Would you take a 7 year old to see The Exorcist and convince him that the story is real and could happen to him if he doesn’t pray hard enough? Would you tell a 7 year old that the God he prays to allows kids his age to be mowed down in a hail of bullets? Would you tell a 7 year old that God allowed His son to be nailed alive and writhing in pain to a cross where he died in torturous, bloody agony? You’re cool with that, I bet.
Frankly, I don’t think she is (especially when it’s framed the way you’re framing it). But I’ll let her answer for herself.
Yes, yes I would. I like torturing kids. :rolleyes: (You seriously think that’s the same thing as what I said? :dubious:)
What’s the difference between teaching the terrors of Christianity, the horrors of the crucifixion and Hell, and telling a kid those awful bogeymen aren’t real? Which is the worse?
And just what would your opinion be of an adult who believed with dead seriousness in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? The chance that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are real is as great if not greater than that of any religious figure being real. So yes, I’m as close to 100% certain as it’s possible to get, because the whole idea is so blatantly stupid and wrong.
And you of course ignored my main point; that the whole idea of agnosticism is just a sop to the religious. It’s something created for just that purpose.
Technically, Santa Claus was a real person. 
Technically, God of the Bible ain’t.
I never said he was.
Not all Christians believe that. Good job, yourself.
And no, agnosticism is not just about “sucking up to” the religious. It may just be…what they actually believe?
I think the problem with humans is that we naturally just want everyone to agree with us. And when they don’t, we somehow see it as an attack on ourselves.
And once again, I don’t think the vast majority of atheists or theists are arrogant about their beliefs. It’s just the arrogant ones you remember. Just like most groups of people.
Everyone here sounds like a bunch of five-year-olds. “BUT MOMMY! HE DID IT TOO!!!”
No, it isn’t. Did you just make that up? Agnosticism exists for people who are neither theist nor atheist. A middle ground for people who don’t fucking care whether there is or is not a God. People who, when asked if they believe that God exists, answer, “I dunno,” and go back to watching the game. Sure, there are some philosophers who have a technical definition of it, but most people use it to dodge the question so they don’t get caught up in a debate when, deep down in their heart of hearts, they don’t care one way or the other. If you want to call it a “sop to the religious” when you are just trying to get them to shut up you may, but I would disagree.
Any type of person can be arrogant, belief or not. But exactly how can atheism ever be considered arrogant? I don’t believe in mythical characters based on zero evidence, mlions of people claim to do so, and I don’t believe even half of them do.
I would answer with absolutely not. Why do you? Why did you pick [religion]? Do you see doctors or pray it away? Do you pray for field goals? Why worship such a harsh being? Do I deserve an eternity of pain for being a nice non-believer? What if god is really Vishnu? Etc.
Call that arrogant, but I wasn’t the one who brought it up in conversation, the guard did. I think these questions and hundreds of others should be pondered by believers right after they pray. Again, I don’t even think your security guard prays, but spreading the word might give him props in heaven.
Now, if said guard said, “You going to Hogwarts this weekend?” And if he looked serious about it, I’d equate it with going to church. But I’d probably say, “I’d love to, but I can never find the train terminal!” 
Wow!
And here I was thinking agnosticism was a natural result of not giving a crap about the whole idea: You wanna believe in god? Fine with me; you don’t ? Ok!
Your “with me or against me” makes you the atheist equivalent of a Jehovah’s witness.
Your denial of God sounds suspiciously like a profession.
Show me some observational data and we’ll talk about the probability of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster(insert deity of choice); 'till then… You’re no better than them.
Which Christians don’t believe in the bloody crucifixion and torture of Jesus Christ, which don’t believe in Satan/Hell, and which don’t believe in an all powerful God who occasionally takes cancer from the bones of a believer while frequently allowing innocent kids to suffer and die, and which Christians don’t take convincing children of these confusing terrors as a matter of course? I’ve never heard of such Christians.
What you and other Christians of many flavors can’t see is how scary and terrible your gods are to a young mind which has no framework to measure mythology. The same people who recoiled in horror at Janet Jackson’s exposed breast think nothing of dragging their kids to reenactments of the crucifixion or Halloween “Hellhouses”. The same parents who won’t let their children listen to uncensored music or watch movies with cursing and mild nudity use the horrors of Hell and devils to encourage good behavior in their kids. That’s not just lazy parenting; that’s abuse using the same ruler they condemn Hollywood with.
Look, I wouldn’t tell a kid that stuff’s a myth; I lie to adults who ask if I go to church. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t think that anyone who regularly exposes their children to such unfathomable horrors isn’t unspeakably cruel. What’s more arrogant than insisting that your children experience the same pants-peeing terror that you suffered as a child, and what’s more arrogant than putting the kids of others through the same gauntlet?
An agnostic of that persuasion is most likely also an atheist. You don’t believe in a god or gods? then you are an atheist. You may also not give a toss about it and think that it isn’t possible to know fine, then you are* also* an agnostic.
DT is right though that agnosticism seems to only be an acceptable position when considering the existence of that specific supernatural being (god), but isn’t when discussing the myriad other beings for which there is no evidence. That is due to historical cultural deference to religion. I don’t actually think it deserves such deference but there you go, things are changing slowly.
As far as I know, no-one claims the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real.
I think you are confusing “having/not having” a belief with “caring/not caring” about a belief. These are different axes.
Further, in significant part you confirm by your post precisely what Der Trihs is saying. How many other things are there where we have a specific descriptor for someone who’s position is designed to be neutral so they don’t have to discuss whether the thing exists or not? The reason the word “agnostic” exists is because avoiding argument with those with a strong position on the subject is such a common thing to want to do.
Now you might think that the word could equally have arisen as a way of avoiding proselytising atheists as theists. But you’d be kidding yourself and ignorant of basic history if you thought that. For most of history theism has been the dominant position, and denying theism was what could get you into trouble or uncomfortable discussion. Agnosticism was a bone you threw to theists to stop them chewing your ass. It was a sop, precisely as Der Trihs says.
Yes, ideally he wouldn’t have added those. Calling him an asshole and cunt about it is way over the top. If I knew IMHO was more rough and tumble than the pit…
As a parent I’d be a little pissed if someone had ruined Santa for my kids. As a parent, though, I wouldn’t push my child to go press people on their religious beliefs.
In general, when you ask people about their beliefs, they are liable to tell you.
I also doubt that the kid was crying about Santa. God botherers of the caliber described in the anecdote are more likely to be hostile to secularized celebrations being at war with the celebration they want everyone else to be focused on. Jesus is the reason for the season and all that.
I strongly suspect that the kid was crying because he encountered someone who didn’t believe in god. I’ve got no problem with that. Besides, that’s what god botherers crave. It helps them to feel persecuted.
(I’m a little amused that your take on the situation, which appears to be “Say whatever you like about god, but leave Santa out of it!”)
Not really. The word agnostic also describes those who believe that it’s not possible to know whether a God exists, which is neither necessarily an apathetic or unreasoned position, nor a sop to people who want to argue with them.
I take it a step further: not only not believing in that (and other risible claptrap) but actively denouncing their fellow Christians who do. It’s one thing for us damned souls to denounce and try to correct these harmful and cruel beliefs–a Christian simply ignores our ignorance–but if someone claims to be a rational, science-believing person in addition to holding their religious views (hard to imagine, I know, but that’s exactly what hypocrites like **Guinnie **are claiming to be) then I believe they have an affirmative need to speak up to their fellow Christians and tell them about the virtues of rationality and the vices of their sadistic beliefs. But they never do. They encourage, and allow, and enable their fellow Christians to spout all sorts of nonsense, and heap abuse on us unbelievers, because the most important thing is: What side are you on?
I consider **Guinnie **and her ilk far more reprehensible than the poor lunatics and hopelessly ignorant trailer trash who actually believe the nonsense to contain a shred of truth.
I think, in part, what Troppus is saying, is that it’s likely this very same kid is going to be exposed to crap like this, long term, by people he loves. Which is worse, a stranger in a store (who Grandma brought you to and made you talk to) telling you once that there’s no God, Santa or Tooth Fairy, or a lifetime of brainwashing that the world is literally full of demons and evil people who will kill you for being Christian?
Hell, the worst thing about alphaboi’s comment is that Grandma probably used it to tell the kid that evil mean man was proof of that.
I think for a few they use the term in the hope it won’t draw as much ire as the term atheist. Some twenty years or so ago, I read about an atheist who was running for some political office, I forgot which exactly, but one reporter asked him, if he was truly an atheist. He said, he used to consider himself an agnostic; then someone told him, that an agnostic was really an atheist without guts.
Another reporter asked him if he won, what would be the first thing he would do. He quickly replied, “Demand a recount. I’m an atheist, not crazy.” He was funny as hell, but don’t remember much more about him.
I’d maybe expect this from a newbie, but you’ve been here since Sept’ of 2008, and surely you know that perhaps half or more of posters on SD are atheists. Then you come up with this in the forum, “About this Message Board” which you said:
You’ve posted some 30 posts in various threads since you made the OP in this one, and only devoted one other brief post to this thread, but yet have time for all others, so it’s not like you don’t have time. You’ve got a lot of explaining to do.