What is going on?

Valmont

Zillah wrote:

Then Im very confused, because your very first post was:

I said I didn't know what it *represented* not what it *is*

But I do realise that I was being quite unclear, sorry for the confusion!

Valmont

Beruthiel wrote:

indeed it's not, there is no requirement to be boxed

I'm 18 years old, judge me from that alone if you will, but I know where I stand.

I only asked because of your comments so far, it's clear you are starting out on the road, it's a long one and your mind will chance lots of times along the way. That's good as you grow more each time. Get yourself some books and start reading

Cheers, I was expecting to be steamrolled! It's clear now, that while everyone on the forum is an athiest/agnostic, they all put their individual touches and opinions to their standpoint, which is good because it shows a respect for everyone's convictions.

I have been dipping in and out Nietzsche for the last two years, that is what got me into questioning religion and god in the first place, before that I couldn't comprehend anyone defying religion as I was always being told not to blaspheme by my parents! I also read Bertrand Russell's collection of essays 'why I am not a christian'. I wouldn't agree with them on all points but their general line of thought was interesting.

Thanks for the positive and constructive feedback guys

Nevyn

Valmont wrote:

It's clear now, that while everyone on the forum is an athiest/agnostic, they all put their individual touches and opinions to their standpoint, which is good because it shows a respect for everyone's convictions.

Ah um not everyone who post here is athiest/agnostic, some of us just like to join in the disscussion.

coffee_cake

Thaedydal wrote:

Ah um not everyone who post here is athiest/agnostic, some of us just like to join in the disscussion.

But we all know thaedy is the biggest atheist ever, eh

lostexpectation

Valmont wrote:

I have been dipping in and out Nietzsche for the last two years, that is what got me into questioning religion and god in the first place, before that I couldn't comprehend anyone defying religion as I was always being told not to blaspheme by my parents! I also read Bertrand Russell's collection of essays 'why I am not a christian'. I wouldn't agree with them on all points but their general line of thought was interesting.

Which leads us back to this

When I say I don't know what they represent, is it teenage angst? rebellion? pomousness? another reason to call yourself an intellectuual? Because any 'athiest/agnostic' I have had the displeasure of encountering fall into the above categories.

Valmont

I see what you are thinking. My parents have nothing against me not believing in God, I don't even go to Christmas mass anymore:eek: but believe me, my beliefs are not a 'rebellion'. I've been there and done that in other ways:p

I was genuinely surprised when I happened across 'Beyond Good and Evil' and 'Why I am not a Christian'. When I read the aforementioned books, they clicked with me because I felt I shared some of the same frustrations with the authors, I just lacked the wordiness to express those ideas in arguments and writing, thus my athiestic standpoint stemmed from reading some philosophy books a few years ago.

I see was being unclear but don't judge me on a dialectical error, I'd like to think I'm above categorisation. I'd like to just be an athiest.

Valmont

Thaedydal wrote:

Ah um not everyone who post here is athiest/agnostic, some of us just like to join in the disscussion.

Sorry, obviously 'everyone' isn't necessarily an athiest/agnostic, I was just generalising.

lostexpectation

Valmont wrote:

I see what you are thinking. My parents have nothing against me not believing in God, I don't even go to Christmas mass anymore:eek: but believe me, my beliefs are not a 'rebellion'. I've been there and done that in other ways:p

I was genuinely surprised when I happened across 'Beyond Good and Evil' and 'Why I am not a Christian'. When I read the aforementioned books, they clicked with me because I felt I shared some of the same frustrations with the authors, I just lacked the wordiness to express those ideas in arguments and writing, thus my athiestic standpoint stemmed from reading some philosophy books a few years ago.

I see was being unclear but don't judge me on a dialectical error, I'd like to think I'm above categorisation. I'd like to just be an athiest.

LOL seriously I can't let it go, I don't know how you can't see that your posts could be viewed in the same manner that you characterised 'most atheist you've encountered'

*wonders what happened to deltablaze*

Valmont

All you pointed out was a small indication that I was a 'rebeling' athiest. That doesn't necessarily make it so. I gave my reasons and told you how I became interested in athiesm, if you choose to ignore them in favour of an assumption, go right ahead.

My posts could be viewed in that way, just as your overt cynicism could be viewed as pompous.

lostexpectation

Valmont wrote:

All you pointed out was a small indication that I was a 'rebeling' athiest. That doesn't necessarily make it so. I gave my reasons and told you how I became interested in athiesm, if you choose to ignore them in favour of an assumption, go right ahead.

My posts could be viewed in that way, just as your overt cynicism could be viewed as pompous.

your posts could ,if one wanted to be direct, be in the pompous category too, so what does that say?

you were very close to assumption too in how you described most atheists you've encountered that have displeased you.

Im quite sure people have seen me as intellectualist, pompous and rebellious (in reference to my athieism and other things) so maybe it is intellectualism or maybe its something else aswell...

what do you think it is

Dades

I don't really think Valmont gave us enough info on his bad experiences with atheists to label him as no different than those he talks of.

"Rebellion" is subjective. Many parents would view a childs rejection of religion as an act of rebellion, even where said rejection has come from genuine feeling. Of course there is rebellion for rebellion's sake, but this doesn't seem to me to be the case with Valmont.

lostexpectation

The Atheist wrote:

I don't really think Valmont gave us enough info on his bad experiences with atheists to label him as no different than those he talks of.

"Rebellion" is subjective. Many parents would view a childs rejection of religion as an act of rebellion, even where said rejection has come from genuine feeling. Of course there is rebellion for rebellion's sake, but this doesn't seem to me to be the case with Valmont.

I don't think valmont is being rebellious

anyway he said what do we represent, well cos its so absurd that majority of people literally believe in god then in that absurd world we need seemingly equally absurd fora for athiests

Zombrex

lostexpectation wrote:

I don't think valmont is being rebellious

anyway he said what do we represent, well cos its so absurd that majority of people literally believe in god then in that absurd world we need seemingly equally absurd fora for athiests

Which is absurd ...

Valmont

lostexpectation wrote:

you were very close to assumption too in how you described most atheists you've encountered that have displeased you.

It was an assumption and slightly exaggerated. I became interested in athiesm while I was still in school and the majority of any conversation on the topic of athiesm never went further than 'God sucks...yeh...religion is, like, wrong and stuff' much to my frustration. So I assumed that they had alterior motives to their limited opinions

You can be a rebel or an intellectual and an athiest, what I meant was that some people become athiests solely for the purpose of becoming a rebel or an intellectual, a slight contradiction.

But they don't actually bother me as much as I'm making out. I'm just interested in lively discussions! I'm surprised this thread has gone on this long!:D

Pocari Sweat

Valmont wrote:

But they don't actually bother me as much as I'm making out. I'm just interested in lively discussions! I'm surprised this thread has gone on this long!:D

Well here's a bit more to drag it out. I was an athiest for as long as I could remember from a young age, 5 or 10?, but by late teens became a provisional agnostic.

I learned out of the 2 agnostics (dogmatic agnostic and provisional agnostic) it seemed dogmatic agnostics just thought, right, there is a chance of a god, but it can't be proven, right I am an agnostic.

But with the provisional agnostic route, it means weighing up all the arguments of theology and seeing what is said and weighing up all the usual stuff by athiests and then deciding right, god or no god can't be sure so at least I have listened, so - provisional agnostic.

This stance is also close humanist beliefs. There are also a lot of proper religious types, like buddists, quakers, hindus etc. But to have a dogmatic stance on anything like most of the organised religions and even atheist viewpoint, is a bit narrow minded, and the whole thing about provisional agnosticism is to be open minded.

Scofflaw

Pocari Sweat wrote:

But to have a dogmatic stance on anything like most of the organised religions and even atheist viewpoint, is a bit narrow minded, and the whole thing about provisional agnosticism is to be open minded.

You're assuming "dogmatic atheists" there. It's quite possible to be agnostic about the existence of God, but to be atheist in one's rejection of God. I reject God, but that doesn't mean he may not exist, merely that there's no evidence whatsoever for him, and an awful lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests he either doesn't exist or doesn't give a toss.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Pocari Sweat wrote:

But to have a dogmatic stance on anything like most of the organised religions and even atheist viewpoint, is a bit narrow minded, and the whole thing about provisional agnosticism is to be open minded.

You can be open minded to a point where nothing is certain.
Or for practical purposes you can draw a line and say "well this is what I believe".

As an atheist you can still be open to the possibility of your belief being shown to be wrong.

Pocari Sweat

The Atheist wrote:

You can be open minded to a point where nothing is certain.
Or for practical purposes you can draw a line and say "well this is what I believe".

As an atheist you can still be open to the possibility of your belief being shown to be wrong.

Was it socrates that said something like, .. True wisdom is knowing that we truly know nothing.

Scofflaw

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Was it socrates that said something like, .. True wisdom is knowing that we truly know nothing.

Don't know why you'd quote him. He was very wise - so presumably he knew sod-all, the ignorant fecker.


cordially,
Scofflaw

hairyheretic

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Was it socrates that said something like, .. True wisdom is knowing that we truly know nothing.

Yep, he did. I remember it from Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure

Pocari Sweat

Surely bill and ted were a bit dafter than socrates, especially quoting from a daft lad?