REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Esswen]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
and what was the "third approach", btw?

Ah. I could be hoist by my own petard here.

No. three I think could be athiest (or approaching thereto).

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Esswen
I made those sentences up based on what others in the forum had written following on from one of my posts. It was more an attempt to quickly analyse the three perspectives trying to find common and contrasting threads.

Ah... OK, I see that now. Sort of synthesizing / summarizing what had been stated. You confused me a bit about it at first - and the FIRST part of it is the part that seems most condescending... You DO confuse me still by mentioning something about 3 approaches, but only having numerals (1) and (2)... could you clarify that part?

(EDIT: I think you may have already answered my question in your answer to Rian above, right?)

[Esswen]

Originally posted by Valandil
But (to be a bit smart alecky myself! ) willing to knock those who earnestly believe they have discovered a wider understanding?

Now, were you really a Christian, or was there just some sort of 'Christian heritage' in your up-bringing?

Perhaps a recognition of ignorance is the first step towards understanding.

Both, I was really a Christian who came from a Christian background.

Now I have to go to work (sob)

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Esswen
Perhaps a recognition of ignorance is the first step towards understanding.

i couldn't agree more

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
no problem... just keeping up my devil's advocacy (i miss rÃ*an )

I'm missed!

Now I'm baaaaaccckkkk!, so watch out!

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i couldn't agree more

Then shall we assume that you and Esswen are completely ignorant? (please note the winky smilie! This argument is commonly thrown at Christians, and I was just trying to point out that it could then just as easily be applied to ANYONE with ANY type of belief. )

I am ignorant of many things; but I have a mind, and my 5 senses, and I have observed a lot of things, and thought a lot about things, and drawn some conclusions that I think are most probably correct, the most important (IMO) being that Christianity, as expressed in the Bible, is by FAR the most likely statement of the truth of things, because it correlates with observations and logical thinking MUCH better than other worldviews (again, IMO - and it is an opinion on which I've spent a lot of thought and energy).

I don't want to offend anyone, but I really think that staying in the "well, we'll never know for sure" mindset is a cop-out. The two possibilities are atheism and theism, and one should consider the evidence for them carefully, and at some point make a decision, because one's actions are based on what one believes.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Esswen
Yes, my writing style can be smart alec, but condescending?

I'd consider "security blanket" and "emotional insecurity" condescending, wouldn't you?

Well yes I can do condescending too, and you will interpret what others write as you see fit.

No; I will interpret what others write NOT as I "see fit", but as I truly think they mean. I don't have an agenda, unless it's to try to understand people. If I'm not sure, I ask them to clarify. If you think I misunderstand you, then PLEASE correct me I want to really understand what people are saying.

I made those sentences up based on what others in the forum had written following on from one of my posts. It was more an attempt to quickly analyse the three perspectives trying to find common and contrasting threads.

Oh, OK. But sorry, I still don't understand how you're tying the "three perspectives" into the Part 1 and Part 2 things Are you saying that atheism, theism and agnosticism somehow match those categories?

And btw, my "religion" doesn't fall into either of the 2 categories, nor is it "a passive acceptance of humanity's ignorance on reality and an indifference to discovering the universe's secrets."

[brownjenkins]

as you know, my beliefs are based upon my relative pov... just as yours are based upon your relative pov

the ignorance factor comes in, because i know i can never be 100% sure of my position... there may be a god, there may not be a god, or god may be an expression of a more personal, as opposed to external, force... in which case god actually is a relative thing

"well, we'll never know for sure" is not a cop-out, it is a pragmatic acceptance of reality... once you can learn to accept it, then you can look at the opposing views more objectively and analyze what are the positives and negatives of each stance

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
as you know, my beliefs are based upon my relative pov... just as yours are based upon your relative pov

Do you mean basically that our beliefs are based on our own observations and thoughts? I'm not quite sure of what you mean by "relative pov".

the ignorance factor comes in, because i know i can never be 100% sure of my position...

Well, I can't either, at this point in time (of course I will be when I actually see God!), but I think the vast majority of evidence supports Christianity as being true. You, of course, have a different opinion which is your right. And it looks like it's based on a fair amount of thought, which is good. I hope to get you to think about some other things, tho, that might change your mind ... and feel free to do the same with me.

"well, we'll never know for sure" is not a cop-out, it is a pragmatic acceptance of reality... once you can learn to accept it, then you can look at the opposing views more objectively and analyze what are the positives and negatives of each stance

I knew I worded that poorly. Let me try to clarify, altho I'm rather burned out from the last week of vacation and festivities ...

What I mean is that staying in the "we'll never know for sure" mindset is in itself a decision, just like choosing Christianity or atheism or another religion. Agnostics like to present themselves as being somehow "above" those that have made decisions about the most likely worldview, but IMO, they're very wrong, because they themselves have made a decision that their worldview will be "we'll never know, therefore I will not base my actions on any particular worldview." This is in itself a decision. And IMO, it's a bit of a cop-out because I think it's a more right and courageous position to take a stand on your beliefs, and act on them, instead of just saying "we'll never know." IOW, be a force for what you think is good.

IMO, there should be a "looking-around" time when a person considers different worldviews, but there is also a decision time, because different worldviews call for different actions. Even tho I think Christianity is the right worldview, based on evidence and thought, I am still open to, and would consider, evidences for other worldviews. The VAST majority of what I have seen out there just continues to confirm my opinion.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
"well, we'll never know for sure" is not a cop-out, it is a pragmatic acceptance of reality... once you can learn to accept it, then you can look at the opposing views more objectively and analyze what are the positives and negatives of each stance

I already accept it - or I should clarify that I believe that "we'll never know for sure" in this world but we will ALL know for sure at some future time.

And I don't think that being a Christian prevents me AT ALL from "look[ing] at the opposing views more objectively and analyz[ing] what are the positives and negatives of each stance." Why should it?

[Rían]

(I was going to edit this into the longer post, but it got too long, so I'll put it in another post.)

Agnostics like to pull out "we'll never know for sure" like some kind of a trump card. Well, it's not - and it's certainly not news! I say - use your senses, use your brain, give it some time, and make a decision about your beliefs, then ACT on your beliefs for what you believe to be right and good. Make a difference with your life! Stay open to other thoughts, too, and keep thinking things through, and see if perhaps maybe you need to change your decision if you find sufficient new evidence. But don't STAY in a permanant "we'll never know" place - or if you do, realize that THAT is also a decision, and it can be changed.

[Nurvingiel]

Valandil, you mentioned being a born-again-Christian earlier. What is that exactly? I curious, I've heard the term before but I don't know what it means.

Not to erm... completely change the suject.

[brownjenkins]

when i say "we'll never know", i mean about the existence of god, or whether or not a certain scripture is or isn't the word of this god... i'm completely open as far as ideas go

i look at ideas from all kinds of religious beliefs, not just one or a few... i see which seem to make sense (i.e. treating those as you would be treated) and which don't seem to not make sense (i.e. insisting that a preacher must remain celibate)... i can pick and choose and am not tied to any one issue due to scripture

you say: "use your senses, use your brain, give it some time, and make a decision about your beliefs, then ACT on your beliefs for what you believe to be right and good. Make a difference with your life!"

to which i say... that's what i do, i just don't put the god part behind it

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Valandil, you mentioned being a born-again-Christian earlier. What is that exactly? I curious, I've heard the term before but I don't know what it means.

Not to erm... completely change the suject.

I think that's completely ON the subject. Yes, I'll be happy to explain it. I can't at the moment, but either late tonight - or more likely, tomorrow morning, I will (you can look for it within 12 hours just about for sure).

[BeardofPants]

Val, nice location.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Val, nice location.

Thank you! I did that as opposed to a sig... hoping you wouldn't mind.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Agnostics like to pull out "we'll never know for sure" like some kind of a trump card. Well, it's not - and it's certainly not news! I say - use your senses, use your brain, give it some time, and make a decision about your beliefs, then ACT on your beliefs for what you believe to be right and good. Make a difference with your life! Stay open to other thoughts, too, and keep thinking things through, and see if perhaps maybe you need to change your decision if you find sufficient new evidence. But don't STAY in a permanant "we'll never know" place - or if you do, realize that THAT is also a decision, and it can be changed.

oh damn i missed "attack the agnostics" day. good thing bj caught up to that "agnostics are all cop outs" statement before I did let me tell you...

the very IDEA of a devout creationist christian castigating agnostics for being close minded and short thinking... oh my goodness... thats the very height of hypocrisy in my evidently limited opinion...

im trying to control my vitriol so Ill just apologize ahead of time for whatever i say here but let me just say that the very idea of being agnostic REQUIRES that you KEEP your mind open to all possibilities and spend your existence in vigilant observation of the truth of the world that surrounds you in what you can perceive and what (if anything) we can learn about what we CANT perceive. So for a person (a christian!) to label that kind of thinking as a cop out... well thats just simply mind boggling to me rian.

Having spent many years learning about the very roots of all religions and tracing the history of man's religion in a strictly neutral, academic and information hungry sense it has become quite clear to me that christianity is simply a manifestation of something that has trailed continuously throughout history as mans way of approaching his world. If you look at ancient judaic scriptures (and more importantly the pre-judean works that predated the concept of the god of Abraham) you see a steady EVOLVING conceptualizing among the humans of the ancient middle east of a god concept that like a river meandered back and forth until it culminated with the whole jesus story. you see a very different concept for god throughout this time. From a highly personal extremely vindictive one to a softer forgiving deity of unlimited power. From a cult buoyed by myths and force to a revolution carried and simmered by the meekest and the downtrodden. But all along its an evolving one. To ME this tells me something about HUMANITY and not about divinity. It tells me how the mind works and how ancient societies conceptualized and how strong the urge for having something bigger is in man. It has done nothing BUT reinforce my agnostic approach to observing the universe. So to say agnostics purposefully stick themselves in a place where they refuse to budge and refuse to learn any further about their world is maddeningly ridiculous in the highest. We are open to ALL possibilities. Just SHOW them to us. Dont sit there and say well see if you would just have FAITH youd understand the TRUTH. the TRUTH is right in front of me. And it includes the fact that mass delusion is a human psychological standard. I guess its up to humans to sit here and argue whose delusion is the real delusion. But as an agnostic Im the only one who can say it could be any one of us or all of us.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Having spent many years learning about the very roots of all religions and tracing the history of man's religion in a strictly neutral, academic and information hungry sense it has become quite clear to me that christianity is simply a manifestation of something that has trailed continuously throughout history as mans way of approaching his world. If you look at ancient judaic scriptures (and more importantly the pre-judean works that predated the concept of the god of Abraham) you see a steady EVOLVING conceptualizing among the humans of the ancient middle east of a god concept that like a river meandered back and forth until it culminated with the whole jesus story. you see a very different concept for god throughout this time. From a highly personal extremely vindictive one to a softer forgiving deity of unlimited power. From a cult buoyed by myths and force to a revolution carried and simmered by the meekest and the downtrodden. But all along its an evolving one. To ME this tells me something about HUMANITY and not about divinity. It tells me how the mind works and how ancient societies conceptualized and how strong the urge for having something bigger is in man. It has done nothing BUT reinforce my agnostic approach to observing the universe. So to say agnostics purposefully stick themselves in a place where they refuse to budge and refuse to learn any further about their world is maddeningly ridiculous in the highest. We are open to ALL possibilities. Just SHOW them to us. Dont sit there and say well see if you would just have FAITH youd understand the TRUTH. the TRUTH is right in front of me. And it includes the fact that mass delusion is a human psychological standard. I guess its up to humans to sit here and argue whose delusion is the real delusion. But as an agnostic Im the only one who can say it could be any one of us or all of us.

Hey I-Rex,

I'll let Rian speak for herself, but knowing her, I doubt she intended any offense to agnostics.

For this part I quote, I have NOT formally studied a whole lot about religions in an academic setting. I actually tried just a little, started a 'Religious Studies' course at the U of Illinois 20-some years ago - and had to drop it. I found the professor to be quite (*SEE BELOW) dismissive toward any actual expression of a Christian viewpoint or opinion. Maybe this is not the case everywhere, but it gave me the impression that there's no room for belief (or even a search for metaphysical 'truth') in an academic study of 'religions'.

Meanwhile, I've tried to educate myself a bit more informally about my own faith, as well as other religions. I still see Christianity as quite unique and apart from all the others (more so than any of the others are in their own right), but must also admit that my viewpoint can't help but be biased. *sigh* but what can I say... ? I cannot escape myself.

None of this is meant to jump on you... just to explain why I (and perhaps others) tend to be a bit leery of the academic viewpoint on religions.

*EDIT: I initially used the word 'antagonistic' above, but after thinking about it, came back and replaced it with 'dismissive' - which was I think a more accurate description. It had a feeling of more contempt than hostility.

[Sminty_Smeagol]

*sigh* Beliefs are silly. But it's against our nature to defy them, and we all have them to some extent. Opinions are stupid. But that is an opinion so now I am a self-proclaimed stupid hypocrate. I wish we could percieve and not judge.
<hippie

[Insidious Rex]

well when i say "academic" i dont necessarily mean the strictly ivory tower dictations of ivy league liberal minds. I mean a more general approach to learning all I can about various religions. I have more books then I can count on christianity and all religions. And many are penned by devout christians (Id have to say the bible is hardly anti christian propoganda and I got that somewhere here...).

Very few things fascinate me more then trying to understand grand concepts like religion. So Ive learned as much as I can. And whether Im looking at zoroastrianism or zulu beauty spirits or the very hight of layered formal christian dogma it all seems to come down to how the HUMAN mind works. thats the fundamental constant. Not the divine. So for me i remain agnostic because what i LEARN about the world and about humanity's approach to religion tells me theres a ceiling in religion that can be quite easily observed when you stand back from it. But yet I wouldnt be surprised if there was something to it as well. I just dont think its the super specific ideas and rules of any one SPECIFIC religion really.