Conquer Club

I guess we don't get to argue this time, snorri. I misinterpreted what you mean the first time, but now it looks like we agree. Damn.

TheProwler wrote:I guess we don't get to argue this time, snorri. I misinterpreted what you mean the first time, but now it looks like we agree. Damn.

Shit! Quickly, let's go to another thread!

Wow, prowler, two times today you have come up with wonderful and thoughtful posts! You have definitely added to this discussion.

That said, I think it is a measure of extremes.

In one sense, as a scientist, I acknowledge that I cannot prove God to another person. On the other hand, I have seen enough evidence that for me, it is essentially as true as the firmest of concrete evidence that I can show someone else in a scientific sense. In the most technical sense, you could say that I am agnotic. Yet, I generally describe myself as Chrsitian, because I truly do believe and try to follow the precepts, teach my children the same.

Some would say that because I acknowledge any level of doubt at all, I am not fully Christian. Would I, for example, let myself be thrown into an oven rather than deny Christianity? If it were my kids being thrown in instead, I would almost certainly say "no" (with the caveat that some lives might be more terrible than death), but that also is because I don't believe my God would actually require that of me. In ancient times they did believe this.

Some suggest that we must all be like that, return to the unquestioning faith of children, or we do not have true faith. I am not sure. It is an interesting question.

As an ex-believer, I would add that Christians are expected to have doubts. They are expected to overcome them with the aid of faith. Which is I think rather the point of faith.
There is no point in someone who has been baptised as a child being "confirmed" if they've never reached the point of saying to themself "maybe it isn't true after all", and then decided that it is.

jonesthecurl wrote:As an ex-believer, I would add that Christians are expected to have doubts. They are expected to overcome them with the aid of faith. Which is I think rather the point of faith.

And THAT is why I don't engage in arguments about religion. No one knows for sure, so why bother arguing about it.

thegreekdog wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:As an ex-believer, I would add that Christians are expected to have doubts. They are expected to overcome them with the aid of faith. Which is I think rather the point of faith.

And THAT is why I don't engage in arguments about religion. No one knows for sure, so why bother arguing about it.

Because it's fun. And I'm probably right.

Everybody's an agnostic, and those who say they aren't are lying. You get varying degrees of belief one way or the other, but when it comes down to it nobody knows for sure.

Neoteny wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:And THAT is why I don't engage in arguments about religion. No one knows for sure, so why bother arguing about it.

Because it's fun. And I'm probably right.

My thoughts exactly... almost.

FINALLY, an M.D. on the board.

john9blue wrote:Everybody's an agnostic, and those who say they aren't are lying. You get varying degrees of belief one way or the other, but when it comes down to it nobody knows for sure.

Technically true, but for some that uncertainty is mostly a technicality, they live their lives by the belief. For others, the question itself is a way of life. That makes the difference. Those who cannot take one belief or another are agnostic.