Music Banter - Are you religious?

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)

- - Are you religious? (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/44484-you-religious.html)

There is a difference between: Gnostic Atheists, Agnostic Atheists, Gnostic Theists, and Agnostic Theists..

I wonder whether there are instances of internet debates about whether there is/isn't a god where in the end someone actually changed their opinion.

(Obviously I understand that such debates have a merit and can be fun without convincing anybody of anything.)

Like I said, this is not something I would partake in outside of MB, but I know and respect everyone here and it is in fact fun for me to discuss. I'm okay with not changing Nea's mind, and yes it can be exhausting, but I enjoy critical thinking.. and tbh, I suck at putting my thoughts into words so it's good practice.

How so? I'm not sure I follow. What is the scale?

Just for clarity, how I distinguish the 4 categories:

-Gnostic Atheist - Rejects the theistic belief in god, claims there is no god (has burden of proof)
-Agnostic Atheist - Rejects the theistic belief in god, does not make truth claims

-Gnostic Theist - Believes in a theistic god, claims god exists (has burden of proof)
-Agnostic Theist - Believes in a theistic god, does not make truth claims

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1804432)

if we follow their logic basically agnostic atheist should be redundant

but they address two different things

Atheism/Theism addresses your position of belief
Agnosticism/Gnosticism addresses the possibility of knowledge

I agree agnostic atheist does seem a bit redundant, but it's necessary. You're okay with the other 3 categories?

Why would it? Agnostic theists accept a claim as true, they are not making a claim of knowledge. Burden of proof only comes into play when you are making a truth claim. They are picking a side in the same way atheists are, but they are not claiming to know something.

To rephrase..

Agnostic Theists and Atheists: accept that they may be wrong and in light of evidence are willing to change their position
Gnostic Theists and Atheists: make a claim about something they can not possibly know

The only reason I believe gnostic atheists have any merit to even argue their position is because we have a ton of evidence for a naturalistic world and 0 evidence for a supernatural world, so it's not unreasonable to say based on what we know we can draw these logical conclusions. I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist, which is the default position and to me the most logical way to approach any situation where there is no evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1804433)

Great post DWV. You really need to read this book. Caution: It's the most mentally and soul searching book I've ever read. Many of my friends have not been able to simply deal with it.

There were dozens of sections that I had to read a second time to fully absorb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong

Simpy put, she puts belief, and non belief in the perfect context. I stopped being an atheist after reading this. Now I have no title.

https://www.amazon.com/Case-God-Kare...aren+armstrong

Quote:

A nuanced exploration of the part that religion plays in human life, drawing on the insights of the past in order to build a faith that speaks to the needs of our dangerously polarized age.

Moving from the Paleolithic age to the present, Karen Armstrong details the great lengths to which humankind has gone in order to experience a sacred reality that it called by many names, such as God, Brahman, Nirvana, Allah, or Dao. Focusing especially on Christianity but including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Chinese spiritualities, Armstrong examines the diminished impulse toward religion in our own time, when a significant number of people either want nothing to do with God or question the efficacy of faith. Why has God become unbelievable? Why is it that atheists and theists alike now think and speak about God in a way that veers so profoundly from the thinking of our ancestors?

Answering these questions with the same depth of knowledge and profound insight that have marked all her acclaimed books, Armstrong makes clear how the changing face of the world has necessarily changed the importance of religion at both the societal and the individual level. Yet she cautions us that religion was never supposed to provide answers that lie within the competence of human reason; that, she says, is the role of logos. The task of religion is “to help us live creatively, peacefully, and even joyously with realities for which there are no easy explanations.” She emphasizes, too, that religion will not work automatically. It is, she says, a practical discipline: its insights are derived not from abstract speculation but from “dedicated intellectual endeavor” and a “compassionate lifestyle that enables us to break out of the prism of selfhood.”

I'm an [insert a religion name here]

I'm an [insert a deprecated comment about any religion here]

Me, personally? I'm nothing. Nothing at all.

Thanks Chula, I'll check it out, but I don't read much nor do I have the time, so tbh I'll probably never actually read it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1804441)

but atheism is not "picking sides" was that not the whole point?

Perhaps "picking a side" was a bad phrase. They are not picking a side in distinguishing between the 2 possibilities of: God exists or God does not exist. They are rejecting the claim that god exists based on current evidence, and if you take it a step further saying you KNOW god does not exist, then you are a gnostic atheist. On the opposing side you have agnostic theists, who accept the claim that god exists (for whatever reason, it's always different), but also admit that they do not know this with certainty and could be wrong. If you take this a step further you get gnostic theists who accept the claim that god exists, and also know it to be true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1804441)

Theists rarely claim to "know" anything they simply believe it to be true

Really? Because most of the theists I've met absolutely KNOW god is real. They are not open to the possibility that he is not real. They pray to god, and have a personal relationship with god.. they fear god.. the list goes on and on.

Edit: You should watch more AXP videos tbh. Matt Dillahunty is pretty great at logically attacking arguments, and does a way better job than I do at articulating the same points I'm trying to make. You probably won't agree with him on his beliefs that religion is evil or does harm, but you don't have to agree with someone on everything. I question some of the things he says as well. Also, he was a fundamentalist christian for 25 years and on his way to becoming a minister before he became atheist, so he knows a lot about the bible which is refreshing and maybe more palatable compared to science minded people like Dawkins. He does get pissy with callers, which might be off putting, but his points are almost always dead on.

Read her book It WILL blow your mind. You'll be a different person at the other side of it.

Is God a thing or is God an idea? In the sane world God is Santa Claus. But if anyone decides that giving themselves to a "FAITH" helps them get through life, and deal with the BS life throws back at them then that's good to too.