I feel like that applies to most beliefs. At least the ones people don’t want to entertain modifying.
Well, no free crackers and wine.
On the other hand, to get them you have to listen to a sermon. Tanstaafl.
I never, not once, got wine with communion when I was still Catholic, and the cracker is the blandest food imaginable. So thanks, no thanks.
I’m a little perplexed how anyone can be so blase about being an atheist in the US right now. These are frightening times to be anything other than a Christian fundamentalist. I’ve been stripped of my right to bodily autonomy by a religious Supreme Court and everywhere I look conservatives are passing laws to make it difficult for me to be anything but a domestic laborer, all because of patriarchal Christian notions about what women should be made to do. How is that not a worst thing?
I find that when I am not on the internet, most people I interact with are pretty blase about just about everything.
Here is an excellent example of what I meant about agnostics placing reason and faith on the same level as a tool for discovering reality. Yes, I am characterizing this post as a statement from an agnostic, even though they have not precisely said that’s what they are, because of the content.
Reason says to follow the evidence as well as you are able, and lacking evidence to discount the claim. It also says that you cannot ever prove a negative, and therefore being unable to disprove a claim does not mean you have to give the claim at least some level of credence.
Finally, reason understands the critical logical difference between “I do not have faith that god(s) exist” and “I (only) have faith that no gods exist.”
(edited shortly after posting to fix a couple of issues)
Not to mention the collection plate.
I agree, but alas religions whose beliefs include spreading it to others are going to grow faster than the old style beliefs that don’t.
True to some extent, but is it worse for you as an atheist than it would be for, say, a liberal Christian? They’re not only doing it to atheists, atheists are not the only ones who disagree with them.
Athiesm vs agnosticism:
An agnostic pays attention to arguments for and against God, and remains on the fence. They are happy to consider both propositions and not draw a judgment one way or the other. They’ll listen to and participate in debates about God, and take both sides seriously while remaining on the fence.
An athiest says, "Do you have hard proof for this God? Is God needed to explain evidence that can’t be explained in any other way? No? Then why are you wasting my time? There are endless speculations available about possible things for which there is no evidence. Pondering the existence of God absent evidence is no different than pondering the existence of Thor, or Casper the friendly ghost, or the flying spaghetti monster. Absent evidence, it’s a complete waste of my time.
Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evdence, so don’t expect me to get excited about some one-off, underpowered study that found some small result hovering on the edge of statistical significance, or a pseudo-scientific argument from an intelligent designer when normal evolution is all that’s needed, or ‘God of the gaps’ arguments for things that have not been fully explained."
In short, agnostics take the existence of God as a serious issue worthy of debate. Athiests don’t, at least until real evidence is produced that can’t be explained in another way.
Well it’s definitely me up against the wall first, so yeah, I’d say there’s a qualitative difference.
This assumes they’re separate sets, which I don’t really agree with. I prefer the more technical definitions; agnosticism is a position on knowledge, atheism a position on belief. In my experience, most atheists are agnostic; they do not believe in God, but feel they do not objectively know.
I like the analogy that, at present, I do not believe there is a lion in my upstairs bathroom. I cannot say I know to a total certainly that there is not. There is a remote non zero possibility that a lion escaped from African Lion Safari just went of here, crept through the woods at night, found its way in to my house when I had the door open, and is currently sleeping in the jacuzzi tub. It could have happened, and as I am not in my bathroom right now, I cannot say I KNOW to a certainty that there is no lion in my bathroom. But I really don’t believe it to be the case, 'cause, you know, come on.
I think I would go with something along the lines of “I’m here for you.”
Yes, this is the definition that I use and I find it is the most widespread and useful.
By using it in that way we can have both agnostic and gnostic versions of both atheists and theists.
HAving dealt with some pretty recent family tragedy, and based on my general experience as a 50-year-old man, I find the best thing you can do in these situations is
- Acknowledge how the person is feeling, and make it clear you hear what they’re saying,
- Say you’re there to help, and
- Keep listening.
When the tears stop, get 'em some food and just keep listening and talking.
The last thing you want to do is (religiously or not) try to suggest things are fine, or not as bad as the person feels they are. Never do that.
The Christian side of my dad’s family showed up at his funeral. It was kind of creepy, the way he was in a better place now, experiencing no more pain or suffering. They made it sound so glorious and wonderful, it made me wonder why these people did not just go and off themselves, to be shed of this miserable mortal existence, reveling instead in eternal happiness.
I heard somewhere that early Christians were offing themselves at a fairly good clip to get to that wonderul afterlife, so the Church had to make suicide the unforgiveable sin.
Throw in some heavenly virgins, and you can apparently get lots of people willing to go.
In the post I responded to, you talked about laws that restrict your rights and activities (which is bad enough). Now you are talking about execution. I don’t want to argue about how bad things are or how bad they are likely to get, I think I get where you’re coming from. If it came to it, I might be up against the wall before you, but I don’t think that’s much comfort either for you or for the ones who get there later. For myself, I prefer a state of mind that falls short of despair.
On the topic of transubstantiation and consubstantiation: would it be fair to assume that if one were very strict about counting calories, the Catholic would count the Eucharist as a protein, while the Protestant would count it as a carb?
I wouldn’t really describe myself in a state of despair and I was using that expression metaphorically. They’re obviously coming after anyone that doesn’t fit their Christo-fascist view of a proper society. They’re starting with trying to eradicate LGBTQ people from public life and going after women’s rights, but atheists are also pretty high on their hit list. I don’t expect to be executed (shot by an irate neighbor maybe) but I would definitely not be surprised to see bills passed that allow for legal discrimination against atheists.
I think I’m being realistic more than despairing. But it’s not a great time to be an atheist, is my point.