(A)Theism and (A)Gnosticism answer two different questions.

1.) (A)Theism asks, do you believe in god, gods, etc.

2.) (A)Gnosticism asks, can you ever really know the answer to #1.

There’s no contradiction between (a)theism and (a)gnosticism. In fact, everyone who thinks about the concept of god must have answers to both.

On a side note, just finished watching Stranger than Fiction, which was a damn good movie. It deserved to do much, much better at the box office.

None of us knows, for a fact, demonstrable to others, whether god exists, whether Jesus rose from the dead, or Mohammed ascended to heaven on a white horse. None of us knows, for a fact, demonstrable to others, what happens to us after our death.

With this background, we are all agnostics, every one of us, including the worst of the fundie bible thumpers. The word is bankrupt.

Yet I would have described myself as an agnostic until I read Dawkins. He argued that if you see no evidence for god and so conclude that there is none, then you should call yourself an atheist, because, when it comes down to it, you have come to that conclusion: There is no god.

If evidence were to appear showing that god exists, I would change my mind in an instant. I do not, unlike the bible thumper, hold my belief in spite of the evidence. (This is why any claim that atheism is a religion, requiring belief, like any other, is just stupid.)

Let’s just hope that the god who may show himself is not the lunatic the christians believe in.

Two points:

1.) A- or an- means without. It does not mean against. That would be anti- or ant-.

2.) Theism does not mean god, you ignorant loser. It means the belief in the existence of one or more gods or deities.

So you continue to be wrong. Yet you continue to defend your position.

Bro: A- is a prefix that means both. See my above mention of the strong and weak atheist. But, even by your own definition in the above box, you still misdefine atheism, for that would mean a lack of God, not a lack of belief, as you stated previously.

Shall I go on, or was that a ‘D’oh!’ that you mumbled?

A mean lack, not against.

Amnesia = lack of memory, not that you are against memories.
Anosmia = lack of a sense of small, not that you are against odours.
Ageusia = lack of a sense of taste, not that you are against flavours.

Shall I go on? Or can I stop now and call you a moron?

Moron.

Thank you. You have given as good a reason to avoid religion as any of the dozens I cd muster, if not tired.

Assuming I have a soul, it’s NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS! I can do with it what I will. This is the ESSENCE of liberty, and why religion MUST be kept away from political systems!

Just as I support yr right to be religious, smoke, have sex w drug addicts, I support yr right to suicide, or do drugs. Freedom is dangerous, but as long as my lost soul does not infringe on yr saved soul, stay the hell away from it.

This is not directed at you, but a general KEEP OFF THE GRASS sign.

As for your last q- religion, as a personal belief, is a neutral choice. To believe in yr god, a god, God, no God, no gods, is neutral to me. It’s when religiots organize, and get Inquisitive, or terroristic that the problems begin. Why can’y religiots refuse evangelism on principle?

Because it wouldn’t be principled to refuse evangelism, it would be a contradiction. If you believe in the tenets of your religion then by definition you believe that people who don’t believe are endangering their immortal souls. Not doing anything about that would be like seeing people standing on train tracks with their backs to an oncoming train and deciding “well, they might be offended if I suggest that they are standing in the wrong place; who am I to judge where they choose to stand?”

Now there is evangelism and there’s evangelism, and I recoil at certain brands of it probably every bit as much as you do (as a Catholic in the fundamentalist Bible belt, I have to endure people who think they have to evangelize to me because I don’t fit their definition of a Christian). But rejecting evangelism on principle? Doesn’t make sense. I guess my brand of it is that actions speak louder than words but a few well placed words are sometimes required too. So I guess I’d agree with Elijah Muhammad, with the caveat that occasionally I think it’s necessary to convince people to direct their glance toward the glass of water and consider it.

That shd be my addendum when I state that more religiots are happy than MBAs. Yes, they’re happier and more guided, yet also more glazed and unwilling to teast themselves.

To you religion may not be candy, and I can accept your devoutness, but c’mon, you have to admit that you are in the minority at church, and Homer Simpsons rule.

As for your last q- religion, as a personal belief, is a neutral choice. To believe in yr god, a god, God, no God, no gods, is neutral to me. It’s when religiots organize, and get Inquisitive, or terroristic that the problems begin. Why can’y religiots refuse evangelism on principle?

Although another charlatan. Elijah Muhammad had one great qu- paraphrasing, ‘I don’t need to convince yo of the rightness of my belief, it’s like a glass of clear water. I just hold it to the light and anyone can see.’

To many religiots do not do that.

What I’m getting at is, if you are truly agnostic than why isn’t religion a neutral choice rather than a bad one?

‘First of all, atheism and agnosticism are not exclusive. In fact, most atheists are agnostic.

atheism = lack of belief
agnosticism = lack of knowledge’

An atheist does not lack a belief, but believes there is no God or gods. A-theist, oe a-theos, means against God. The rest of your pseudo-definitions get so discombobulated that they are laughable.
There are also strong and weak atheists, as I debated with two famed Atheists here:

http://www.cosmoetica.com/B310-DES250.htm#Update:%20An%20email%20exchange%20with%20Richard%20Carrier:

Both, eventually admitted that their Atheism was really agnosticism.

CS:

Say religion is a drug, so be it. I support legalized drugs- except when in a vehicle (so don’t count rosaries while driving). But, to say that it is then a need is like saying pot or cocaine is a need because life is so bad. All it does is dull the pain and drown one in irreality. Again, a personal choice, and one I cannot argue with, if it makes the drug user/religiot happy. But, it’s still a way of approaching life in a false way. As someone else sd, just don’t try to shoot me up and we’ll be fine, and don’t try to impose your drug on me.

Lynx: For Mohammed there’s solid evidence he was a real person, for Buddha very little, and for Jesus- zero hostoric contemporaneous evidence.

As for Pascal’s bet, see my recently quoted poem on this site:

http://themoderatevoice.com/entertainment/literature/poetry-dan-schneider/#comments, then think the famed Eistein quote re: dice, and that poem’ll mean more.

As for happiness or fulfillment- we can use the candt vs, Steak analogy. Belief in the immaterial is like candy- it tastes good, at first, but has ill effects long term. A hardy meal may be less sweet, but it’s better longterm. Of course, if one is rich enough to afforfd great dentists and dietitians, eat yr candy.

But then, I don’t see how the more fundamental ideas of different religions are one any more credible than another. Jesus was a real man! Yes, so was Budda, so was Mohammed. They can’t all be right, so why should I believe one any more than another?

Lynx,
On this, I think you have to first consider whether or not you believe there’s a God and then the question of whose interpretation of God is most likely correct is a separate question. And what I described briefly as my decision to accept that there’s a God is pretty much along the lines of Pascal’s Wager:

(from Wiki):Pascal argued that it is a better “bet” to believe that God exists, because the expected value of believing that God exists is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief.

And that “greater expected value” is that fulfillment I was referring to, because my ‘bet’ is that IF there is a God, then He created us in a certain way to reach our fullest potential in a particular way, and that the ‘rules’ of religion are meant as instruction manuals for our own bodies and souls. Some people choose not to read the directions and they might still come out OK, but I’d rather check it out and see if following steps 3A and 14B might actually be good for me in the long run even though I’d rather skip them.

And once having made the decision to take Pascal’s Wager and assume it’s true, then of course the question is which version is closest to the truth. Christianity happens to explain certain things about the human condition that I can’t explain better in any other way, so it works for me. I don’t reject other religions as wrong, but from what I have read and learned, this one is most compatible with what I observe about human nature.

Happiness means a lot of different things but some of the ways you are using it are the more shallow definitions IMO. I think a better word for what I was trying to describe (that elusive thing that religious believers feel that we have that others don’t) might be fulfillment. Even that doesn’t quite cut it, but think of a concept of life having meaning, and of becoming all that we were meant to be during our tenure on earth. THAT is what I feel I have with religion that I don’t have if I reject religion. The kind of easy, cheerful happiness that I think you’re referring to is precisely not found in true religion; many beliefs and practices are quite challenging (as you also note when you say, what about people who aren’t happy in following these ‘rules’.)

If you don’t think there’s any benefit to it at all, that’s your prerogative, but I’m describing my personal journey and was applying the concept to cosmo’s observation of religious people that he worked with. In other words, cosmo himself believes this about religious people so I was asking him, if it’s true than isn’t that an argument that maybe religion is a good and healthy thing for people? If you reject the whole premise that religious people in general have this elusive quality (call it fulfillment for want of a better word), then my follow up question really isn’t directed to you (no offense and I’m not complaining that you also shared your views).

1- Personal happiness is a pro, but it must be weighted against the cons. If a faith makes the believer happy, but the non-believer terribly unhappy (for instance by having to follow religious precepts they don’t believe in) the “goodness” get’s somewhat diluted. Does Islam make suicide bombers happy? If it does is their faith a “good thing” considering it’s consequences? These are questions you have to ask.

2- As the saying goes, ignorance is bliss. Believing in a fantasy may be nice for the person who lives it, but we all want to know the truth. A three year old is generally happy, not being aware of most of the world around him. If I knew I could press a button and be made happy, but at the cost of warping my understanding of the world, I wouldn’t do it. Better a hard truth than a soft lie. And yes, I know that those who are religious believe that what they believe IS true, by definition, but you’ll understand how those who don’t believe feel like believing is just submitting to a pretty fairytale.

3- It can be argued that it’s the faith that’s important, that the actual content of the faith is a lesser matter. The most calm and apparently content people I’ve ever seen were Buddist monks. So do we do a meassure of which faith makes it’s believers the happiest? The “winner” is the one telling the truth! Of course that’s absurd, that a faith, any faith, makes you happier, is not proof of it’s veracity. But then, I don’t see how the more fundamental ideas of different religions are one any more credible than another. Jesus was a real man! Yes, so was Budda, so was Mohammed. They can’t all be right, so why should I believe one any more than another?

cosmo, on this:

That said, I’d be lying if I did not admit that most true believers (I recently had a jobwhere I talked with many seminarians, missionaries, etc.) are far more happy and focused in their lives than mall goers and business majors.

I agree with Harris that one can argue that religious fulfillment is just a drug- a false high, but since so many in this life are so low, they turn to it like drugs. Belief is free, BTW, heroin ain’t.

Even if one agrees with that argument, that religious fulfillment is like a drug, then isn’t your observation (that religious people seem happier and more focused) an argument that religion DOES have something going for it in the philosophical sense? In other words, if the use of this “drug” actually leads to greater fulfillment, then perhaps that logically indicates that we have a human need for it (and one could either view that as a need vested in us by our Creator, as I do, or as a glitch if one is an agnostic but thinks that perhaps its better to live as though the religious philosophy is true.)

This is, in essence, why I chose religion after a lot of deliberation. I don’t want to live in a world without God, so I choose not to because the alternative makes no sense to me and would not be fulfilling.

My wife is as good as they get. She is a Christian mostly to the extent that she believes in not throwing the first stone, actively loving others, and not evangelizing. She doesn’t really believe in the power of prayer except as a means of self-meditation to help her focus on the needs of others.

My brother in law is fundamentalist. He knows everything. The Bible is perfect, and absolutely consistent. We are going to hell. Everyone in his family that is not a member of his church is going to hell. I certainly will, as will anyone who does not find Christ. But through it all he is a nice enough guy. He did struggle with whether to throw his two boys out of his life because they had kids out of wedlock. His wife disagreed with him, but had no say in it (away from him she is a computer programmer with a math degree, but the bible gives him the rights of the head of the family.) He finally decided to embrace his grandkids, the better to save them.

My wife knows he was wrong (and definitely wrong about how he runs her sister’s–his wife–life,) but his error was only due to the choices he made, not the basis of those choices. He can point to chapter and verse to support his views. He can hold his holy book up and ask us to point to where he wrong, but my wife cannot really say anything. She doesn’t know the bible that well, and does not like to be too critical of someone’s “faith”.

“The sentiment Brian is responding to I believe has to do with the implication that these smaller groups are somehow stronger in their belief.”

If the bible says one thing and you believe another then you belief in the bible is not as strong as someone who believes it all. That’s pretty much the definitions of the words being used.

But I do agree that you won’t find many people that believe everything that’s in the bible. Many say they do, but most haven’t read the damn book. And that’s one of the reason atheists are driven to irrationality.

cosmoetica Says:
“Rabid atheism is as illogical as theism. Only agnosticism is an intellectuallu honest approach to matters such as belief in gods, aliens, of psi phenomena.”

Oh dear god. Were you trying to include as many fallacies as you could in as few words as possible?

First of all, atheism and agnosticism are not exclusive. In fact, most atheists are agnostic.

atheism = lack of belief
agnosticism = lack of knowledge

An atheists agnostic is someone who thinks it isn’t possible to prove or disprove the existence of gods, aliens, psi phenomena, etc. and doesn’t believe.

An atheists gnostic is someone who thinks it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of gods, aliens, psi phenomena, etc. and since there is no proof, doesn’t believe.

An theists agnostic is someone who thinks it isn’t possible to prove or disprove the existence of gods, aliens, psi phenomena, etc. and believes.

An theists gnostic is someone who thinks it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of gods, aliens, psi phenomena, etc. and believes there is proof.

We can’t have an intellectually honest debate until we get our terms correct.

In other words, each of us has an individual moral code shaped by our environment. I choose to have religion be part of my environment while you don’t. Why is your moral code is more valid than mine just because I choose to affiliate with a religion and you don’t?

After all, I choose to be part of a religion. No one is holding a gun to my head and saying that I have to go to church. If I didn’t agree with the vast majority of what that faith taught, why would I still be there? It’s an influence that I choose to have in my life. The influences that shape your outlook are not any more or any less valid just because you don’t sit in a pew on Sundays, but the same goes for me.

Where religion often fails is in articulating the reasons for a belief in non-religious language. It would be absurd for me to say “because God said so” in order to convince you to vote for something. Barack Obama is far more eloquant than I am (especially at 1:41 AM), so I’ll use a quote of his to express my sentiment better than I could: “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

We’re all “forced to live according to the beliefs of others,” as you put it. It’s a republic. It happens. I’m forced to be part of a nation that funnels billions into a lost war, that burns a vanishing energy source like there’s limitless amounts left, and yes, that allows pregnancies to be terminated. I don’t like any of those things and yet they’re a part of America.

However, even with something as contentious as abortion, there is room for common ground. It’s a difficult, painful, nuanced issue, and it doesn’t benefit from the black-and-white characterizatrion that both sides have given it. To me the most important thing is reducing the number of abortions. Making abortion illegal will not accomplish that. Instead, broad social change, beter education, healthcare, job opportunities… abortion is a symptom of an evil, not entirely an evil unto itself. I don’t think that abortion will ever be made illegal (and I’m not 100% sure that I want it to be) but I most certianly want it to be irrelevant. And I think both religious and secularists, conservatives and liberals can make that an acheivable goal.

It can’t start, however, unless both sides stop pushing each other away only because my ethics influences come from a different place than yours.

After all, Jesus didn’t tell us to save souls or make people think they way we do. He told us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick, help the poor. That’s an agenda that even the most strident athiest ought to be able to get behind.