The Identity of God

Oh, there's a difference. There are those who say they believe (i.e. they have no substantial evidence, but they do have faith). Then there are those who claim to know - they are usually more dangerous.

Gonna stop being in this debate before I get too into it. No disrespect meant Cap, but I simply bow out.

I don't believe there's a god. That's that.

There's no debate here @Swan Captain is being silly and trying to get me tripped up on semantics but it's not happening. I think him doing this shows he's not comfortable in his own beliefs: or un-beliefs, like un-birthday.

If I understand correctly what you say, is that you chose christianity because you find that it is the best way to live your life. Which would mean, if I understand you correctly, that it's not on the basis of the absolute truth of the bible or of christianity that you follow it, but because you find that the effects of living a life according to it is good to you? Which I think is absolutely fine, but doesn't it make your faith a bit weaker, like isn't there some sort of doubt behind it? (It's also possible that I understood you wrongly)

--

As for the labels agnosticism vs atheism, the way I see it is like that: Agosticism = admitting ignorance toward the question of the existence of god Atheisism = saying you don't believe in god. Swan already said it quite well, one is a sort of epistemological position which can be true or false (agnosticism) the other involves faith.

However, I think that if you have no faith and that you think that the epistemological position that is right is agnosticism, it follows that you are an atheist. What I mean is that since I don't know that there is a god and I don't have faith, I don't have any reason to follow a particular faith more than any other (existing or non existing). In other words, to me christianity, islam, judaism or the cult of the flying banana have the same amount of truth. I can't absolutely prove they're false, but I don't have reason to believe in them. It follows from my agnosticism that I am an atheist.

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

well you know more than me mate.

No he isn't, he is saying he believes in the existence of god but that he does not know the exact nature of god.

That's not agnosticism

I don't think you misunderstood stood me and I also don't think you are 100% wrong, but I do think you are mischaracterizing what I mean a bit. Doubt isn't inherently bad, and I wouldn't call it a weakness. Although how we engage with our doubt can be both those things. I am going to talk about faith now because I think it applies. Christians are taught that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Now some just take that verse and use it to stand firmly in their dogma. I don't necessarily want to belittle those people but I do think that type of thing needs to be pushed back against because it makes you ineffective against disbelief. Evidence can be a tricky thing especially coming at it from a spiritual perspective. Christ told me to love unconditionally, but why? Well if I practice unconditional love and I find that it makes the people in my life love more openly and makes me a more effective person I have some evidence that that particular tenet of my faith is real and valuable.

Obviously that is a very elementary example but I think the analogy works for what I am trying to say. You often hear non-believers bemoan Christianity because they view it as a religion based on a list of arbitrary rules. I strongly believe that's our Christian cultures fault because we work backwards. We want the non-believer to follow Christ's example and then they will understand why he gave us those moral absolutes. I believe that if we live out those absolutes non-believers will see the evidence of the benefits of Christian living. Most people want to know why they are following what they are. We try to train adults like children, that mostly isn't effective.

Maybe I rambled, but I hope that explains my position a bit better and keeps the conversation going.

__________________
Letterboxd

Yeah, I think you're right. That thought process will definitely lead you there though.

How does one learn to ride a bicycle? By studying the aerodynamic principles of the proposition beforehand? No. Rather, one mounts, falls, tries again and eventually…understands. Enlightenment of the true nature of existence is not an intellectual endeavor. It is an empirical one. Mystics of all religions have stated this since time immemorial. One achieves enlightenment through meditation and contemplation. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan‘s campaign quip regarding the nature of government: “Mind can’t solve the problem because mind is the problem.” The intellect cannot fathom the concept of “no beginning,“ as alien to its inherent logic. The intellect can, however, lead one to the path.

Consider a blank, white sheet of paper. That is the fundamental state of existence, undifferentiated, solitary universal consciousness (“Brahman” in Hindu terminology.), existing timelessly and eternally. (“I am who am.”) It is nothing (“no thing”), but unlimited potential is inherent within its nature. (“Brahman” means “to grow.”). Draw a line down its center and now the concept of right and left arises. This is dualism, an illusion, “maya,” the source of all suffering. We are all manifestations of consciousness, like all ice sculptures are manifestations of water regardless of form. The illusion of material reality is so powerful that we came to believe that it is real and thus existential fear took hold and permeates all aspects of our individual, illusory consciousness. ( “Adam and Eve's eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked.”) The material illusion unfolds in accordance with a metaphorical algorithm called “karma” (work); causality. (“So as ye sow so shall ye reap.”)

When dualism is realized as the illusion it is, when one erases the illusory lines that is maya, one achieves unity with the fundamental state of being that cannot be further sublated; then bliss is obtained and the dualism of pain and pleasure is vanquished. This is not unlike being startled awake only to realize that the cause of one's anguish was just a passing bad dream.

Enlightenment is knowledge, not faith; the knowledge bred from experience, not intellectualism.

You know Orson actually has a quote about Agnosticism.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/a...on_welles.html

Hey he said it, not me!

"I have a great love and respect for religion, great love and respect for atheism. What I hate is agnosticism, people who do not choose. Orson Welles.' [Citizen Rules]

Then Welles apparently did not know the meaning of the word “agnosticism,” which is not surprising as most people don’t. It was an artificially coined word by Thomas Huxley. He simply appended the negatory syllable “a” to “gnostic,” which means “knowledge,” in this sense of the esoteric variety. Huxley held that man cannot comprehend anything except through his five material senses. Therefore, if God exists, then He can only be known through the senses. It is a positive assertion. It is a rejection of mysticism, and not “I don’t know” per se. Per my last response, I am not inclined towards this view.

It's also incredibly obnoxious, much the same as James Cameron calling agnostics 'cowards' for not choosing. It's been a while but I seem to recall from my religious schooling that god, if he/she does exist, gave mankind the freedom of choice.

Ya know what, I don't care about a bunch of college-esque philosophy on religion or non-religion, coupled with name dropping of a bunch of dead philosophers. Who cares...

If people want to relate their own person beliefs and feelings, cool....but I have no patience to read a bunch of goobly goo.

What I believe in is the same that I can add to this thread...


Nothing!

"Ya know what, I don't care about a bunch of college-esque philosophy on religion or non-religion, coupled with name dropping of a bunch of dead philosophers. Who cares...

"If people want to relate their own person beliefs and feelings, cool....but I have no patience to read a bunch of goobly goo." [Citizen Rules]

I would hardly characterize a lucid clarification of fact as “goobly goo.” And judging by the tenor of your comments, then you should be sympathetic to my recent post outlining the beliefs I am personally inclined towards. It amounts to a rejection of intellectualism. BTW, I’m an accountant by education.

"What I believe in is the same that I can add to this thread... Nothing!" [cricket]

You sound like a Zen master!

ha, there's another 'Orson Welles quote' about accountants, not a direct quote, but from the movie Ed Wood.

I have to disagree with Orson. Saying people must choose a conclusion when evidence is lacking is illogical. Imagine if police went by that in murder cases (well, there's no evidence that either people nearby killed this person, but we'll charge the one who happened to be closest because we have to choose somebody).

What rule book says you have to choose to either believe in God or not believe? And what rule book says those are the only two choices. (And if you do believe, what "rule book" do you follow to define your god? And what if you don't like the description in one book - do you then have to choose another?)

I would tend to agree. It is hardly craven to respond “insufficient data” when asked why one has not taken a position on an issue. It seems most reasonable to me. I reject faith in favor of knowledge, even though I’m not an agnostic (or atheist). I simply do not believe that knowledge can only be obtained through the five material senses. Indeed, ultimate knowledge of existence cannot be obtained through the intellect nor the five senses.

Ahh, but he didn't say people must choose. He said he hates it when they don't choose. That's a different thing.

I have a great love and respect for religion, great love and respect for atheism. What I hate is agnosticism, people who do not choose. Orson Welles