics are lost souls under conviction and suffering cognitive dissonance.

From AI Overview:

Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced when holding two or more conflicting beliefs, ideas, or values, or when actions clash with beliefs. This conflict creates psychological tension, motivating individuals to reduce the discomfort by changing their beliefs, behaviors, or justifying the inconsistency.

Atheists are lost souls under conviction and suffering foolhardiness.

From AI Overview:

Foolhardiness refers to a reckless and impulsive disregard for danger, often stemming from a lack of judgment or an overestimation of one's abilities. It's a form of courage that is not tempered with wisdom or caution.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see zero meaningful evidence for their existence and have no reason to waste further time considering the same tired arguments over and over again. Present new evidence, or a new argument and I'll consider it, but I have seen none.

What about my list of cause-and-effect evidence for the existence of God?

Are you telling me you've heard that before?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Mine weren't always. Still aren't A favorite was "What is nothing like?" Not emptiness, absolute nothing. Didn't know about space-time then, but nothing included no space-time. Absolute nothing.

As an example, sometimes the answers given caused more questions. A secular example is how our church never objected to different races attending. and this was during segregation. When I asked why, was told that we were all the same in the eyes of God. Still remember that day, because from that point on thought "If we are all the same in the eyes of God, then why is there segregation?" From that point on was never comfortable with the practice, even though I had been raised around it.

Interesting. The way such immoral systems "rot" from inside is interesting to hear about. This one is so remote from my own upbringing in time and space.

But when I felt I couldn't trust the assessment of the adults, did what research that I could. With no Internet in existence and no world wide web, that meant what books I could find. It's kind of like being scared about nuclear war and trying to find all you can about it. Then you start questioning that information, and do more digging. What I found what that arguments for the accuracy of scripture and early penning of the Gospels hold up better than arguments to the contrary.

Maybe it's just being a cynic. I don't know, But not questioning anything just seems...odd.

I was apparently easily satisfied in my questions. There were so many other things in the world to learn about than religion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure, but there isn't confusion about what a belief is.

Good. Let's see if you can maintain that understanding.

Cool, I suppose from your perspective it may as well be.

I'm beginning to think you didn't get the joke at the end of that sentence. Do you suffer from involuntary literalism?

You're playing a game by reducing your belief to an "opinion" as if you don't for all intents and purposes take it to be true objectively.

And apparently you can't maintain your understanding of belief as a type of opinion. How many times do I need to repeat it? Will 100, 000 do the trick?

DO i = 1,1000000,10
WRITE(*,*) "Beliefs are opinions and not objective."
END DO

I never claimed that my belief was objective. Quit thinking you can read my mind. You can't.

My question wasn't about your behavior, it's about your beliefs. Keeping room for doubt doesn't alter whether or not you believe that it is objectively true. I can only assume that you don't believe that your belief has any effect on whether it is true or not, so playing at the margins isn't really relevant.

I've given my opinions (aka beliefs)

I'm not sure what this is supposed to have to do with what I stated, as there doesn't appear to me to be much of a difference between believing that no gods(that you are familiar with) exist and an assertion that no gods exist.

Then you should think about it more. (As for why I wrote it, I wanted to be clear about my "relationship" to "agnosticism", since you keep trying to pin it on me. I reject it. It has nothing to do with anything I've written.)

It's a distinction without a difference, and generally only serves to engage in arguments from ignorance and special pleading about burdens.

It is the difference between a declaration of innocence and a failure to find guilt. There is a reason courts find defendants 'not guilty' (or like in Scotland the case "not proven") and not "innocent".

Not only is there a difference between the two, but it is important. (We'll at least if you *care* about the question of gods and such. No one is require to care about such things.)

 

[Fervent]

Good. Let's see if you can maintain that understanding.

Perhaps there is a disconnect on this, because opinions aren't subject to true or false categories. They're purely matters of subjective taste.

I'm beginning to think you didn't get the joke at the end of that sentence. Do you suffer from involuntary literalism?

I got the joke, didn't find it funny. So I decided to make a point.

And apparently you can't maintain your understanding of belief as a type of opinion. How many times do I need to repeat it? Will 100, 000 do the trick?

DO i = 1,1000000,10
WRITE(*,*) "Beliefs are opinions and not objective."
END DO

I never claimed that my belief was objective. Quit thinking you can read my mind. You can't.

I can't, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize dishonesty. Whether that is dishonesty with me or with yourself, I don't know. But if you think your evaluation is just your opinion and not reflective of reality, then why do you think you can supply arguments rather than just falling back on it being a matter of opinion and not objective reality?

I've given my opinions (aka beliefs)

Your definition of "belief" is lacking, or rather a contradiction of terms.

Then you should think about it more. (As for why I wrote it, I wanted to be clear about my "relationship" to "agnosticism", since you keep trying to pin it on me. I reject it. It has nothing to do with anything I've written.)

Perhaps you can enlighten me. What is the difference between "I believe there are no gods" and "I don't believe there are any gods"? How is that not a distinction without a difference?

It is the difference between a declaration of innocence and a failure to find guilt. There is a reason courts find defendants 'not guilty' (or like in Scotland the case "not proven") and not "innocent".

Nope, there is no presumption of atheism as there is a presumption of innocence. That's an argument from ignorance.

Not only is there a difference between the two, but it is important. (We'll at least if you *care* about the question of gods and such. No one is require to care about such things.)

There isn't, atheists just insist there is as a matter of tactics and a basis for flawed arguments.

 

[Ophiolite]

Perhaps there is a disconnect on this, because opinions aren't subject to true or false categories. They're purely matters of subjective taste.

I got the joke, didn't find it funny. So I decided to make a point.

I can't, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize dishonesty. Whether that is dishonesty with me or with yourself, I don't know. But if you think your evaluation is just your opinion and not reflective of reality, then why do you think you can supply arguments rather than just falling back on it being a matter of opinion and not objective reality?

Your definition of "belief" is lacking, or rather a contradiction of terms.

Perhaps you can enlighten me. What is the difference between "I believe there are no gods" and "I don't believe there are any gods"? How is that not a distinction without a difference?

Nope, there is no presumption of atheism as there is a presumption of innocence. That's an argument from ignorance.

There isn't, atheists just insist there is as a matter of tactics and a basis for flawed arguments.

I believe that you are confused.

Note: There is no reason you should be aware of my position on this matter, but I try to avoid things like belief and faith in the same way I seek to avoid venomous snakes and debillitating illness. Rather than believing you are confused a balancing of the evidence leads me to accept that as the most probable conclusion. Your observations, in toto, appear unreasonable. Since I doubt you are lying and you appear to be of passable intelligence the best-fit conclusion is that you have allowed your agenda to corrupt your logic. I'll try to defer further discussion with you till you've corrected that. I apologise if any of that seems abrupt or discourteous. I've probably been adversely influenced by the implications of lying and of lack of integrity.

 

[Fervent]

I believe that you are confused.

Note: There is no reason you should be aware of my position on this matter, but I try to avoid things like belief and faith in the same way I seek to avoid venomous snakes and debillitating illness. Rather than believing you are confused a balancing of the evidence leads me to accept that as the most probable conclusion. Your observations, in toto, appear unreasonable. Since I doubt you are lying and you appear to be of passable intelligence the best-fit conclusion is that you have allowed your agenda to corrupt your logic. I'll try to defer further discussion with you till you've corrected that. I apologise if any of that seems abrupt or discourteous. I've probably been adversely influenced by the implications of lying and of lack of integrity.

That is nothing but semantic games.

 

[Ophiolite]

That is nothing but semantic games.

As I said, you appear to be confused. I don't play games. Finis.

 

[Fervent]

As I said, you appear to be confused. I don't play games. Finis.

You very clearly do, in order to deny that you have beliefs. Which can only be because you think your beliefs are an approximation of objective reality.

 

[Fervent]

My profile identifies me as agnostic. I don't rule out the possibility of some sort of entity who might have had a hand in the creation, or evolution of the universe, and who may or may not take various levels of interest in humanity. However, the evidence for this entity is whimsical at best.

Last I checked, such an entity would be the one to set the rules not us.

In regard to the Christian god and any other gods I've considered to any extent at all, I am wholly atheistic. I see zero meaningful evidence for their existence and have no reason to waste further time considering the same tired arguments over and over again.

My guess is you're jumping in mid-stream and not digging deep to the core of your epistemology and ontology. I see no need to present evidence or arguments, because God in His wisdom has chosen to hide Himself from those who esteem themselves wise in the world.

Present new evidence, or a new argument and I'll consider it, but I have seen none. (If I didn't have one eye on the look out, I would be less likely to spend time on this forum.)

Nah, I was commissioned to preach not to argue. You want to look a gift horse in the mouth, that's on you.

 

[Ophiolite]

It is the difference between a declaration of innocence and a failure to find guilt. There is a reason courts find defendants 'not guilty' (or like in Scotland the case "not proven") and not "innocent".

Off topic comment: Removing the "not proven" option from the Scottish Justice system has been proposed, though I think the three options, guilty, not guilty, or not proven, currently remain as options. The important nuance between not guilty and not proven apparently evades, or confuses many jurors. Claiming they are different ways of saying the same thing, as some do, is rather like conflating butchery with an axe with surgery with a scalpel. Odd really. I think it is a nice distinction, in both senses of the word.