Religon vs. athesim vs. agnostic

[braces_for_impact]

I agree that it may well be the novelty of the new religion that is affecting your friend. People have ‘religious experiences’ from a wide variety of reasons, and they can often be very convincing to some people. Also, the social factor that the new religion provides cannot be overlooked.

As a friend, all that you can do is be supportive, and perhaps this may pass. Of course, if his constant “witnessing” is getting in the way of your friendship, then you may want to share your concerns with your friend. You have as much right not to have to hear it as he does in saying such things. I forgot who said (and I paraphrase) “My freedom ends where another’s begins.” Very true words. Be respectful and non confrontational about it, but also stand up for your belief, or your lack of it so you can continue to be honest with yourself. If you just don’t buy it, then you can’t help it. Belief can not be turned on and off like a faucet.

I am an atheist myself and I have a friend whom is a Seventh Day Adventist (Christians with a sort of bent towards the end times and all that) and I have to handle my friend with the “kid gloves” on, so to speak. Some of the ideas that his religions fosters are complete nonsense, while his religion shows him how to ignore the obvious in real life. I have seen my friend suffer needlessly because of religion, but I still respect his choice. I tell him of my opinions, and I respect his. I do not however, let him continue in certain false ideas that have been put into his head by his particular religion, but I correct him and try to explain things in a non confrontational way. I say this because if you become a threat to his religion, he may walk away from the friendship altogether. People become very touchy when their world views are challenged, especially if they draw comfort from it.

[flight]

I have always found religious people who did not try to convert others, either actively or passively, as odd to say the least. If I were suddenly to have a great insight into the meaning of the universe and learn that if many of the people I cared about didn’t change their ways then they were doomed to some real nastiness for all eternity, I would be all over converting them. It would seem horrifically selfish not to. Athiests who actively try to convert, on the otherhand, I have notices tend to be jerks trying to belittle others.

I have alwasy been onvious of those who know why we are here and what the meaning of life is, wish I did.

As to the meaning of agnostic, kabbes, you are right in your definition, but how the others who have posted use it is an equally valid definition. A quick dictionary search gives us:

“One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.”
or
“One who supports agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal Deity, a future life, etc.”

I should know, I am one. The only non-religion. It takes as much faith to say you know there isn’t a God as to say you know there is.

[flight]

When I did a search on atheism, though, I found nothing about what you call weak atheism, only the definition of strong atheism.

Oh and I would have to disagree with the “eurekas”. My own philosophy follows closer to the quote by Asimov:

“The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!) but “That’s funny …””

[Lilairen]

I have always found religious people who did not try to convert others, either actively or passively, as odd to say the least. If I were suddenly to have a great insight into the meaning of the universe and learn that if many of the people I cared about didn’t change their ways then they were doomed to some real nastiness for all eternity, I would be all over converting them.

Would you be less perplexed by religious people who don’t happen to have religions that include “if you don’t change your ways you’re doomed to some real nastiness for all eternity”, and in fact find the whole doomed-for-all-eternity thing unconvincingly melodramatic?

Note that there are religious paths – including some forms of the Abrahamic monotheisms – that have no claims to absolute truth; there are religious paths that specifically include and embrace plurality; and there are religious paths that forbid proselytising (one reason I’ve seen being that it’s an insult to other people’s intelligence).

Evangelical Christianity is not the archetype of all religions.

[Blalron]

Athiests who actively try to convert, on the otherhand, I have notices tend to be jerks trying to belittle others.

Religious people who try to enforce their morality on others, or who try to convert me to their religion, are fair game to be candidates for my atheistic conversion attempts.

[Shaolinrabbit]

Dave, I think your friend is just at a turning point in his life, and it’s really only the first of two. At thist jucture, he believes a whole range of new truths, and has been ‘born again’. So, he is like a baby in terms of the world around him, trying to spread the wonders of the Holy Spirit on everyone he sees, because he has found something he believes is good. You should be honored that you friend cares about you enough to ruin an otherwise flawless reputation by trying to convert you.
Of course, I can’t lie to you, it can destroy firendships. It has many times over. However, this change precedes a second, more harmful change. How your friend reacts to others in this period of his life, and how he learns to see the world with his new insights will color him for quite some time. He’s going to learn that much of the world does not appreciate his pressing message as much as he did, and that can either destroy his faith, or strengthen it.
Ultimately, he will either cool off, and become a relatively normal Christian person(We can be lovable ), he will wall himself off from those who do not believe, and whom he sees as mocking or oppressing him, or he will lose his faith as rapidly as it came upon him, and remain an atheist for quite some time.
A good point to discover, to help you determine which path he is on now, would be to find out if he thinks science has lied to him because of a vast conspiracy of atheists. Christians in this area are far less likely to return to normal, except by the same strange process that caused them to find God in the first place. If he’s still scientifically sound, you have a good shot at simply waiting for the white hot love for all man to cool slightly, into the calm meditative Christianity we know and love. If not, send him to the SDMB.

That’s a little more than 2 cents, but what the heck.

[lekatt]

*Originally posted by elfje *
**thank you

you are right, you have to have an Aha! Erlebnis, it’s the actual shock of the insight that gives you a mental kick in the butt. If it’s a gradual thing, you won’t even notice you’ve “changed” until people start pointing in out to you.
And yes, it does take constant work, I agree. It may be hard to turn off at first (the conscience, I mean) or indeed, impossible, but the concentrating on oneself, the disecting of ones character and afterwards building up again, is very hard work, and in the end, very hard to keep up. Most people have a tendency to let things “slide” again, after a while, after all, it’s not nice being faced with your own imperfections day in, day out.

You are right again in saying that knowledge isn’t boxed in per subject (if only!). It was, in fact, seeing and discovering the connections between each and everything, and to see how literally everything is connected to everything else, in one way or another, that made it so fascinating for me.

As my mother told me, the beginning of all wisdom is to know you know nothing **

Yes, I think old Socrates said something like: “True knowledge is knowing that you know nothing.”

From a position of ignorance one can learn it all, but the expert learns nothing.

That’s my quote for what it’s worth.

[kabbes]

On the subject of definitions of agnosticism and atheism, I can only say this: it comes down to the usual question of the acceptability of an evolving language trumping the true meaning of words. “Agnostic” has come to mean “I don’t know” - but only by repeated misuse. And now that misuse is entering the dictionary as a standard definition. It happens a lot, but sometimes in doing so it obliterates previously useful definitions. So we don’t have to like it.

This fact remains: “Gnosticism” refers to a particular philosophy, involving the belief that one could ascertain the true “meaning” of God. The absence of such a philosophy became known as “a-gnosticism”. This is a tight definition.

Similarly “theism” refers to a belief in God(s). The absence of such a belief, whether that swings all the way to a belief in an absence or not, became known as “a-theism”. This is also a tight definition.

The words are being corrupted. I choose to fight this by educating whoever I can as to their original - and true - meanings.

pan

[il_Topo]

*Originally posted by kabbes *
On the subject of definitions of agnosticism and atheism…
The words are being corrupted. I choose to fight this by educating whoever I can as to their original - and true - meanings.

One problem is that unless you find a truly objective and definitive source, you often have theists writing the definition of atheistic terminology. For an extreme example, if you look for the definition of “atheist” on a religious site, it is ALWAYS the “positive belief that their is no God” definition (what many atheists refer to as “strong atheism”) becuase that definition is easier to understand and defininitely easier to refute (and hate) than the “I have no evidence for any gods, so I will behave as if there aren’t any until such time as such evidence presents itself” (the weak atheism of lack of belief).

Too bad there isn’t an unambiguous and unique term for the positive denial of all gods, such as “anti-thiesm”. The “strong” vs. “weak” atheistic terminology created in some online atheistic communities has not yet reached the mainstream, and so is not understood by most theists.

Lesson learned? Atheists/Agnostics/Religionists need to carefully define their terms before discussing these issues. Many arguments need not be had, and we can all cut to the chase more quickly once we have our terms defined. We can’t assume we are all using the same definitions.

[il_Topo]

*Originally posted by tdn *
"If you want all the answers, talk to a newly ordained priest."
–Longtime priest, who has none of the answers

tdn, I like that quote. Do you have a source? Or is it your own?

[gex_gex]

originally posted by MegaDave
About 4 months ago, Jeremiah (or Shaggy as I call him) “found God”. After being baptized, spending the weekend at some kind of religious retreat, and going to chruch every Sunday, suddenly Shaggy is a totally different person. We can’t speak to each other without him telling me all about God. I have even noticed that he now prefers to spend time with other “religous” people, other than me, or his other usual longtime friends. Keep in mind that prior to 4 months ago, we had probably spoken about God and religon probably twice in 15 years.

This sounds like something out of one of those “How Can You Tell Your Child Is On Drugs” pamphlets.

[scotandrsn]

MegaDave-

The only insight I have to offer into your situation is to recount my own.

I grew up in New England, where I was confronted as early as age seven by my classmates regarding my religious beliefs. At the time they were married, my mother was an ex-Mormon and my father an ex-Christian Scientist. I was raised without any concept of God (in fact was trained to treat the concept with disdain) and only encountered religion directly when I visited my grandparents on weekends. Being raised to be a contemptual atheist is not the best plan, given that the kid has to spend their whole life interacting with people who belive fervently in their religion.

(Freaky: some bible pushers just came to my door. See my point?)

Anyhoo, I was sitting inmy high school English class one day, feeling VERY depressed over the fact that my summer girlfriend and I were not going to be able to maintain a long-distance relationship (sigh), when suddenly I had a “bolt from the blue”. I was suddenly on top of the world, feeling very much at peace. What’s more, for the rest of the day I felt like I could “see into” people, especially people I didn’t like, suddenly understanding the workings of their personalities as though they had been laid before me on a blueprint. I have never been able to describe in words what I felt I came to understand that day. I began to develop a strange mystical ordering of the universe (I had no God, remember). This euphoria lasted for a couple of days, then faded. I believed then that it could not have come from within myself (like I knew enough to say for sure), but must have come from some outside source. Maybe someone dropped a tab of acid in my soda, who knows?

Some time later, I was dating a Christian, and we had many arguments over our religious differences. She finally talked me into reading the New Testament, to understand her point of view. From the first pages of Matthew, I realized that this person was speaking from the same euphoric place that I had dwelled in ever so briefly. I immediately converted, and fell in with a bunch of like-minded classmates, attending church, bible study sessions, the whole works.

The experience feels so right, you immediately focus on what’s wrong with the rest of the world. My family refers to this period in my life as “The two years when you never laughed”. The hardest hit was my lifelong friend, a Jew. He was very hurt by me embracing a religion that tended to reject him, and even my assurances that I was still his friend came from the sickeningly pious place of being his friend IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT HE WAS TOTALLY WRONG. Our friendship eventually survived this ordeal.

During this time, I found that the Christian explanation of things left me with more questions than answers. Once I entered college, I had the objectivity to realize that while I had entered Christianity to become a better person, I had become only insufferable. I went from being a “born-again Christian” to a “dead-again Atheist” after much reflection.

Since then I have had a number of experiences for which I have no explanation (such as people coming to my door wanting to discuss the bible just as I’m sitting here writing this). I have moderated my position to the point where I consider myself an agnostic, in the original sense of the term, which is “One who does not claim to know”. I find that those who do claim to have all the metaphysical answers are usually deluding themselves about some aspect of the world that does not fit with their beliefs.

We have moments in our lives when the universe suddely seems to fall into place. I think we need these moments to keep ourselves comforted in the face of uncertainty. My guess is your friend believes he has found the solutions to some unanswered questions in his new religious pursuits. He may in fact find those answers, or he may come to think, as I did, that sometimes it’s better to remain open-minded.

Good luck.

[MegaDave]

I have been reading all of your responses and learned a couple of things. Firstly, I would say that I am probably an agnostic like scott their in which i do not claim to know. I lean more towards the no god, science path, but I try to keep an open mind.

I have tried religon several different times, the most recent being only in the middle and last part of '02, when we went consistently to church for about 6 months, before I realized that I was only doing it because someone else wanted me to, not because I wanted to, so I stopped going.

I have confidence in my friendship with him, and I think that it will make it through this “enlightend” time of his, although I find it very, very odd.

I think I am too anylytacal (sp?) to be religous. I tend to always think “There is no way that that could happen, Moses could not have parted any sea, as that violates the law of physics when describe as it is in the bible”, or some other such stuff.

[Foolonthehill]

Megadave;
What this shows is that no matter how long you “know” somebody, you don’t really “know” them at all.

Strong/weak a-theism? You either believe or you don’t.
If you have doubts; then you still believe, but you are not sure in what.

[il_Topo]

*Originally posted by Foolonthehill *
**Strong/weak a-theism? You either believe or you don’t.
If you have doubts; then you still believe, but you are not sure in what. **

You don’t see a difference between “I don’t positively believe in any of the gods presented to me so far by any of the various religions,” and “I positively believe there are no gods at all”? Doesn’t one require a jump in logic from the other? Doesn’t that jump in logic make it a different logical position?

[Foolonthehill]

il Topo;
“I don’t positively believe in any of the gods presented…,” this statement implies that if the correct god(s) were presented you would believe. This is not atheism.
Atheism is not believing in any god. No orderly creation of the universe(s), (and its inhabitants), regardless of source.

[Apos]

When I did a search on atheism, though, I found nothing about what you call weak atheism, only the definition of strong atheism

I find that a little hard to believe.

on “atheism”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=atheism

Even just the first four sites that come up I am familiar with, and all either explain or exclusively defend the use of atheism to mean “weak atheism”

You might have also tried on “weak atheism”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=weak+atheism

Religious tolerance.com in particular notes:
“-Atheism can be the positive belief that there is no deity.
-Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a deity.”

That certainly supports the idea that atheism should be defined broadly, which would allow it to encompass both usages, rather than simply to accept the first one.

Also, the negationof BX is ~BX. It is not B~X.

“I don’t positively believe in any of the gods presented…,” this statement implies that if the correct god(s) were presented you would believe. This is not atheism.

I am an atheist. If a compellingly real god was presented, I would “believe.”

Atheism is not believing in any god. No orderly creation of the universe(s), (and its inhabitants), regardless of source.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the first sentance, if you think the second sentance is a direct and inevitable implication.

[Foolonthehill]

Apos;
“If a compelling real god presented…”
If you’re an atheist, you know that no god exists. You don’t imply that one could possibly exist. If you think there is a possibility, no matter how remote, than you are not an atheist.

“I don’t think you understand the meaning of the first sentence…”
I do not believe in any god, not just the popular versions of divinity. There is no external order, no design, no active or passive creation.

[il_Topo]

*Originally posted by Foolonthehill *
il Topo;
“I don’t positively believe in any of the gods presented…,” this statement implies that if the correct god(s) were presented you would believe. This is not atheism.

Then what is it? It certainly is not theism, and it is not agnosticism since it remains open to the possibility of knowing a god. Most atheists I have run into are this way; they would be very surprised to find out they are not atheists.

*Originally posted by Foolonthehill *
**Atheism is not believing in any god. No orderly creation of the universe(s), (and its inhabitants), regardless of source. **

That’s exactly what is described above. Both weak and strong atheism are inline with that. Neither believes in any god, etc. Strong atheism goes further, and affirmatively states that no one is capable of presenting any evidence that a god exists because in fact (they believe) no gods exist.

[Apos]

If you’re an atheist, you know that no god exists.

I don’t know any such thing. I’m not even sure how one could know such a thing.

You don’t imply that one could possibly exist. If you think there is a possibility, no matter how remote, than you are not an atheist.

I don’t believe I’m an antelope. But, anything is possible. So I guess I believe I’m an antelope?