Jump to content

Is agnosticism actually atheism without the attitude?


Recommended Posts

I am not a theologist,i am not an academic (as you may have guessed) I do rely on feeling, i rely on personal experiences in my life too. If that is percieved as ignorance to you, then so be it.

 

The way I see it is that if you grew up in a culture that is constantly bombarding you with religion, god, and other supernatural claims - and if you don't really question those claims and personal experiences - then it's likely you will associate those personal experiences with the predominant religion or beliefs of that culture. For example, if you grew up in India, you'd probably think that one of the many Indian gods, etc, are responsible for your personal experiences. You'd probably never give Jesus or the Christian god a thought.

 

You could be unwittingly associating those experiences with what your culture has programmed you to believe in.

 

 

...I believe in the existance of Jesus Christ because i believe that the first christian followers who preached to the people had no reason to deceive anyone for personal gain.

 

I don't know how you come to that conclusion. Countless cults or religions - past and present - preach or preached their beliefs. Some will have preached outright lies or fiction to attract gullible members, others will have preached for personal gain; some may have done both. And then there are always those who don't realise they are deceiving others because they've been deceived [or are deceiving*] themselves.

 

I also believe there is enough evidence in historical documents to support that claim.

 

That's just it, there isn't enough evidence. What has been written was written decades and centuries after his supposed existence; this in itself is quite odd as Jesus was supposedly making a big name for himself at the time.

 

Still, even if there were contemporary documents supporting his existence, how does that prove that the claims about him in the bible are true? It doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

t.

 

Why are you so intent on providing me with your facts? Why do you feel it necessary to convert me to you're way of thinking.Is there something i have said that has irked you?

I hav'nt heard the term zealous atheist before,but thats how i might describe you,like the opposite of a zealous christian the type i disagree with.

So please don't try to preach to me again,or i might start to get paranoid and suspect you are a member of the apple pie gang that danot mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I have to identify myself as being someone who doesn't have a belief to actually BE someone who doesn't have a belief?

 

 

What do you mean not really? Your post fits in with Jimmy's post that it was in response to.

 

So it does I must have misunderstood the first time I read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Buddhism is, in general, free of dogma. Just The Four Noble Truths:

 

1. All Life is suffering. (Dukkha)

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

You may have misunderstood, I was asking why any Buddhist would believe different to what Buddhism teaches. I wasn't asking someone to tell me what Buddhism teaches.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a time when there was no doubt as to the existence of gods - in the pre-homeric era.

 

At this stage, humans did not have an ego - we did not have the "ultra-consciousness" we have today. The directing influence, the homunculus at the controls, were simple 'divine' instructions in language we could understand. These messages, and every animal has them on some level, governed our daily life. Good messages, ones that promoted survival, promoted social cohesion and thus survival etc, were propagated. Destructive ones were not, and so a memetic evolution occurred.

 

These messages, in the minds of linguistically talented apes, became "gods" - the inexplicable inner voices that told you to do things, and you did them.

 

They might appear to us somewhat zombie like to us today.

 

But of course there was a natural variation in the degree to which these "command hallucinations" would be consistent, and the degree to which people would or could obey them.

 

Some few individuals would be almost immune to the effects of this self-organising phenomenon, and the place of the "Voice Of God" would be filled by a new voice, that of the ego, the part of you that introspects, wonders, directs. These individuals would of course be able to outhink almost everyone, and thus would be more likely to "do well" in an evolutionary sense.

 

So "God" died around 3000BC. Every theistic religion since has simply been aping a consciousness that disappeared five thousand years ago. The power structures have persisted, layer upon layer of symbolism and meaning have been pasted to the idea, but the idea is redundant.

 

That's all there is to it.

So up until 5000 years ago, people used to

hear the voice of God inside their head? Something is telling me you're winding me up. Eeek .. it just told me again. Praise the lord!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So up until 5000 years ago, people used to

hear the voice of God inside their head? Something is telling me you're winding me up. Eeek .. it just told me again. Praise the lord!!

 

 

The thing is, where does the notion that gods commanded their subjects come from?

 

Jaynes' book is a stimulating read, and at the same time a scholarly work. I recommend it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you so intent on providing me with your facts?

 

Sorry. I thought you were here for discussion. Are you saying you have a right to make comments on peoples posts, and I don't?

 

Why do you feel it necessary to convert me to you're way of thinking.

 

I was just giving my opinion on the comments you made. Believe what you want.

 

Is there something i have said that has irked you?

 

No, not at all. So far you've been a very nice open person. I just thought that with you being here, you were up for those sort of discussions. Sorry for getting that wrong.

 

I hav'nt heard the term zealous atheist before,but thats how i might describe you,like the opposite of a zealous christian the type i disagree with.

 

Your entitled to your opinion. IMO, I'm the sort of person who will have a disagreement with someone and still be their best friend. On the other hand, a zealous christian would probably want to censor me, lock me up or worse.

 

So please don't try to preach to me again,or i might start to get paranoid and suspect you are a member of the apple pie gang that danot mentioned.

 

Well, I wasn't preaching. I was merely pointing out why I disagreed with some of the comments you made. I didn't mean to upset you.

 

[sends telegram to apple pie gang: do not preach to janie48]:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.