Augh. I can't believe I missed an opportunity for this quote!



That should explain everything.

Aw, how precious. Last I checked "logic" came from the Greek word "logike" which in turn traces its roots back to "logos," which means...um "word," for one. So unless you consider words stupid, I can't see where that assertion came from.

But aside from that, at least the person had something of the right idea. They really and truly can't "prove" their religion through science or logic. Like I said, asking them to do so is as silly as asking an atheist to believe in God on faith alone. It just won't happen, not unless the person has a change of heart, whichever person you're talking about. And while I don't believe that the Bible is "true" in the way that Christians usually mean, I DO agree that people who believe ought to do so not because of science or logic or evidence and all that. In other words, they ought not to believe in the way that non-believers think that they should believe, but rather their faith ought to be based on a strongly-sensed, deeply-felt, and entirely personal conviction. That, quite frankly, is the basis of my belief. The agnostics say you can't know whether or not God exists. I would argue that point, although there isn't much to say. It boils down to "I know it because I feel it," which of course holds no water in the court of law that discussion of religion has become. Still, I have, so far, heard no argument that leads me away from that which I strongly feel to be true. Even though I can't "prove" anything to anyone. Even though I can't give you science about it. Even though I can't even give you logic about it. But I also won't try to convince you that I'm right, either, because I can offer you nothing that will persuade you. Plus, I have no interest in doing so, anyway. Bad evangelist, no salvation! (Not, you know, that I need or want it, mind you. )

Meanwhile, at those who think this is an argument: Why is it that just because people are presenting opposing opinions, it's suddenly an "argument?" This is but a discussion, and an interesting one at that. Don't be so sensitive.

I should probably clarify a couple things about that.

1. The rest of it was highlighted because it was at a convenient spot. The sentence began on a new line.

2. The logic he's referring to is internal logic, i.e. the bible contradicting itself. The "science" refers to me objecting to the fact that the KJV (which is the version he swears by) says that insects have four legs and that rabbits chew cud.

Yes. One where a discussion on unicorns somehow relates to God. I am happy to set that aside though and hear what your point was.





Because you see an absence of something as proof enough. If absence = proof, then it would be knowledge of nonexistence. Unfortunately science teaches that an absence of something is not proof; your argument is an "argument from ignorance" and doesn't hold water, but you can believe whatever you wish.

I do not know if a God does or does not exist (And I don't believe you do either, but I don't mind if YOU think you do). Maybe he is just a freaking schmuck off doing something else. WTF do I know? More importantly though, I simply do not care whether one does or does not exist, and further, I do not care if you believe you know one does or doesn't exist. You can believe whatever you want.



I couldn't care less about this. And I won't bother explaining why this is an illogical comparison. You either get it, or you don't.




You are not getting it. THAT is the point! You cannot have proof. So instead of arguing whether there is or isn't a God, when you cannot ever prove such a thing, Agnostics choose instead to believe whatever they believe (in god or not in god) with the understanding that there are no FACTS. Only beliefs.

This is why I come across people who suddenly have an "Aha" moment and realize they are Agnostic. It is the person who calls them-self Christian cause they "believe" in God but accept they do not "know". Just as it is the Atheist who says I do not "believe" there is a God, but hey, I do not "know". That is the essence of being Agnostic. It isn't a "search for proof", it is the acceptance that proof cannot be found and that our beliefs are just THAT, beliefs.




My apologies.

Ahhhhh, the KJV-only crowd. Aren't they precious? Of course, the really hysterical thing is that the KJVers are usually anti-gay, and their favoritest Scripture translation was ordered by and sponsored by...a gay man. Yep, good ol' King James VI (or I) was not only gay but pretty flamboyant about it, enough that many of his subjects called him "Queen James." To his face, no less. As a sort of affectionate joke. And he was OK with that. He also professed before his Privy Council that he loved a man above all others and privately called that man his "wife." There are a good number of extant love letters that he wrote to men, and he's buried between two of his lovers. And this at a time when "sodomy" was a punishable crime, although of course the king was immune to such prosecution. Of course, every Christian site out there yells about this being an Evil Atheist Lie Meant To Undermine Our Faith, but...It's on the history books, kids. The gushing love letters exist and have been authenticated and their language is undeniable. James VI banged (or was banged by) men. Read 'em and weep.

And really, the KJVers have got it wrong, anyway: They DON'T use the real King James Bible, the one where "Queen James" struck out all the verses referring to homosexuality. No, they use the 1946 revised KJV which (badly) reinserts them all in there. "Word of God," my ass. If people can selectively edit it according to what they like or don't like, then it ain't no "Word of GAWD!" And it was a bunch of people who decided what was and what was not going to be in the thing in the first place. And if the KJVers can't even figure out what Bible they're really using, then I'm not going to give much credence to what comes out of their mouths. See why I'm fun (and have fun) at Bible studies?

And yes, the Bible regardless of translation is full of contradictions because it was written by people, and the books which talk about four legged insects and rabbits who chew cud (when really they are obligated to eat their own poo) were freakin' Bronze Age people, no less. On the other hand, in the case of "insects," the original word translated as "insects" did not mean what "insect" means in the minds of modern people. The Linnean classification system is a product of the....1700's, I think? That's well after the Bronze Age, I fear. So there's silliness on both sides of the "But there's contradictions!" fence, to be fair.

Of course an absence of something is not proof. An absence of evidence is. If someone were to claim that the world was created by dust bunnies and didn't provide evidence, that would be considered false right off the table. Argument from Ignorance isn't a fallacy given certain conditions. The above is one. Another is if we have sufficient knowledge in an area that a lack of proof is glaringly obvious.



So, comparing two separate entities with equal proof and equal chances of getting proved is illogical. Huh.



Still something I can't agree with. We're right back to the beginning here: you don't need "evidential proof" to disprove things. Which is the entire point of bringing up the unicorns and the assorted fantasy items.

I'm jumping into this discussion too, sorry.

Yes, technically agnostic means you don't know. There are lots of people who are technically agnostic about the existence of god - all the way from really religious people who have occasional moments of doubt to almost all atheists, who think that the chances of god's existence (especially in precisely the form described by [insert religion here]) are so small that they can be ignored in practice. Very few people feel they KNOW god does/doesn't exist.

And that's the problem: many of those people would not be described as Agnostic by the general public or for that matter describe themselves as Agnostic. In practice, Agnostic refers to the middle of the scale - those who think that the chances of god's existence or not are fairly similar - or those people who think that it is impossible to even consider the idea of probabilities.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that I don't think the existence of god is necessarily something that cannot be a fact, though I agree it isn't at the moment. If god does exist, no doubt there are plenty of things he/she/it could do to prove it.

No.


Comparing two separate entities which do not have the same variables is an invalid argument.



Yes, you do. You don't need evidential proof to "make an argument" in the basis of logic and reasoning, you ABSOLUTELY DO need it to prove or disprove anything.

And you are right, back to the beginning. You appear to believe that a lack of evidence can be used as proof to support a theory with enough validity as to accept the theory as fact. In this case, I do not. End of story.

...





To clarify, I am not saying I have any right to call a person who is Christian or Atheist an Agnostic based in what I believe. If they have moments of doubt, those are experiences that are personal, and it is up to them how to acknowledge those issues.

I am just saying that I have had experiences in the past with people who have asked me what an Agnostic is, and upon explaining it to them, they have felt it fit them. I always suggest they read up on it too, not just go off my personal perspective. A belief system or religion is a personal thing with very individual perspectives.

Although I understand why you describe it as such, I do not agree that in practice Agnostics are people who are "more middle of the road". I am a member of several groups made up of Agnostics. Some are middle of the road, sure. But there are plenty who lean firmly in one direction (mostly toward Atheism) or another. Like any belief system, there are many perspectives, and a broad description is never going to cover all of it.



Unfortunately that isn't how many people represent themselves. I wish it were so. But this may be the company one keeps too. I enjoy "talking" about religion, so I am in groups with which that is the focus. I get to see peoples uglier side often when it comes to "godly knowledge".



I don't disagree with this. There are no known facts to date. I could have worded that better. I would be intrigued for a God to present itself.

Now there is a question for Agnostics and Atheists alike, if a God (Christian) did present himself, would you become a follower? heh..

So...putting the KJV through Regender makes the title about as accurate. Thanks for the tidbit, iCad.

Is the KJV-only crowd responsible for the anti-Harry Potter crowd? From what I hear, King(/Queen) James was pretty anti-witchcraft. And the way this is argued sounds very familiar.

Pretty much, yeah. (Fun site, BTW.) I have all sort of tidbits. Just be aware that I'm also likely to call bullshit as I see it on the atheists as well. It's just that the Christians bullshit far more than the atheists do, and are generally more on the dimmer side, too, bless them. Thus, they're more fun to torment.



King James was vociferously anti-witchcraft, yes, but the anti-HP thing isn't limited to the KJVers. It's pretty pervasive amongst non-denominationals as well as the denominations that are typically more on the conservative side, like the Baptists, the Adventists, the Witnesses, the Four-Squares, the Pentecostals, and so forth. Typically the ones you see fussing about Halloween or the "Put Christ back in Christmas" folks are going to be the ones who have a Harry Potter Problem. KJVers tend to be non-denominational and/or Baptist or Pentecostal, but they're sprinkled everywhere, really.

I remember hearing a story on NPR All Things Considered (maybe 13 years ago? my sense of time is terrible and I wasn't able to easily check it out) that I think the American Bible Society did a new translation of the bible that corrected things that are mistranslated from the originals (whatever they are). The example I remember is that it would no longer say that a woman is subservient to a man or her husband or whatever because that isn't the correct translation. Parts of the Christian world went apeshit and churches in Texas said they wouldn't buy the bibles unless it was changed. That said to me a lot about a lot of Christians - that they aren't interested in what Jesus said or the so-called word of God or even the word of man as it's written in their precious book that they never read - they're interested in controlling people and maintaining the dominance of white men.
I would agree with people who say 'believe what you want or don't believe, who cares?'. Because in the end it makes no difference on this infinitesimal blip of a planet in a galaxy that is one of billions of galaxies.
But what I can't understand is why someone would rather make up an entire story to fill the void of not-knowing and then say they have faith in it and everyone else should too. To me not knowing and leaving it at that is a more sacred thing.

I am raised atheist.

1) How do you celebrate Christmas?
When my family first immigrated to the United States, we didn't celebrate Christmas. It's not part of our culture. We observed the cultural atmosphere of the season and liked the commercial component of American culture. Nowadays, we put up a Christmas tree and hang up Christmas lights just to show off to the neighbors, because they look gorgeous at night.

2) Do you say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays?
Typically, I find myself saying "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!"

3) Would you be offended if someone told you Merry Christmas?
Not at all.

4) How do you celebrate Easter?
I don't celebrate Easter, and neither do my folks. However, my old elementary school observed Easter as a cultural holiday, where the adults would hide eggs and the children had to find the eggs loaded with candies and small prizes.

5) How do you do weddings?
Not applicable.

6) How are your funerals performed?
Not applicable.

7) Would you be mad/upset if you or a loved one was buried in a church cemetery?
No.

8) If a loved one's wedding or funeral was held in a church, or was a religious ceremony, would you attend?
Of course. I'd love to attend weddings, funerals, and even church services and Bible studies.

9) If you had to testify in court, how would you be sworn in? Would you just have to say you swear?
You mean "So help me God"? Yeah, sure. I guess. Though, if you ask me, the phrase is next to meaningless. I don't think about "God" every time I say "God". If there really were the case, then I'd probably feel guilty every time "Oh, my god" or "In God we trust" slips from my mouth.

10) Would you be friends with or marry a Christian (or other religious follower)?
Sure, I would be friends with a religious person. Marriage requires some critical thought, though. After all, marriage indicates a legally recognized committed relationship.

I was raised an atheist by my father, and it makes a lot of sense to me. I have read through other religions, but my lack of belief of a god still largely stands. Every attempt someone has made to bring me into a religion has failed out of irony. Like, one time my very Christian mother dragged me to a McChurch, and they just HAPPENED to be discussing the Rapture and how the Chinese and Obama were satanically evil or some weird shit like that. Yeah, good going there, preacher man.

My belief system is sort of complicated, though. I am an Agnostic Atheist with hints of Deism. In other words, I think a creator does not exist, but if one did, he would much rather be concerned with managing and tinkering with our enormous universe than focusing solely on us dumb humans. Any possible creator abandoned us for more interesting things, like containing supernovas or moderating where bits of space crap is heading. Maybe peeking into alien planets far more advanced than our own. Maybe glance at us if it needs a laugh.

Anyway...

1) How do you celebrate Christmas?
Like how all the big companies expect me to celebrate.

2) Do you say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays?
Whatever is appropriate for the person I'm talking to.

3) Would you be offended if someone told you Merry Christmas?
No.

4) How do you celebrate Easter?
I don't really, out of a lack of interest.

5) How do you do weddings?
I sit there and watch. I've never been married, but I wouldn't want a big one. Not a big proprietor in marriage, since I can't imagine myself settled down.

6) How are you funerals performed?
I've never been to a funeral, so idk.

7) Would you be mad/upset if you or a loved one was buried in a church cemetery?
No?

8) If a loved one's wedding or funeral was held in a church, or was a religious ceremony, would you attend?
If I was invited, why not?

9) If you had to testify in court, how would you be sworn in? Would you just have to say you swear?
I think the courts are largely going secular now, soo....

10) Would you be friends with or marry a Christian (or other religious follower)?
Uh, duh.

11) The question about the pledge
I don't say 'under god', but not because of my lack of Christianity. The phrase was thrown in during the fifties as a big middle finger to the EVIL GOD HATING RUSKIES and anyone who wasn't conforming to the fifties lifestyle (and thus alienating them). There are no soviets anymore, and no cold war, so the phrase is largely a relic meant to hurt people. FTS.

Well said, Fivey!

1) How do you celebrate Christmas?

The way a lot do - exchanging gifts, putting up and decorating pine trees, and pretty lights.

From what I understand, "Christmas"'s traditions all originated as Pagan celebrations of the winter solstice, and they don't really need religious context. Putting up and decorating a pine tree? The pine tree is an evergreen and is therefore a sign of life during the darkest moment of the year.

Not that I have any problem with people celebrating Christmas.

2) Do you say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays?

Due to the fact that I live in the Bible Belt, I either say "Merry Christmas" or don't say anything at all. People around here will be more offended by "Happy Holidays". lol

3) Would you be offended if someone told you Merry Christmas?

Nope, not at all.

4) How do you celebrate Easter?

Not really. Like 'Christmas' I don't see it as really being of Christian origin. It's a celebration of the Spring Equinox. I hate Spring, so I'm not celebrating something I despise.

5) How do you do weddings?

I've never done a wedding before.

6) How are you funerals performed?

I've never been "in control" of a funeral before... Fortunately.

However, a funeral should be done how the deceased wanted it to be done. If they wanted a funeral in a church, that's where it should be, and it doesn't bother me going there.

7) Would you be mad/upset if you or a loved one was buried in a church cemetery?

Not particularly. Not even if it was me. But the reason here goes into very personal matters of my life. I can just try to put it without all of that: I don't want to have to come out to my family as an atheist, I want them to keep on believing that I am a Christian. This is for their sake, not mine.

8) If a loved one's wedding or funeral was held in a church, or was a religious ceremony, would you attend?

Why wouldn't I? You act as if I am allergic to being near a church or something! Granted I hated going to church, but for a funeral or wedding there's no problem.

9) If you had to testify in court, how would you be sworn in? Would you just have to say you swear?

I most certainly would not swear in on a Bible. I like the idea of swearing in on the constitution.

10) Would you be friends with or marry a Christian (or other religious follower)?

I can be friends just fine, and I am friends with many. Aside from one, my closest friends at this point are very Christian.

Dating and marrying, I'm not so sure. It's not that I can't accept it in them, it's them accepting it in me. If they were really into Christianity and knew I was an atheist this could really bother them, because they might think I am going to Hell. Which, being the horrifically inhumane punishment that is, they would try their hardest to keep me from that. Meaning: Converting me.

I can't see that ending well, personally. It's really quite sad how religion can tear up two compatible people like that. It actually angers me to think about it. That the goodness of them and genuinely trying to save me could tear them away from me.