<p>^Call me what you want, I don’t believe in God.</p>
<p>Dr. Horse, if you offered any support for your vague generalities, maybe someone would take you seriously. Right now, I think most of us agree that your unfounded claims seem ridiculous.</p>
<p>^ Technically speaking you are an agnostic atheist not an atheist.</p>
<p>There’s no such thing as an agnostic atheist. Such a phrase contradicts itself. He fancies himself an atheist, but his explanation of his beliefs makes him agnostic. End of story.</p>
<p>^I don’t know why people always assume I’m a male. Do you know any guys named Stella?</p>
<p>I could be called agnostic, but the term is fundamentally flawed if it doesn’t distinguish between a) the person who doesn’t believe in god, but acknowledges the possibility that he exists, b) the person who believes in god, but acknowledges the possibility that he doesn’t exist, and c) the person who’s uncommitted about the issue.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the idea of agnosticism; could someone explain? If you have any persuasion at all, then how are you still agnostic? Have we become so polarized that questioning your beliefs implies total incertitude? Am I missing some subtlety in the definition? Honest questions.</p>
<p>are secularists morally decayed?</p>
<p>Or, are secularists morally superior, because they choose to treat their fellow humans with love and respect, while christian act the way they do only because they fear going to hell?</p>
<p>^seconded, AMB2005</p>
<p>Whence comes secularist “love and respect?” And why is Christianity incompatible with this? i.e. if God is love (a belief embraced by much of Christianity), then by wanting to be closer to God they are wanting to partake in pure love. You are falsely misrepresenting wanting to go to Heaven as a desire to avoid Hell.</p>
<p>^If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. (Albert Einstein)</p>
<p>What motivates anyone to do good? I don’t understand the fundamental concept here. And why would you be so arrogant as to assume that the sole motive for any Christian’s or religious person’s actions is to get some eternal reward?</p>
<p>lmao, funniest thread title ive seen in awhile, had to check it out</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think AMB2005 was trying to say that if secularists are “morally decayed”, the source of christian morality must not apply to secularists. Anyone can feel love and respect, so the christians’ exclusive source of moral vitality must stem from the fear of damnation. We don’t distinguish between the desire to go to heaven and the desire to avoid hell because, in most religions, going to heaven implies avoiding hell (or purgatory, or limbo, whatever).</p>
<p>^Soulside Journey:
An agnostic atheist is a term (I apologize for the words used, I did not come up with it) for someone who believes that there aren’t any reasons to believe in God (this is consitent with an athiest) but that they do not claim to have any definitive knowledge that a diety doesn’t exist (this is the “agnostic” part).</p>
<p>Wait, Santa Clause isn’t real!!! Then who’s been putting all the presents under the tree the whole time? MOM AND DAD?</p>
<p>I definitely do NOT think they are mentally ill, but depending on how you use your religion I think some religious people are compromising their intellect!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t ask for a chemical explanation and I didn’t say anything about including mysticism.</p>
<p>My WHOLE point is that there is no specific evidence as to whether the answers stop at basic chemical functions or not. To claim emphatically that they do, and then put the burden of proof on others, ignores the fundamental fact that science does not know.</p>
<p>Keeping open to doubt on both sides is critical to finding truth.</p>
<p>Applejack, please do not take offence at my words, but using agnoticism as a principle upon which you live your life rather than a temporary state of being is (in my humble opinion) not the best way to find truth. </p>
<p>Staying neutral on any given subject is more than acceptable if it is a position being taken until all of the facts are in. In the case of God, we’ve gotten all the facts we’re going to get, so I think a conclusion is in order.</p>
<p>^ But we have multiple sets of conflicting “facts”. Until we know which is right, agnosticism is justifiable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or MAYBE there are invisible kangaroos living in the Rocky Mountains. There’s no specific evidence as to whether there are or not. To claim emphatically that there aren’t, and then put the burden of proof on others, ignores the fundamental fact that science does not know. Keeping open to doubt on both sides is critical to finding truth.</p>