It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This is incorrect. Words do not take their definitions by colloquial, regional or other interpretations. At best you have strictly a mass misinterpretation. In this case "religion" appears to be misinterpreted. Currently in the political arena, "racism" is being misinterpreted. And here are 9 more words commonly misinterpreted.
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as god) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existance or the nonexistance of God or a god.
Originally posted by eight bits
You have a religious belief
It doesn't matter to me though
Originally posted by eight bits
Obviously, it matters a great deal to you, otherwise you wouldn't resist so emotionally and at such length.
Why not just say that you prefer not to describe your own views about gods as "religious," but acknowledge that many other native speakers do use the word religion to describe your views?
The purpose of the thread is to increase readers' understanding of your opinions, by observing you answer questions about them. Obviously, the information conveyed in Q&A sessions is not confined to the content of the answers, but is complemented by the manner of answer.
That you tried to deny the native speaker status of those who hold different opinions from you says a lot about you, about how you think, and about how you form your opinions. That you argue that there is an objective basis for your personal subjective word choices is also revealing.
For better or worse, information about your views has been flowing nicely. Since that is your stated purpose, you should be pleased to have had the opportunity to pursue this line of inquiry.
Originally posted by LuckyMe777
If only people were accepting to another's belief or accepting to the found evidence, we wouldn't have such crazy people bothering us.
but simply accepting beliefs is just as crazy
Evidence, however, is much easier to accept.
Originally posted by eight bits
Is it your view that those who disagree with you about the existence of god(s), those who accept the existence of God, for example, are mentally ill, or exhibit a symptom of mental illness?
I wasn't aware that there was any evidence in either direction, nothing with consensus about its bearing.
If you disagree, then please discuss. If you agree, though, could you suggest any principles that you feel offer some impersonally valid basis for an agnostic or another "neutral" to choose among the incompatible claims about the existence of god(s)?
Originally posted by adjensen
In a world of growing population and declining resources, barring some technological breakthrough (well, a number of them,) we likely face more and more of this sort of behaviour, so there's an obvious benefit to convincing people to be more loving and considerate of others, and less selfish. Christianity attempts to do so, in both a positive and (sadly) negative manner, but I would like to know where you think that atheism can contribute?
Convincing someone to help humankind through rationalism and reason may work well for intellectualizers, but if you convince the average person that this is all there is, is that going to work for them as well? I don't think that it's possible to take a person who is acting selfishly, give them more ammunition for being selfish, and expect them to be more altruistic, not without some sort of significant revelation, anyway.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Religions have had a good run. Why not try a different approach that is non-tribal and not defined by superstition and unprovable promises? There are many secular cultures in existence now that largely remain free of the sociological problems that plague highly religious nations.
Originally posted by adjensen
I do, however, take exception with your leap in logic that infers that "highly religious nations" have sociological problems that "secular cultures" do not, and the sole reason is that they are religious nations.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by adjensen
I do, however, take exception with your leap in logic that infers that "highly religious nations" have sociological problems that "secular cultures" do not, and the sole reason is that they are religious nations.
It's not actually a leap in logic. A while back I started this thread wherein separate studies had similar conclusions drawing parallels between religiosity and negative sociological problems.