I guess that means those aren't the droids I am looking for and suddenly I have this urge to go to church on Sunday instead of watching Meet the Press..
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/niqVVENiY2c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Sorry for possible TL;DR. Or TB;DR (Too Boring) I did mean to originally post the following thread inside THIS thread, but was too lazy to look for it. It fits the opening post's comment of Linking the thread here just because, Someone commented that they're getting rid of religion in America. If you follow that graph and believe the military represents America in general, only 4% of US military outright reject religion fully, 9% if you include the "Other". "No religious preference" can mean people may or may not believe in a god but they're not gonna go to any church or read any scriptures. So "no religion" might be a noticeable trend, but people into religion are still a large majority. Maybe its noticeable (I think rightful) separation of church and state thats happening, but its not really diminishing people's own private interest in religion.
Couple years ago when this thread was first posted, that was my observation. But now I don't see it like that. At least in my eyes. Its one of things where you can't get a straight answer from people. You have to watch and observe for over time for a conclusion to come about. I think Dubious explained it best I see what you're saying. The term "ideology" is a bad word in some circles (kinda like the discussion about the term "assets" going on in the GARM). As though having a refined set of beliefs is the same as evil fascism. As long as humans have even the most subtle preferences and differences in approach to things, its gonna lead to some form of ideology to teach to the next person. I think the whole "blank slate" zenith of having no ideology, trying to appear free from EVERYTHING thats ever existed, trying to appear incorruptible away from all the mental "pollutants" of human fabrications is just WAY too extreme and too impractical. Easier said than done, but having humility and empathy is what it all boils down to.
Agree, especially with the bolded parts. Repped. I think it's absolutely key that we are aware that bias is a reality that everyone has to face, and the way to deal with it is to thoroughly search out your own biases and those of others.
I meant that the more simple answer is more probable. The more simple answer is that the physical systems of the universe just exist and human beings evolved sentient, self-aware neural networks naturally, without an omnipotent, anthropomorphic creator; an idea that proposes it's own circular logic of creation. God is more probably a manifestation of the hard wired need of the human brain for answers, reasons and problem solving. The idea solves the problem of why, answers the question of how, gives order to chaos, assigns value to the ego and gives hope against the certainty of mortality. And it cannot be disproved; just like the lack of a deity cannot be proven.
pet peeve alert: atheism is not the belief in a lack of a deity. (despite the incorrect definition in miriam's which has been on the cutting block for revision forever now) nothing needs to be, or cannot be proven, about atheism, because atheism has nothing to prove. i only make a point of this because when people start conflating the lack of a god with a lack of belief it ends up causing a major headache for the secular community.
You could honestly extend this dichotomy to every jewish/christian writing, new and old testament, heretical or canonical. Not trying to be difficult or anything, that's just my take from all that I've read. What was "chosen" was chosen so as to coincide with a desire for a consistent orthodoxy.
Under the current theory, we can have no information about anything before the Big Bang. No information means you can draw no conclusions or even formulate a guess. Therefore agnosticism is the only logical position.
It's a common misconception that agnosticism is nestled somewhere between atheism and theism on a single scale, but that's not true. Theism deals with belief, and gnosticism deals with knowledge - so the proper way to label someone is actually a combination of the two. For example, I am an atheist - I lack a belief in god(s). But I'm agnostic because I do not claim to know for certain. So if someone asks me if I'm an atheist or an agnostic, I would say "both". I'm an agnostic atheist. It's funny to me that most people who call themselves theists are actually agnostic theists, and most people who claim to be agnostics are actually agnostic atheists. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic
Dickishness is in the ear of the beholder. I simply meant that I never get that far in discussions with real people. It serves no purpose in casual conversation. People really depend on the comfort of their faith to make it through this life and usually chaff at having to defend it against logic, especially when there are no definitive proofs to be offered. And,that's why agnostic atheists get so much grief. TA-DA! (I did learn from your post)
A problem I often notice among religious people is that they misunderstand the bible and that they think that everything that happened in the bible is actually true. However, the bible shouldn't be viewed as a reliable historic source - it is rather a piece of literature. I have to cringe when I hear people talk about how Jesus actually performed all the miracles he did according to the bible - these are not events that really happened. They are supposed to illustrate certain things and are supposed to teach. And, connected to that, is the fact that the Virgin Mary wasn't actually a virgin - it was rather a title given to certain women. At least that is what my religion teacher told me - and I can tell you guys that he really knows a lot about that stuff since he is a theologian. I personally do not believe in god. I simply can't imagine that there is 'somebody' or 'something' that we owe our existence to. Furthermore I think that every religion's history is violent and bloody (crusades, witch-hunting...) and I can't imagine that a god would allow that people get killed in his name.
I used to call myself agnostic for this reason, but then I realized that I don't see purple flying unicorns that puke sparkles, but I'm not going to say it could possible exist either like a typical agnostic might say about God. Purple flying unicorns that puke sparkles don't exist. Neither does God. You'll never have evidence of a lack of existence, and you know this, so agnosticism is a cop-out to me. I used that cop-out for many years ever since I heard of the term, as if I needed to keep that slim chance of belief in God just in case. I've grown up.
It looks like you missed the whole point of his post about the relationship between agnosticism and atheism, and how one does not preclude you from the other, but rather, more often than not, people are both, even if they don't realize it.
So a problem you have with religious people is they don't view the Bible (or other religious texts) the same way you do after being taught by a theologian... lol?
