Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal insanecarbonbasedlif's Journal: [Religion] Well, that's it then. I'm out. 24

Journal by insanecarbonbasedlif
Yeah, I spent 4 hours talking to my wife this afternoon. Very intense discussion. The upshot of it all? I can't reasonably be a Christian or such any longer. I've settled to what could be called atheist leaning agnosticism. And secular humanism. Perhaps I'm a naturalist (philosophically, not in terms of studying plants and animals). Anyhow, I know what I'm not now - for a lot of reasons, mostly due to the fact that I don't think Christianity (or any supernatural religion) makes its case well enough or provides sufficient evidence for its astounding claims.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

[Religion] Well, that's it then. I'm out. More

[Religion] Well, that's it then. I'm out.

Comments Filter:

  • We're a nice bunch of people, even if the Christians tell us that we're going to burn in hell.

    I was pretty much an agnostic by age 16, but I never minded going to church on occasions. Last year, I read "The God Delusion" and it was eye opening. Not that it didn't teach my anything I didn't know (nothing scientifically new in there for me), but the synthesis it makes is something I should have done on myself ages ago. Pretty much all answers are there, sure with some gaps left and right, but science is a

    • Heh. Good to know I'm welcome somewhere. I've been thinking of picking up a Dawkins book to read and see what he has to say. He's a particularly outspoken atheist, so he's probably tangled with all the objections to atheism that are out there...

      • Yeah, he pretty much has arguments against every objection. If I only could memorize it all, I'd be more strengthened in religious discussions. Not that it happens often: I do live in Europe and religiosity is something personal, and is usually kept to oneself. (Exception: Jehovah Witnesses, but if you tell them you're atheist or the antichrist, they will usually leave)

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Yeah, I was pretty religious, and it's a pretty big change of perspective for me. It's certainly going to affect a lot of my activities as well.

      As far as my wife's thoughts go, she's at the same place as I am in regards to Christianity, in that there is just no proof that it is the Ultimate Truth. As far as the existence of a deity goes, she feels like there probably is a god, but we just don't know anything about it. I'm leaning more towards the atheist side of things myself - I don't think that there *ca
  • Agnosticism is the way to go. Atheism is just zealotry in another direction. Like you mentioned though, I do quite like 'Secular Humanism'. As far as I'm concerned, it's all about the human race and its progress. Why waste time with anything else?

    • Why waste time with anything else?
      Exactly my thought. If I get concrete proof that I should be focusing on something else, I will. In the mean time, I will do what seems most right to me, and that's working towards the betterment of humanity.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tet ( 2721 ) *
      I half agree. I've never been entirely comfortable with the atheism tag myself, in part because like you say, it smacks of zealotry. But at the same time, for me, agnosticism implies a lack of conviction about it all, which is a bit too vague. I'm 99.999% sure there is no god. Certainly, the evidence for the existence of a god is so far precisely zero. Thus I'm an atheist. But were a deity to make their presence known to me in a way that provided conclusive evidence, then sure, I'd accept it. Is the existen
      • But at the same time, for me, agnosticism implies a lack of conviction about it all,

        No, you're just letting your inner control freak have too much power!

        The point, to me at least, about agnosticism, is simply that no one has all the answers, and until they do, I'm quite comfortable living with this uncertainty. Granted, I'm a big fan of the scientific community and all that entails, but as far as we know we're lab rats for exotic viruses, or somebody's forgotten food supply, or plugged into the Matr
        • The fundamental problem with that extreme skepticism, is that when you get to the point where you declare that no-one can know what's going on, what point is there continuing to search for answers? In the case of your Matrix example, nothing we discover scientifically is true anyway, so why bother?
          • You suck for making me trot out a cliché:

            so why bother?

            It's about the journey, not the destination.
            • If that's the case, we have to assume that the Matrix is reality, and it's irrational to simultaneously believe that reality exists and all our perceptions are correct, and that reality is an illusion and that our perceptions are created by an external entity.
              • If that's the case, we have to assume that the Matrix is reality

                Works for me. Now all I have to figure out is how to learn Kung Fu via an SFTP connection.
      • I replied to this post yesterday, but apparently slashdot ate my reply. Or I'm just missing it right now...

        Anyhow, in brief form, I just wanted to say you've nailed the way I'm feeling about the labels right now pretty much squarely on the head.

        Compelling evidence? We'd be fools to deny it. But it seems like that is so unlikely as to make the label "agnostic" just a coy front for what I believe will, or rather (in that I don't think compelling evidence will crop up), what I believe won't happen. Maybe the
    • Incorrect, atheism can be zealotry in another direction, but that is a matter of personal taste. At its best Agnosticism is skepticism, but at its worst it is the weakest form of fence-sitting. As an atheist agnostic, I find the blanket assertion that Agnosticism is the only acceptable path to be without backing.

    • You should watch this video: You are not Agnostic [youtube.com]. It does explain some misconceptions about agnosticism. Essentially, you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism only says "I don't know". The agnostic theist says: "I don't know but I believe in $FAITH". The agnostic atheist says: "I don't know but I don't believe in God(s)".

      I'm one of the latter...

      (Note: I'm at work and can't check if the video is the video I think it is because youtube is blocked.)

    • Look at your words:
      'way','direction','progress'
      Not to criticize you in any way, but another vantage is that faith is the larger map in which your directional words have a context to point somewhere.
      For me, atheism would be tanatmount to nihilism, and doing something uspeakable would be as 'good' as doing anything else.
  • Two thousand years ago Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this earth." And they crucified him.

    What makes you think things will be different this time?

    The temple scholars were wrong then, and the televangelists are wrong now.

    "Send your blessing pledge and get todays special. Get your $200 blessing pledge today for for 179.95 - and receive full credit with Him. Amen."

    • I'm sort of confused - what precisely where the temple scholars and televangelists wrong about (a lot, I'm sure, but then, my current understanding is that no religious group can be right because none have evidence to support the fantastic claims they make)?

      So, I'm actually not sure what things I'm thinking would be the same or different...

      Anyhow, I've got to agree that televangelists are a particularly bad lot - engaged in aggressive fraud and emotional coercion, and quite willing to take a poor person's

Slashdot Top Deals

Gravity brings me down.

Close