Religious/non-religious type discussions online

[endlessvoid2018]

I am a member of several groups across several platforms, namely reddit and facebook.
The groups I belong to are ex-christian, atheist, agnostic groups etc.
I have come to find that regardless if some people have the same beliefs as you,
there occasionally seems to pop up someone who likes to argue it seems
literally about nothing to make a point about nothing. I don't know
if it's an ego thing, or something else, or what. I have found the best thing to do is to
just withdraw from such places now. Some people are just hostile.
This message board, however, seems to be a pretty safe and reasonable place.
One person on facebook got into it with me about nothing because I said I was an Agnostic atheist,
basically arguing that I can't be and that I don't know the difference
between the two, when I clearly do, and that my viewpoint was scientifically not valid.
Hmm, alright? There is a lot of people who identify this way though.

So, is anyone here a member of other religious type communities for discussion?
Have you ever run into someone like this, or someone of this nature?

 

[Kfox]

I am a member of several groups across several platforms, namely reddit and facebook.
The groups I belong to are ex-christian, atheist, agnostic groups etc.
I have come to find that regardless if some people have the same beliefs as you,
there occasionally seems to pop up someone who likes to argue it seems
literally about nothing to make a point about nothing. I don't know
if it's an ego thing, or something else, or what. I have found the best thing to do is to
just withdraw from such places now. Some people are just hostile.
This message board, however, seems to be a pretty safe and reasonable place.
One person on facebook got into it with me about nothing because I said I was an Agnostic atheist,
basically arguing that I can't be and that I don't know the difference
between the two, when I clearly do, and that my viewpoint was scientifically not valid.
Hmm, alright? There is a lot of people who identify this way though.

So, is anyone here a member of other religious type communities for discussion?
Have you ever run into someone like this, or someone of this nature?

I think some people have a need to have their beliefs challenged; the idea of conversing with people who disagree with you allows you to learn, allows you to grow and see things from a different perspective. I can't imagine myself joining a site where everybody agrees with me, if I did, I would likely try to find something I disagree with, and converse from there. Perhaps the person you are speaking of is just looking for someone who has a different perspective so he can either reinforce what he already believes, or perhaps get different ideas concerning the issue being discussed

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am a member of several groups across several platforms, namely reddit and facebook.
The groups I belong to are ex-christian, atheist, agnostic groups etc.
I have come to find that regardless if some people have the same beliefs as you,
there occasionally seems to pop up someone who likes to argue it seems
literally about nothing to make a point about nothing. I don't know
if it's an ego thing, or something else, or what. I have found the best thing to do is to
just withdraw from such places now. Some people are just hostile.
This message board, however, seems to be a pretty safe and reasonable place.
One person on facebook got into it with me about nothing because I said I was an Agnostic atheist,
basically arguing that I can't be and that I don't know the difference
between the two, when I clearly do, and that my viewpoint was scientifically not valid.
Hmm, alright? There is a lot of people who identify this way though.

So, is anyone here a member of other religious type communities for discussion?
Have you ever run into someone like this, or someone of this nature?

Well that person might be right. I don't think there is such a thing as agnostic atheist either. Mostly because agnosticism suggests there's a possibility of a God or a deity when actually in reality, nothing of the sort exists.

If there is a possibility, I would certainly love to see it , but you can understand why he probably was arguing the point that you cannot be an agnostic atheist as those people in my view are fence sitters. Part of them wants to still believe in a God or a deity, while the other part is starting to see the ' 'light' that atheism is still the reality of the matter. So I consider agnostic atheists to be an intermediary group whom is going to go either atheist as they once were, or fall back into theism.

Pretty much a red pill, blue pill situation.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well that person might be right. I don't think there is such a thing as agnostic atheist either. Mostly because agnosticism suggests there's a possibility of a God or a deity when actually in reality, nothing of the sort exists.

If there is a possibility, I would certainly love to see it , but you can understand why he probably was arguing the point that you cannot be an agnostic atheist as those people in my view are fence sitters. Part of them wants to still believe in a God or a deity, while the other part is starting to see the ' 'light' that atheism is still the reality of the matter. So I consider agnostic atheists to be an intermediary group whom is going to go either atheist as they once were, or fall back into theism.

Pretty much a red pill, blue pill situation.

Nah, I doubt this applies to all agnostic atheists or even that many - as to wanting anything, or perhaps having had some belief previously as to which they might yearn, or just sitting on the fence. It is perhaps because they are more humble or not so arrogant as to assume that humans can have all the knowledge available, especially when science seems to struggle with Quantum Physics for example. No part of me wants to believe anything in particular.

 

[LuisDantas]

It may be difficult to understand why people talk about matters connected to creeds and religions, because there is quite a lot of ambiguity, contradiction and even intentional misdirection involved in the subject matter from the very start. Very often that is even a big part of the point.

Sometimes people discuss in order to seek reassurance, sometimes to seek clarification. There are many situations where those two converge and many others where they are in conflict or even direct opposition. And there is a boatload of confusion that is often obfuscated.

About the OP's specific example, I can tell you that Agnostic Atheist is a very common stance, but there are those (mostly Catholics, I think?) that have convinced themselves that there is some sort of need to renounce the one to keep the other.

Not sure why they think that. It may be in part from taking the concepts somewhat more seriously than the ambiguity of the fundamental concepts ("god" and "deity") can possibly justify.

Incidentally, the term "agnostic" is apparently much more recent than I guessed, going back to Thomas Huxley in the 19th century. A bit of very quick research suggests that some people consider Huxley as an agnostic atheist, while others believe that he denied being an atheist at all.

Personally, I think that going back to his statements misses the rather obvious point that public figures in the 19th century couldn't quite afford to speak freely on such matters. Even if they could, the wider point is that understandings can and do change and evolve in so many decades.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nah, I doubt this applies to all agnostic atheists or even that many - as to wanting anything, or perhaps having had some belief previously as to which they might yearn, or just sitting on the fence. It is perhaps because they are more humble or not so arrogant as to assume that humans can have all the knowledge available, especially when science seems to struggle with Quantum Physics for example. No part of me wants to believe anything in particular.

Any human knowledge has a degree of uncertainty.

Inductive reasoning can never provide absolute certainty. Every measurement technique we have has some non-zero amount of error.

And all that assumes that we're measuring reality, but we have no real way to completely set aside the "brain in a vat" problem, so we can't even be perfectly sure that our assumption that our "reality" is the "real reality" is correct.

... but IMO, the terms "agnostic" or "agnostic atheist" apply uncertainty specifically about gods.

Personally, I think this difference between our treatment of gods and our treatment of eveything else isn't about any epistemologic difference between gods and everything else. It seems to me that - except for a very small number of agnostics - it's more of a cultural thing: we recognize that theistic beliefs are widespread and important to the people who hold them, so we tend to give deference to those beliefs even when they fail any normal test for truth or reasonableness that we could apply to them.

 

[Secret Chief]

Even I've seen this...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even I've seen this...

View attachment 87825

That chart annoys me. "Gnostic" doesn't just mean "anyone who claims to know something;" it's the term for a specific religious movement.

The chart is also very monotheism-centric.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is IMO fair grounds to ask whether it makes sense to be gnostic atheist.

But agnostic atheist is a very common and very reasonable stance.

 

[LuisDantas]

That chart annoys me. "Gnostic" doesn't just mean "anyone who claims to know something;" it's the term for a specific religious movement.

The chart is also very monotheism-centric.

There are at least two gnostic movements. Christian Gnosticism and an esoteric group originated by Samael Aun Weor.

They are not really very connected to each other.

 

[LuisDantas]

That chart annoys me. "Gnostic" doesn't just mean "anyone who claims to know something;" it's the term for a specific religious movement.

The chart is also very monotheism-centric.

Another thing: quite a few people just aren't all that easy to categorize even in the believers vs non-believers axis.

We see so much discussion about those categories that it is easy to forget that it is frequent and ok to simply don't have a clear, stable stance towards either.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Any human knowledge has a degree of uncertainty.

Inductive reasoning can never provide absolute certainty. Every measurement technique we have has some non-zero amount of error.

And all that assumes that we're measuring reality, but we have no real way to completely set aside the "brain in a vat" problem, so we can't even be perfectly sure that our assumption that our "reality" is the "real reality" is correct.

... but IMO, the terms "agnostic" or "agnostic atheist" apply uncertainty specifically about gods.

Personally, I think this difference between our treatment of gods and our treatment of eveything else isn't about any epistemologic difference between gods and everything else. It seems to me that - except for a very small number of agnostics - it's more of a cultural thing: we recognize that theistic beliefs are widespread and important to the people who hold them, so we tend to give deference to those beliefs even when they fail any normal test for truth or reasonableness that we could apply to them.

I use the term simply because I can't dismiss all the various beginnings of the universe (even multiple universes) and where one of such might involve some creative force (perhaps even God), even if this is about as likely as all or even one of the various religious beliefs being true - which is quite small in my view.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I use the term simply because I can't dismiss all the various beginnings of the universe (even multiple universes) and where one of such might involve some creative force (perhaps even God), even if this is about as likely as all or even one of the various religious beliefs being true - which is quite small in my view.

Sure, but is this different from general, run-of-the-mill uncertainty?

I mean, when you say you "can't dismiss" an origin of the universe that implies God, what rating do you give this on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is "I can't dismiss that the mafia killed JFK," 5 is "I can't dismiss that Queen Elizabeth killed JFK personally," and 10 is "I can't dismiss that aliens have been using their mind control to feed all of humanity a made-up version of reality since 1963 and JFK isn't actually dead"?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Sure, but is this different from general, run-of-the-mill uncertainty?

I mean, when you say you "can't dismiss" an origin of the universe that implies God, what rating do you give this on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is "I can't dismiss that the mafia killed JFK," 5 is "I can't dismiss that Queen Elizabeth killed JFK personally," and 10 is "I can't dismiss that aliens have been using their mind control to feed all of humanity a made-up version of reality since 1963 and JFK isn't actually dead"?

Given that I don't have the requisite knowledge to make an informed guess as to such, it hardly matters, but from what I understand, the universe could possibly have come into existence without a God or creative force being involved and hence the likelihood of these being involved is very small - but nevertheless still there. So I'm probably at least 99% atheist.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

I think it's a high possibility that the universe came into existence
without the involvement of any kind of higher power or god.
However that may be though, I don't claim to have any answers
for that. I sometimes question whether there is something in
the universe beyond what we are capable of knowing, whether
it's a god, or anything like that. This is the Agnostic side of me,
I suppose. This is where I quite like the concept of Ietsism.
Also, I have noticed people have different definitions of
Agnosticism. I prefer to use the term to what I believe it means
personally, basically I lack the knowledge to whether any god
exists or not, and that I don't think it's possible to ever know.
This is why a lot of the time, I consider myself both Agnostic
and atheist. However, sometimes I lean one way more than others.
I'm not looking to get into another "Agnostic vs atheist," debate
here though. So I'll leave it at that. Lol.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Given that I don't have the requisite knowledge to make an informed guess as to such, it hardly matters, but from what I understand, the universe could possibly have come into existence without a God or creative force being involved and hence the likelihood of these being involved is very small - but nevertheless still there. So I'm probably at least 99% atheist.

I'm not asking for a scientific conclusion; I'm asking for your personal feeling.

I stopped calling myself an agnostic because I felt that the term created a false impression... or at least didn't reflect my views. IMO, the average person understands the term "agnostic" to mean someone who has taken a stance on the unknowability of gods specifically or especially.

I'm trying to figure out if this understanding of the term reflects you.

In everyday speech, we ignore the theoretical limitations on knowledge and make do with practical certainty. All knowledge is tentative, yadda yadda, but if I'm talking to someone who wouldn't bat an eye at me saying, for instance, "the grocery store sells bread" without any caveats about uncertainty, I think it would create a false impression if I were to slap caveats all over statements that I consider to have even less uncertainty, such as "the mainstream Christian God does not exist."

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm not asking for a scientific conclusion; I'm asking for your personal feeling.

I stopped calling myself an agnostic because I felt that the term created a false impression... or at least didn't reflect my views. IMO, the average person understands the term "agnostic" to mean someone who has taken a stance on the unknowability of gods specifically or especially.

I'm trying to figure out if this understanding of the term reflects you.

In everyday speech, we ignore the theoretical limitations on knowledge and make do with practical certainty. All knowledge is tentative, yadda yadda, but if I'm talking to someone who wouldn't bat an eye at me saying, for instance, "the grocery store sells bread" without any caveats about uncertainty, I think it would create a false impression if I were to slap caveats all over statements that I consider to have even less uncertainty, such as "the mainstream Christian God does not exist."

For me, I just can't truthfully claim to be a 100% atheist, and more down to recognising my failings. As interests, I tend to go after subjects where I will likely make progress, will probably understand, and as to which will generally be useful in life for me. Physics and astrophysics are not my best subjects, even if I try to keep up to date with what is occurring in these fields. The same goes for chemistry and biology. So it hardly matters if I am right or wrong over this subject (creation of the universe) as it wouldn't make much difference either way. I still would likely believe that all religious beliefs are simply the product of human minds, and being so rather difficult to choose any one of these beliefs. Given that I am reasonably happy with how I see life on Earth and as to human existence.