Pope: "Agnostics are closer to the Kingdom of God...''

Onesimus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjlk5GuaoDc

''Agnostics are closer to the Kingdom of God than believers whose life of faith is ''routine''. ''

It's true, all too often we are in danger of just falling ''in line''.

systemsready

Onesimus wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjlk5GuaoDc

''Agnostics are closer to the Kingdom of God than believers whose life of faith is ''routine''. ''

It's true, all too often we are in danger of just falling ''in line''.

That doesn't make any sense, unless the Pope is just trying to be political and 'win over' the hearts and minds of a few new converts.
Agnostics do not exercise their minds about God everyday...they exercise their minds about whether God exists or does not exist. A believer does not question the existence of God, but trusts God's guidance.
There is no comparison between them. The routine religious person is vastly different to someone who hasn't made up their minds as to whether there is a God or there isn't

lmaopml

Actually, I think he's right. There are people who have 'faith' and also practice that faith through love, they just can't help themselves, it spill over....it's 'meant' to.

Then there are people who may have very little faith or it's lukewarm and caught in a ritualistic cycle with no real over spill into the world - and they too practice their faith outwardly but it's not edifying because it only makes them feel they are in 'good standing' with God - This is OT worship. St. Paul speaks very well about it, and indeed was the perfect example of a 'radical' conversion...

Whereas the true Spirit of Catholicism is in fact, in the love of God and neighbour primarily and the 'lose' of oneself in that love for God - That's the communion, the unity because real love binds - I often think of it as the love coming down to us from God and going vertical to the community in an expression of sincere charity.

Now, an agnostic ( the type the Pope mentions, the one constantly battling or questioning or investigating ) who is driven to 'seek' out that truth about God, but finds it difficult...is at least treading the path in 'search' of God. Whereas the guy or girl who thought they were in 'good standing' with God by sitting on a chair once a week may be in for a shock.

God reads not only our actions, but he knows the 'intent' behind them too - and he judges them perfectly.

Yep, the Pope is right to my mind anyways

Brinimartini

systemsready wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense, unless the Pope is just trying to be political and 'win over' the hearts and minds of a few new converts.
Agnostics do not exercise their minds about God everyday...they exercise their minds about whether God exists or does not exist. A believer does not question the existence of God, but trusts God's guidance.
There is no comparison between them. The routine religious person is vastly different to someone who hasn't made up their minds as to whether there is a God or there isn't

Absolutely right.

Onesimus

''an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities,''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Emphasis mine.

so...

Onesimus

Onesimus wrote: »

Emphasis mine.

so...

I'll clear up some very common misconceptions about the definition and scope of agnosticism (and atheism, too).

Agnosticism is a philosophical position regarding knowledge — not belief. An agnostic is one who admits to not possessing knowledge regarding god's existence. Knowledge has a far stricter definition when spoken about in a philosophical context than it has in a colloquial context. All intellectually honest persons are agnostic regarding god's existence — nobody has knowledge regarding god's ontological standing. Because of this, describing a person as agnostic is a redundancy.

Agnosticism is not necessarily related to atheism (or theism). A person is either an atheist or a theist — it's a binary choice, an either-or situation, because you either believe or you do not believe, and deciding whether to believe or not to believe is largely beyond your conscious control. All (honest) atheists and theists are agnostics, too, because they lack knowledge of god's existence, regardless of what their belief is. You can believe (or not believe) in something without having knowledge regarding its standing in reality.

lmaopml

I'd say Onesimus, he is speaking about an Agnostic as in a 'doubter' who is engaged at some level seeking God. An 'honest' heart etc.

Not the Agnostic who couldn't give a crap one way or the other - There are gazillions of different types of Agnostics....they even find it difficult to explain what they are themselves...:pac:

I think the point he was making was relatively simple. He wasn't saying that everybody who goes to Mass is miles away from God, certainly not! He was simply calling the luke warm people to WAKE up their faith, don't let it stagnate in ritual, but to understand what the ritual is for and get up off the bum cheeks to live in a genuine Spirit.

I don't think it's a sensational piece with a target on Agnostics at all tbh - it was a call for renewal and rejuvenation and re commitment for the faithful in this the 'year of faith'.

Actually it reminds me of a piece of Scripture, the bit about the tax collectors etc. being closer to God, getting into heaven before some of the Jews who misunderstood the Spirit and purpose of the OT laws - .....It's similar I think anyway.

Doc Farrell

Very nice post gvn.

This may be redundant but having Faith is not like having a car, it's an ongoing process. Questioning ones faith is not a weakness of character, it's part of growing up, even if one is 70!

From a Christan perspective I love the stories about St Peter, doing a runner from Rome to avoid martyrdom, denying Jesus, arguing with Paul over who can join the club! If Peter can have confusions and crises then I think we all can.

Being Christian is an ongoing process, normally a battle between Hope and Ego.

Fundamentalism, the belief that you are right 100% is a dead end and has nothing to do with faith, hope or charity.

Edit: Spot on posts lmaopml.

lmaopml

True Doc - I'd say there are very many people who may consider themselves 'Agnostic' Christians at times on their path...



Now we'll confuse the Agnostics all together -


I think fundamentalism has become a 'dirty' word, mostly because of extremists - but I think the original Christian meaning of being 'fundamentally' a Christian is still very relevant also.

Doc Farrell

I'm not familiar with that definition of early fundamentalism, I'll have to look that up!

lmaopml

I mean it in the sense of our Creed. Not the political movements...but the Creed would to my mind be the most early 'fundamentals' iykwim.

philologos

systemsready wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense, unless the Pope is just trying to be political and 'win over' the hearts and minds of a few new converts.
Agnostics do not exercise their minds about God everyday...they exercise their minds about whether God exists or does not exist. A believer does not question the existence of God, but trusts God's guidance.
There is no comparison between them. The routine religious person is vastly different to someone who hasn't made up their minds as to whether there is a God or there isn't

As an agnostic I didn't spend much time exercised by the subject. I simply didn't know or care. To say that they exercise their minds about it probably isn't true of many agnostics.

Peregrinus

I don’t think the Pope should be understood as saying that all agnostics are “constantly exercised by the question of God” and are therefore close to the kingdom. Rather, he’s saying that those agnostics who are constantly exercised by the question of God are close to the kingdom.

If you read this in its context (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2011/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20110925_freiburg_en.html) the pope is offering this as a paraphrase of Mt 21:29-32, “translated into the language of the present day”. That scripture passage is a short parable of two sons, asked by their father to go and work in the vineyard. One says “yes”, but doesn’t go; the other says “no” but later repents and goes. Jesus then asks his interlocutor which of the two sons did his father’s will. The correct answer is, of course, the first son, and the message is that it is not words that matter but (in the pope’s words) “deeds; deeds of conversion and faith”. Jesus then drives home the message of the parable with a bit of plain speaking: “Truly, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the harlots believed him, and even when you saw it, you did not afterward repent and believe him”.

In the modern paraphrase, the tax collectors and the harlots become agnostics. They profess to have no belief in God, like the son who says he will not go to the vineyard. But if they are agnostic because they are searching for truth, and have not been prepared to accept unthinkingly and uncritically the claims of faith, then they are in fact more open to revelation, and more open to repentance, than those who glibly accept what they are told, but do not allow it to affect their lives - the son who says “yes”, but does not go.

systemsready

philologos wrote: »

As an agnostic I didn't spend much time exercised by the subject. I simply didn't know or care. To say that they exercise their minds about it probably isn't true of many agnostics.

Good honest post...OPs should email that to the Vatican

b318isp

As an agnostic myself, this seems to be a good statement from Rome - and recognition of sorts that there are many, many questions in making choices. If you like, agnosticism it is a search for a satisfactory equilibrium between various forms and counters of reasoning and evidence. By the Pope pointing out that the life in search for answers is better than one which is just ticking boxes, then I'm more than happy with that.

tommy2bad

The opposite of faith isn't doubt. It's certainty.
I think the pope is talking about a faith that has stagnated and become routine and as much habit as practice.
I'm not sure he's talking for the benefit of agnostics as much as for the benefit of 'repeat offenders' as it were.

mark renton

Does this thread mean I'm going to heaven?

ehcocmeo

tommy2bad wrote: »

The opposite of faith isn't doubt. It's certainty.
I think the pope is talking about a faith that has stagnated and become routine and as much habit as practice.
I'm not sure he's talking for the benefit of agnostics as much as for the benefit of 'repeat offenders' as it were.

Exactly. Nothing worse than a tepid Christian who does not practise his/her faith.

Onesimus

ehcocmeo wrote: »

Exactly. Nothing worse than a tepid Christian who does not practise his/her faith.

There is a difference though in a Christian who accepts the Faith and morals of the Church, and strives to practice them.

The Christian who is ignorant of the the complete faith and morals of the Church and has not yet fully understood them but continues to strive to understand it all and practice the virtues.

And the Christian who understands it all, knows it's the truth and yet abandons this truth and the practice of the virtues all together. Sadly, many of those in this last category seem to be Catholic theologians from Maynooth. :pac::(:o:p

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

The opposite of faith isn't doubt. It's certainty.
I think the pope is talking about a faith that has stagnated and become routine and as much habit as practice.
I'm not sure he's talking for the benefit of agnostics as much as for the benefit of 'repeat offenders' as it were.

I don't know. For example Luke writes his Gospel with the intention that Theophilus would have certainty of the things that had happened there:

Luke 1:1-4 wrote:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Peregrinus

tommy2bad wrote: »

The opposite of faith isn't doubt. It's certainty.

philologos wrote: »

I don't know. For example Luke writes his Gospel with the intention that Theophilus would have certainty of the things that had happened there:

Can I suggest that “faith” is not really a point anywhere along a certainty/uncertainty spectrum? You can have a faith which is accompanied by a high degree of certainty, or a faith accompanied by a low degree of certainty; the former faith is not necessarily “stronger” than the latter.

Faith is not really a matter of certitude; it’s a matter of trust. Honesty compels me to admit that, on any philosophical/theological/moral issue, what I believe could be wrong; questions of this kind are not susceptible of empirical demonstration. Faith is not a matter of working yourself up to a pitch where you simply dismiss, refuse to consider, the possibility that you might be mistaken in certain matters, or where you successfully persuade yourself that you cannot possibly be mistaken. Faith is the willingness to live in accordance with your beliefs; to let them shape your heart and mind and life. Faith is not so much a matter of holding certain beliefs as it is of trusting them - trusting them to the point where you live by them.

Someone who expresses - and perhaps expresses sincerely - a sure and certain belief that Jesus is the saviour of the world, for example, but doesn’t allow that belief to influence how he lives in any very profound way has great certitude, but perhaps little faith. Conversely someone with very little certitude but great hope and courage, who takes his heart in his hands and commits himself to living by the gospel despite his lack of certitude, has great faith. He puts his trust in the gospel in a way that the first guy doesn’t.

Of course, it’s easier to put your trust in the gospel if you are certain in your beliefs, so I don’t say there is no connection between certitude and faith. But they are not the same thing, and the gospels call us to faith a great deal, and to certitude hardly at all.

systemsready

Peregrinus wrote: »

Can I suggest that “faith” is not really a point anywhere along a certainty/uncertainty spectrum? You can have a faith which is accompanied by a high degree of certainty, or a faith accompanied by a low degree of certainty; the former faith is not necessarily “stronger” than the latter.

Faith is not really a matter of certitude; it’s a matter of trust. Honesty compels me to admit that, on any philosophical/theological/moral issue, what I believe could be wrong; questions of this kind are not susceptible of empirical demonstration. Faith is not a matter of working yourself up to a pitch where you simply dismiss, refuse to consider, the possibility that you might be mistaken in certain matters, or where you successfully persuade yourself that you cannot possibly be mistaken. Faith is the willingness to live in accordance with your beliefs; to let them shape your heart and mind and life. Faith is not so much a matter of holding certain beliefs as it is of trusting them - trusting them to the point where you live by them.

Someone who expresses - and perhaps expresses sincerely - a sure and certain belief that Jesus is the saviour of the world, for example, but doesn’t allow that belief to influence how he lives in any very profound way has great certitude, but perhaps little faith. Conversely someone with very little certitude but great hope and courage, who takes his heart in his hands and commits himself to living by the gospel despite his lack of certitude, has great faith. He puts his trust in the gospel in a way that the first guy doesn’t.

Of course, it’s easier to put your trust in the gospel if you are certain in your beliefs, so I don’t say there is no connection between certitude and faith. But they are not the same thing, and the gospels call us to faith a great deal, and to certitude hardly at all.

I think I meant this for Tommy...sorry Peregrinus


Sometimes when we say to someone "have faith!"..we can mean "have confidence!". (meaning it looks like a positive outcome)
So I see the connection between certainty and faith.
Someone approaching a situation with Faith/Confidence is not similar to someone approaching a situation with Doubt.
So in this case Faith and Doubt are opposites.

tommy2bad

Yeah, I didn't mean lack of commitment, theirs a degree of trust involved in having a faith.
I might doubt what I believe but that dosn't mean I doubt that God will make up for the bits I get wrong. I have to put my trust in God not my beliefs.

philologos

Peregrinus: what about Luke? It is interesting that he says certainty in the opening of his letter?

systemsready

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yeah, I didn't mean lack of commitment, theirs a degree of trust involved in having a faith.
I might doubt what I believe but that dosn't mean I doubt that God will make up for the bits I get wrong. I have to put my trust in God not my beliefs.

I think ultimately its faith in God that matters first. Once you have no doubt of the existence of God then you can deal with the scriptures and all the complexities therein without any worries.
First foundation is belief in God Almighty..the God that Abraham worshiped.
After that you can remove all atheistic notions that creep in through the stealth of Satan.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

Peregrinus: what about Luke? It is interesting that he says certainty in the opening of his letter?

Hi Philologos

It’s an excellent question.

I don’t think that Luke’s purpose in writing the gospel was to prove the truth of theological claims about Jesus. That wouldn’t make any sense. I could tell you that whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it, or that whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses it will save it. You might or might not believe these things, but I don’t see that you are any more likely to believe them if I write them down, as opposed to merely saying them. In that sense, Luke’s writing of his gospel does nothing at all to demonstrate the that the teachings recorded in it are certainly true

I think what’s going on is this. The task of “theologizing” about Jesus is already well in hand. For quite some time now Paul has been writing letters hither and yon setting out a very full and very sophisticated theology of the significance of Jesus of Nazareth, and in particular of his death and resurrection. And, if we accept the tradition that Luke is a close associate of Paul, Luke must certainly know this, and be very familiar with what Paul has been teaching. There isn’t any need, therefore, for Luke to explain Jesus.

But a much more fundamental need is emerging. Early expectations of an imminent parousia have not been borne out, and the community is now grappling with the fact that the first generation of Christians, who include those who were followers of Jesus during his ministry (“eyewitnesses from the beginning”) is dying off. Luke, and indeed lots of others (“many among us”) realize the importance of capturing and preserving the testimony of those “eyewitnesses from the beginning” because, if that is not done, the memory of who Jesus was, what he did and what he taught will be lost. And Paul’s letters, and all other explanations of the significance of Jesus, will become irrelevant if nobody knows what it is that he is explaining.

Luke himself is not an eyewitness - neither is Paul, for that matter - but he has access to eyewitnesses in the community, and also to some of the texts that others have created to try and capture the memory of Jesus (including the Gospel of Mark). So, “after investigating everything accurately anew”, Luke compiles his “narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us” - his gospel.

Theophilus wouldn’t care about any of this unless he already accepted the importance of who Jesus was, and what he did, and what he taught. Theophilus is already a person of faith (as, perhaps, his name rather pointedly indicates).

So I think the “certainty” that Luke’s gospel seeks to offer is certainty about what Jesus said, and did, and taught, rather than certainty that what Jesus taught was true.

Now, having said all that, I’m pretty sure that Luke would have had no objection at all to believers developing strong convictions about what Jesus said and did, and what it all meant. He has no objection to conviction, and no doubt is happy to foster and encourage it.

My point is that when the gospels call us to “faith”, that’s not quite the same thing, and people who don’t enjoy a strong and comforting conviction about everything that is offered to them as Christian teaching needn’t beat themselves up for having a weak faith . There’s no doubt that certainty can be a support to faith, but ultimately it’s not itself faith. Faith calls you to trust in the gospel, not to be certain of it.

Gumbi

systemsready wrote: »

I think ultimately its faith in God that matters first. Once you have no doubt of the existence of God then you can deal with the scriptures and all the complexities therein without any worries.
First foundation is belief in God Almighty..the God that Abraham worshiped.
After that you can remove all atheistic notions that creep in through the stealth of Satan.

How can I do that with out being disingenuous. Faith is intellectually dishonest. Assuming the truth without any good reason is setting myself up for disappointment.

And to describe disagreement with your belief as something Satanic is kind of insulting, as if I amn't capable of applying my own cognitive ability to decipher that which false from that which is true.

systemsready

Gumbi wrote: »

How can I do that with out being disingenuous. Faith is intellectually dishonest. Assuming the truth without any good reason is setting myself up for disappointment.

And to describe disagreement with your belief as something Satanic is kind of insulting, as if I amn't capable of applying my own cognitive ability to decipher that which false from that which is true.

But using cognitive ability will cause you to decide that there is no other option than that the universe was purposefully Created.
Calling something Satanic is not meant to be insulting, its more of a warning that what you are doing will ultimately hurt you.
For example not washing ones hands after the toilet would fall under the description of a Satanic act as it could contribute to the spread of disease among others.
You are not insulting someone if you tell him that he needs to wash his hands.

Gumbi

systemsready wrote: »

But using cognitive ability will cause you to decide that there is no other option than that the universe was purposefully Created.
Calling something Satanic is not meant to be insulting, its more of a warning that what you are doing will ultimately hurt you.
For example not washing ones hands after the toilet would fall under the description of a Satanic act as it could contribute to the spread of disease among others.
You are not insulting someone if you tell him that he needs to wash his hands.

Even if I take some deistic position on the universe's origin, it has no bearing in my trusting in faith etc

So anything that may cause potential harm to others is of Satan? Even if unintentional?

tommy2bad

Gumbi wrote: »

How can I do that with out being disingenuous. Faith is intellectually dishonest. Assuming the truth without any good reason is setting myself up for disappointment.

And to describe disagreement with your belief as something Satanic is kind of insulting, as if I amn't capable of applying my own cognitive ability to decipher that which false from that which is true.

Expand on that please. I don't see any dishonesty in faith, I'm not fooling myself or anyone else as long as I know that it is faith not fact.

systemsready

Gumbi wrote: »

Even if I take some deistic position on the universe's origin, it has no bearing in my trusting in faith etc

So anything that may cause potential harm to others is of Satan? Even if unintentional?

If you take a deistic position on creation...then everything else in your life must also be affected in some way by this.

Of course, unintentional means you made a mistake , and if the mistake was unintentional..it must have been based on ignorance...and ignorance is satanic.

War Famine Ignorance Want

systemsready

tommy2bad wrote: »

Expand on that please. I don't see any dishonesty in faith, I'm not fooling myself or anyone else as long as I know that it is faith not fact.

How can you have faith in fiction?

Gumbi

It depends on how you're defining faith. I simply cannot bring myself to believe in something until there is sufficient evidence to justify such a belief. This view is compounded as claims become every more extraordinary and as they (if they even do so) affect me. It is intellectually dishonest to trust in something without some solid, prior basis to do so.

systemsready

Gumbi wrote: »

It depends on how you're defining faith. I simply cannot bring myself to believe in something until there is sufficient evidence to justify such a belief. This view is compounded as claims become every more extraordinary and as they (if they even do so) affect me. It is intellectually dishonest to trust in something without some solid, prior basis to do so.

So do you believe that God divided the sea for Moses? because there is no scientific 'evidence' for that. Do you believe God created Adam and Eve? cos there is none for that either. Do you believe God made the Earth and the Sun because we have no 'evidence' for that.

But you say you have a faith? and faith is belief...so please explain what it is you do believe in..and what evidence do you have to support it?

Curly Judge

tommy2bad wrote: »

Expand on that please. I don't see any dishonesty in faith, I'm not fooling myself or anyone else as long as I know that it is faith not fact.

As an "atheist" I find your statement very honest and disarming.
Who am I to try to dissuade you or undermine a set of beliefs which bring you comfort and peace.
My reason for putting the word atheist above in inverted commas is to signal that although I do not believe in a personal god, or any other kind of god for that matter, I cannot, in strict conscience, call myself an atheist.
Why...?
The key word above is believe
I do not believe that god exists but I cannot know that he does not exist.
In the deepest realms of science and philosophy, [I am told,and am happy to accept] you cannot know anything. You can believe anything but you canot know it. Stating that you know something automatically indicates that you don't possess the intellect to know it in the first place, [ if you know what I mean;)]
So... therefore I should really call myself an agnostic. Even though I am really an atheist ["atheist"]
Perhaps we should have a Maynooth for atheists?

systemsready

Curly Judge wrote: »

As an "atheist" I find your statement very honest and disarming.
Who am I to try to dissuade you or undermine a set of beliefs which bring you comfort and peace.
My reason for putting the word atheist above in inverted commas is to signal that although I do not believe in a personal god, or any other kind of god for that matter, I cannot, in strict conscience, call myself an atheist.
Why...?
The key word above is believe
I do not believe that god exists but I cannot know that he does not exist.
In the deepest realms of science and philosophy, [I am told,and am happy to accept] you cannot know anything. You can believe anything but you canot know it. Stating that you know something automatically indicates that you don't possess the intellect to know it in the first place, [ if you know what I mean;)]
So... therefore I should really call myself an agnostic. Even though I am really an atheist ["atheist"]
Perhaps we should have a Maynooth for atheists?

'Confused' is the very word to describe the condition you are in.
A Maynooth for atheists would indeed be a hellish bedlam.

It all boils down to 2 options. There is God, or there isn't God. For me there is ample evidence to satisfy me that there is God. Now if the evidence (for me) is sufficient that God exists, and (for me) I find it incredible that God does not exist. Therefore I jettison any notions that imply the non-existence of God. Everytime the concept arises..I dump it..simply because it does not agree with my fundamental 'knowledge ' that God exists.
I will only entertain concepts that acknowledge the existence of God as its base.
This is the key to recognising truth from fiction.
Alternatively, atheists use the same method for their decision. If you notice them, anytime the name of God is mentioned..they completely disregard it as being possible.
Just use the same method in reverse and you will see how the confusion will clear.

systemsready

Curly Judge wrote: »

Who am I to try to dissuade you or undermine a set of beliefs which bring you comfort and peace.
]

A bit condescending there ?

Gumbi

systemsready wrote: »

So do you believe that God divided the sea for Moses? because there is no scientific 'evidence' for that. Do you believe God created Adam and Eve? cos there is none for that either. Do you believe God made the Earth and the Sun because we have no 'evidence' for that.

But you say you have a faith? and faith is belief...so please explain what it is you do believe in..and what evidence do you have to support it?

No I don't. I think there's evidence to suggest that natural causes brought the sun and the earth into existence - do some research.

I don't know why you think I have "a faith". And I don't think faith is a belief...

Curly Judge

systemsready wrote: »

'Confused' is the very word to describe the condition you are in.
A Maynooth for atheists would indeed be a hellish bedlam.

It all boils down to 2 options. There is God, or there isn't God. For me there is ample evidence to satisfy me that there is God. Now if the evidence (for me) is sufficient that God exists, and (for me) I find it incredible that God does not exist. Therefore I jettison any notions that imply the non-existence of God. Everytime the concept arises..I dump it..simply because it does not agree with my fundamental 'knowledge ' that God exists.
I will only entertain concepts that acknowledge the existence of God as its base.
This is the key to recognising truth from fiction.
Alternatively, atheists use the same method for their decision. If you notice them, anytime the name of God is mentioned..they completely disregard it as being possible.
Just use the same method in reverse and you will see how the confusion will clear.

I think you missed the whole point of my post!

Curly Judge

systemsready wrote: »

A bit condescending there ?

I genuinely didn't mean it to be condescending or patronizing.
Hope tommy2bad didn't think so.
What you think doesn't worry me too much.

systemsready

Gumbi wrote: »

No I don't. I think there's evidence to suggest that natural causes brought the sun and the earth into existence - do some research.

I don't know why you think I have "a faith". And I don't think faith is a belief...

What?

systemsready

Curly Judge wrote: »

I genuinely didn't mean it to be condescending or patronizing.
Hope tommy2bad didn't think so.
What you think doesn't worry me too much.

Likewise

mark renton

tommy2bad wrote: »

The opposite of faith isn't doubt. It's certainty.

The oposite of faith isnt certainty, its scepticism

Curly Judge

john47832 wrote: »

The oposite of faith isnt certainty, its scepticism

Or.. just to be superpicky about it

disbelief, distrust, doubt, misgiving, suspicion.

mark renton

Curly Judge wrote: »

Or.. just to be superpicky about it

disbelief, distrust, doubt, misgiving, suspicion.

Incorrect. Opposite of disbelief is belief, distrust is trust, doubt is certainty, suspicion is unsuspicious(may not actually be real word)

Any more clarity required I'll be here all day...

tommy2bad

Curly Judge wrote: »

I genuinely didn't mean it to be condescending or patronizing.
Hope tommy2bad didn't think so.
What you think doesn't worry me too much.

If people think someone believes to comfort themselves they are wrong.
Theirs very little comfort in the challenge belief presents.
Oh by the way you can call yourself an atheist without shame or equivocation, it's an honest statement of what you believe and as such doesn't need to be qualified by any 'on the other hand..'

john47832;
The oposite of faith isnt certainty, its scepticism

The opposite to faith may be literalism. :rolleyes:

systemsready

tommy2bad wrote: »

If people think someone believes to comfort themselves they are wrong.
Theirs very little comfort in the challenge belief presents.

Amen to that

systemsready

john47832 wrote: »

Incorrect. Opposite of disbelief is belief, distrust is trust, doubt is certainty, suspicion is unsuspicious(may not actually be real word)

Any more clarity required I'll be here all day...

Good man,hang around there, we may need a bit more of the same before this day is out

mark renton

tommy2bad wrote: »

The opposite to faith may be literalism. :rolleyes:

What can I say I'm a computer scientist. To me the pope said what he meant, why do we have eighteen different versions of interpretation on this thread?

philologos

Curly Judge wrote: »

Perhaps we should have a Maynooth for atheists?

Unless Maynooth has radically changed since 2011, I can tell you that there were many atheists there when I was studying there, in addition to an array of other groupings, Muslims, evangelical Christians and other Protestants, Mormons (there was at least one studying theology during my time), Hindus, "just spiritual" types, agnostics and so on. It looks a lot like what you'd expect of a university campus.

The idea that Maynooth is a homogenously Roman Catholic campus is a little off. Unless you're referring to just St Patricks College rather than the whole NUIM campus.

Peregrinus

john47832 wrote: »

The oposite of faith isnt certainty, its scepticism

Plainly not, since you can have faith in scepticism.