NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a difference between having certain beliefs, and being closed minded. For example, I avoid religious topics like the plague...and regret every single one I've been drawn into. Why? Because neither I, nor those who believe in God are going to change their minds. Yes, I'm closed minded on that. Just like those who believe there is a God. Is this a negative thing? I mean...really. If I wanted to be Agnostic and 'open minded to a higher power', then shouldn't religious people be more Agnostic themselves, and less sure of the existance of a higher power? No. Not really.

I try to avoid topics about the US...but that's harder, seeing as how this forum is very US-centric (in both positive and negative ways). Still, I avoid these less than the religious topics, because at least there are some facts that can be analysed and debated. But we all know how hard it is to talk about ANY country without someone getting offended and making wild assumptions about your position. A lot of my 'beliefs about the US' are creations in the minds of others. Actually, my beliefs about a lot of things are stated by others as belonging to me, rather than actually being beliefs I hold.

But rather than deal with those, one piece at a time (as I might miss them anyway, or they simply have nothing to do with the thread topic), I figured that those of you who think I'm so god-awful closed minded, can come and actually find out what I think about certain issues...rather than make assumptions.

What is it, exactly, that you think I'm so closed minded about? Bring it up, and let's discuss it. Because I'm a bit tired of some of you presuming to know me better than I know myself.

Well we all know you hate the US. ;)

A closed mind is a tidy mind.

The problem is that if you're too open-minded your brain will fall out! :eek:

Well we all know you hate the US. ;)
Apparently so. It's amazing how disagreeing with certain policies can honestly be thought in some people's mind, to be outright hatred.

The accusation of being 'closed minded' strikes me as incredibly hypocritical...considering the fact that there are certain things we are all immovable on. However, I dislike having people tell me what things I am immovable on based on a single statement...or even series of statements. I think it's a convenient way to dismiss someone, and make oneself feel more 'open minded', in a very false way.

The problem is that if you're too open-minded your brain will fall out! :eek:
Kehehehehe...Ah, but calling someone 'closed minded' automatically creates the assumption that they are judgemental about everything, and never consider opposing points of view. All without ever actually having to prove that spurious accusation.

For example:
Oh, I suppose I could be considered very closed minded on, say, the topic of sexual freedom. Because I won't budge on the idea that consenting adults should be able to engage in whatever (non-maiming, or life-threatening, and non-cannibalistic:)) activities they want. Others disagree, and attach their own morality to the sex lives of others...but somehow I'm the closed minded one? Interesting slant.

What makes you think anyone really gives a flying fuck?

Some of us dont care what you think-or dont think. We're just interested in your flesh.


How was you're holiday? *Licking her neck and ear as he boots this self-serving thread to the sewer*

Maybe you are closed-minded about other people having negative uneducated opinions about you? :p

I can't recall your being closed minded about anything, other than perhaps the US, but that's to be expected of Canadians. :D

What makes you think anyone really gives a flying fuck?

Some of us dont care what you think-or dont think. We're just interested in your flesh.


How was you're holiday? *Licking her neck and ear as he boots this self-serving thread to the sewer*
It was good-ish...my husband and I were a bit upset at the ridiculous amount of gifts our girls got. Sickened actually...I managed to get my family to cut down the number of gifts, but his family went insane. We promptly bagged up the vast majority of gifts to take to Cuba in January. They are almost 2 and 4 respectively....they don't actually need (and I kid you not) 35 presents between them.

I can't recall your being closed minded about anything, other than perhaps the US, but that's to be expected of Canadians. :D
But be serious for a moment Eut...saying I'm closed minded about the US is an awfully general statement. I've had my mind changed about a lot of US issues, mostly here on NS where I interact more with USians (hehehehe) more than I ever have in real life.

And no, I do not consider all opinions and points of view to be equally valid. Most people don't. How horribly closed minded of me.

But be serious for a moment Eut...saying I'm closed minded about the US is an awfully general statement. I've had my mind changed about a lot of US issues, mostly here on NS where I interact more with USians (hehehehe) more than I ever have in real life.


Well you must be closed minded if you don't agree with everything I say. If you had an open mind you would see that I am always right about everything because your personal judgments wouldn't be stopping you from seeing the reality of the situation.

You hate freedom!

But be serious for a moment Eut...saying I'm closed minded about the US is an awfully general statement. I've had my mind changed about a lot of US issues, mostly here on NS where I interact more with USians (hehehehe) more than I ever have in real life.
Oh GROAN! :headbang:

Hey ... If you're going to Cuba, do me a big favor and pick me up some mild Cuban cigars! I'll pay all the cost of buying and shipping them, besides which I'll love ya for life! Please, please, please! [ nuzzles Sinuhue's neck ] :D

It was good-ish...my husband and I were a bit upset at the ridiculous amount of gifts our girls got. Sickened actually...I managed to get my family to cut down the number of gifts, but his family went insane. We promptly bagged up the vast majority of gifts to take to Cuba in January. They are almost 2 and 4 respectively....they don't actually need (and I kid you not) 35 presents between them.


Glad to hear it.

As far as the gift-thing. I have two brothers and they are both married. A few years ago, I agreed with them that we will no longer exchange gifts. Now, they each give my children a check towards their stock purchases. My older kids are aware of it and seem to appreciate it-they'll have something substantial in the future instead of broken plastic junk.

You-closed minded? I think you often take an adversarial position on many discussions, but I have seen you change your mind on a few matters.
I'm more closed minded than you-by a long shot.

What the hell brought this up?

Well you must be closed minded if you don't agree with everything I say. If you had an open mind you would see that I am always right about everything because your personal judgments wouldn't be stopping you from seeing the reality of the situation.
Kehehhehehe...

I'm only submissive in the bedroom, Sumamba. There I'll tell you you're right all you want:)

Oh GROAN! :headbang:

Hey ... If you're going to Cuba, do me a big favor and pick me up some mild Cuban cigars! I'll pay all the cost of buying and shipping them, besides which I'll love ya for life! Please, please, please! [ nuzzles Sinuhue's neck ] :D


The Cubans they sell to tourists are still green,Eutrusca-you dont want them.

You want a high quality mild cigar, buy some Macanudos. They are still way better than most others and their wrappers are grown in the US!

You hate freedom!
The freedom of what? SO VAGUE! The freedom of mice to run around in my house unmurdered by me? YES! The freedom of people's dogs to shit on my lawn? YES! But I can't go through every single type of freedom and say yea or nay...

Kehehhehehe...

I'm only submissive in the bedroom, Sumamba. There I'll tell you you're right all you want:)


Yeah-yeah. You're all submissive at some point. Bedroom, or not.

Oh GROAN! :headbang:

Hey ... If you're going to Cuba, do me a big favor and pick me up some mild Cuban cigars! I'll pay all the cost of buying and shipping them, besides which I'll love ya for life! Please, please, please! [ nuzzles Sinuhue's neck ] :D
If you're serious about that, we could certainly arrange it...no nuzzling necessary. However...are there legal ramifications to shipping Cuban contraband to a US citizen?

The Cubans they sell to tourists are still green,Eutrusca-you dont want them.

You want a high quality mild cigar, buy some Macanudos. They are still way better than most others and their wrappers are grown in the US!
That's what I smoke now, when I smoke cigars. Good choice. Thanks.

Kehehhehehe...

I'm only submissive in the bedroom, Sumamba. There I'll tell you you're right all you want:)


rawr!

:fluffle:

If you're serious about that, we could certainly arrange it...no nuzzling necessary. However...are there legal ramifications to shipping Cuban contraband to a US citizen?
Damned embargo! When is enough enough, for crying out loud! SIGH! :(

If you're serious about that, we could certainly arrange it...no nuzzling necessary. However...are there legal ramifications to shipping Cuban contraband to a US citizen?


He could get in trouble upon acceptance.

Hmmm maybe if I tell on you I can get you extradited to Las Vegas :cool:

Glad to hear it.

As far as the gift-thing. I have two brothers and they are both married. A few years ago, I agreed with them that we will no longer exchange gifts. Now, they each give my children a check towards their stock purchases. My older kids are aware of it and seem to appreciate it-they'll have something substantial in the future instead of broken plastic junk. I'd even be fine with no money exchanged...you know what we'd appreciate more is little homemade gifts, or consumables in place of these expensive toys if they really feel like they want to give us something. It's just that I see my nieces and nephews get SO much on Christmas, and be totally unsatisfied with everything...to the point where they demand to be taken shopping the very next day to get more toys. It's not their fault...and though their parents mean well, it's really their responsibility to help their kids learn to value things more by not overspoiling them. But I feel as though that power is being taken from us when our family overgifts our kids. It's so touchy...again, because people mean well, they really do. It's just a conflict in values...and we'll have to work on it very delicately.

You-closed minded? I think you often take an adversarial position on many discussions, but I have seen you change your mind on a few matters.
I'm more closed minded than you-by a long shot.

What the hell brought this up? Oh, some recent accusations by certain posters...that I'm one of the most judgemental posters on NS, and one of the most closed minded Candiand Leftists(changed to hard-headed, which I'll accept) and so on. The problem with such claims is that they involve a value judgement (most) that is subjective, not objective, and that such claims, being opinions, don't really need to be proven.

He could get in trouble upon acceptance.
Ugh. Well, Eut...I'd rather not then:( I think that the embargo just makes products that might not actually be stellar seem tantalising...eat some good swiss chocolate instead:)

Oh, some recent accusations by certain posters...that I'm one of the most judgemental posters on NS, and one of the most closed minded Candiand Leftists and so on. The problem with such claims is that they involve a value judgement (most) that is subjective, not objective, and that such claims, being opinions, don't really need to be proven.

You really need to take things from where they come. Do you truly care what this particular person thinks of you? Do you really care about the opinions held by the people that would take this person seriously?

There are very few people who have opinions of me that I am concerned about. The rest are so insignificant to me, its not worth discussing.

Dont care so much. Unless you doubt yourself and are struggling with it. then-Dont look for/crave acceptance on the fucking internet.

Ugh. Well, Eut...I'd rather not then:( I think that the embargo just makes products that might not actually be stellar seem tantalising...eat some good swiss chocolate instead:)

Sin- you have cuban cigars available in Canada. You dont need to carry them home from Cuba. They are already in any quality smoke shop in your country.

Its just that Eutrusca will have to visit you and smoke them there. Does your igloo have windows that open?

i believe that unwillingness to stand up for your beliefs (in arguments, you dont have to force them down other peoples throats, or kill them if they dont agree) is closed mindedness. if you willing to have an argument about it (well a debate, no just IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG...no a serious debate about the facts using deductive reasoning) then your good, but if your not, your belief is poorly founded because you cannot articulate why it is true or why it has value

You really need to take things from where they come. Do you truly care what this particular person thinks of you? Do you really care about the opinions held by the people that would take this person seriously? To say I don't care at all would be a lie. Because I think most people care what people say about them to some extent, though of course the source is going to affect to what degree you care. Yes, it bothers me when people say nasty things to me, even when I know they aren't true. It would not have nearly the affect of someone close to me saying the same thing, but still.

There are very few people who have opinions of me that I am concerned about. The rest are so insignificant to me, its not worth discussing. Well, I suppose it's that time of the month, making me more sensitive than usual:)

Dont care so much. Unless you doubt yourself and are struggling with it. then-Dont look for/crave acceptance on the fucking internet.Na, it's not about acceptance. Which is pointless to look for on the internet or in real life. Either you get it or you don't. But what I dispute is the validity of such claims...you see, I've seen too many people get labelled as something, simply because they didn't bother to dispute it. Yes, yes, I know, that shouldn't matter...and in the grande scheme of things, it doesn't. But to me it's kind of like someone in a bar parking lot saying, "Hey, I heard you fuck goats" and you going..."Oh yeah? *smack!*" Ah, I've never been good at letting things go. I'm working on it:)

Sin- you have cuban cigars available in Canada. You dont need to carry them home from Cuba. They are already in any quality smoke shop in your country. Oh, I know. Just like we have Chilean wine...but over here it tastes like crap, and in Chile, it's devine. I thought that this might be true as well with cigars...having smoked very few, I'm not really one to tell the difference.

Its just that Eutrusca will have to visit you and smoke them there. Does your igloo have windows that open?
Wrong type of Indian. It'd be tipi if you wanted to be silly:)

your belief is poorly founded because you cannot articulate why it is true or why it has value
I agree. If you can't explain (and that means people have to LET you explain, not just jump down YOUR throat) why you believe something, then perhaps you don't believe in it as much as you thought. Like my dad who thought he was a Conservative...and then found out he actually believed the polar opposite of what the Conservatives were pushing (in Alberta). But before he came to that realisation, challenging his conservatism was akin to challenging him personally...because he could not separate his beliefs (which were not really thought out and understood clearly by him) from himself.

I agree. If you can't explain (and that means people have to LET you explain, not just jump down YOUR throat) why you believe something, then perhaps you don't believe in it as much as you thought. Like my dad who thought he was a Conservative...and then found out he actually believed the polar opposite of what the Conservatives were pushing (in Alberta). But before he came to that realisation, challenging his conservatism was akin to challenging him personally...because he could not separate his beliefs (which were not really thought out and understood clearly by him) from himself.
exact same thing happened with my mother (in ontario), she was an old school saskatchewan ndper, and still voted for her, even though she was actually conservative by nature (im not), so one day i sat her down, told her what layton and hamilton push (using their own words quotes etc.), then just connected some of her beliefs to the cons...i think she was just confused after all these years (my father was an NPD MLA for the yukon...what can i say).
id agree though, its when your beliefs are...more emotional than logical that you have contradictions

This thread is Sinuhue centered. I shun those like the plague.

Wait...

Oh GROAN! :headbang:

Hey ... If you're going to Cuba, do me a big favor and pick me up some mild Cuban cigars! I'll pay all the cost of buying and shipping them, besides which I'll love ya for life! Please, please, please! [ nuzzles Sinuhue's neck ] :D

Don't bother. They are not as good as they used to be. Many of the guys who worked on them moved to the other islands as they could make more money. A buddy smuggled a bunch in for me and they were pretty bad......

The Cubans they sell to tourists are still green,Eutrusca-you dont want them.

You want a high quality mild cigar, buy some Macanudos. They are still way better than most others and their wrappers are grown in the US!

Exactamundo! Excellent suggestion! Never been disappointed with them.....

The freedom of what? SO VAGUE! The freedom of mice to run around in my house unmurdered by me? YES! The freedom of people's dogs to shit on my lawn? YES! But I can't go through every single type of freedom and say yea or nay...
Won't somebody please think of the mice?!

This thread is Sinuhue centered. I shun those like the plague.

Wait...
Ha!

Won't somebody please think of the mice?!
Oh, I think of them constantly. And the various ways I can deprive them of life!

Sinuhue, there is a TG for you.

*As for the rest of you, well - go fuck yourselves in perpetuity. I'm through with you.

Ha!

A-ha!

As an agnostic, I would like to point out that Sinuhue's portrayal of an agnostic as being religiously open is untrue.

I am an agnostic, and I am completely close minded to religion. Like most agnostics (I surmise), I dismiss most, if not all religious arguments off-hand.

But I'm with you, Sinuhue, I consider myself to be open-minded, but I admit being extremely close-minded on some issues.

EDIT: Actually I'm not with you on the part about people making assumptions or asking me about my beliefs. I would rather people assume, I find satisfaction in proving people wrong.

Oh, I think of them constantly. And the various ways I can deprive them of life!

Mice are fun! Ok, except when they try to bite you. But I probaby deserved it, I was piercing her ear and cutting off the end of her tail. I'd probably bite someone for that too.

Killing them? Not so much fun, but at least I don't have to see them while they die.

As an agnostic, I would like to point out that Sinuhue's portrayal of an agnostic as being religiously open is untrue.

I am an agnostic, and I am completely close minded to religion. Like most agnostics (I surmise), I dismiss most, if not all religious arguments off-hand. Sorry about that...it's not really something I understand any more than I understand religious folks:)

As an agnostic, I would like to point out that Sinuhue's portrayal of an agnostic as being religiously open is untrue.

I am an agnostic, and I am completely close minded to religion. Like most agnostics (I surmise), I dismiss most, if not all religious arguments off-hand.

But I'm with you on everything else, Sinuhue, I consider myself to be open-minded, but I admit being extremely close-minded on some issues.

I find that most people in a religious discussion are close-minded. I find this to be really, well, disappointing. What is the point of discussion if people aren't actually going to, you know, think about the discussion? Actual atheist v. theist v. agnostic debates are pretty useless - the beginning axioms can never be agreed upon. But if you take one or the other viewpoint as true, you can have some very interesting discussions - so long as you are open to different ideas. It's really very sad that so many people can't do it. =(

Sorry about that...it's not really something I understand any more than I understand religious folks:)

It is my belief that all discussion of religion cannot be bound by rationality and therefore should be dismissed. Due to its spiritual nature, it would be impossible to prove a religious belief wrong or prove it true, so I approach all as being invalid.

It is the reason that, like you said, no one ever changes their mind in a religious debate. Religious discussions, by their very nature, are irrational, and so I avoid them altogether.

I find that most people in a religious discussion are close-minded. I find this to be really, well, disappointing. What is the point of discussion if people aren't actually going to, you know, think about the discussion? Actual atheist v. theist v. agnostic debates are pretty useless - the beginning axioms can never be agreed upon. But if you take one or the other viewpoint as true, you can have some very interesting discussions - so long as you are open to different ideas. It's really very sad that so many people can't do it. =(

its because that beginning axioms are different that debates are often failures for religious subject, the key is to debate the axioms, go over their validity, because thats all you really can do....
or if your just looking to debate for some fun, maybe accept their axioms, and from that point try to prove their logic wrong, at least on some subject...

I find that most people in a religious discussion are close-minded.

Agreed, for prior stated reasons.

I find this to be really, well, disappointing.

I find it to be expected and necessary. Faith requires one to be close-minded.

What is the point of discussion if people aren't actually going to, you know, think about the discussion? Actual atheist v. theist v. agnostic debates are pretty useless - the beginning axioms can never be agreed upon. But if you take one or the other viewpoint as true, you can have some very interesting discussions - so long as you are open to different ideas. It's really very sad that so many people can't do it. =(

All religious discussions, whether the participants are open or not, are largely pointless.

All religious discussions, whether the participants are open or not, are largely pointless.
Not if someone actually finds God as a result of the discussion. :)

Not if someone actually finds God as a result of the discussion. :)
Or someone rejects God as a result?

Or someone rejects God as a result?

Meh!

There has only been one Christian. They caught him and crucified him--early.
-- Mark Twain

;)

I am an agnostic, and I am completely close minded to religion.

Agnostic is a non-comital position, skeptical of the existance of god- often one which says its impossible to determine if there is a god or not. An atheist is one who does not belive in the existance of a god or gods, more specifically, belives in the non-existance of such, denies thier existance in the eyes of the bible-thumpers. :)

I suppose one could take either position and be closed-minded about it... but it seems that its usually the Atheists who are labeled as closed minded. I think we just make evangelicals that much angrier. :)

Agnostic is a non-comital position, skeptical of the existance of god- often one which says its impossible to determine if there is a god or not.

My views are not non-committal, I am firmly committed to the belief that the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable. I am firmly committed to the belief that any religious belief (atheism included) is irrational, and therefore invalid.

its because that beginning axioms are different that debates are often failures for religious subject, the key is to debate the axioms, go over their validity, because thats all you really can do....
or if your just looking to debate for some fun, maybe accept their axioms, and from that point try to prove their logic wrong, at least on some subject...

The problem is that, much like with certain mathematical axioms, there is no way to determine the "validity" of some of the axioms involved in religious discussions - the main ones being either, "There is a deity/set of deities," or "There is no deity at all." You can't really debate these things, because most deities, by definition, exist in the supernatural. Thus, no empirical evidence can be put forth either way. The best both people have is their own personal experiences - and neither can "prove" personal experience to the other.


I find it to be expected and necessary. Faith requires one to be close-minded.


Incorrect. One cannot truly have faith without questioning it and questioning requires open-mindedness.


All religious discussions, whether the participants are open or not, are largely pointless.

One who has dismissed religion would certainly think so. One who has not might find them very important. One who cares not about the "truth", but finds religion interesting from a sociological point of view would not find it pointless either.

My views are not non-committal, I am firmly committed to the belief that the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable. I am firmly committed to the belief that any religious belief (atheism included) is irrational, and therefore invalid.
That doesn't exactly sound like the same sort of agnosticsm as most agnostics describe it. In fact, many have taken great pains to describe their beliefs as 'believing in a higher power, but not giving it a particular name, and not ascribing to particular religious beliefs' rather than firmly not believing one way or the other. And you've described atheism as a religious belief, which I don't consider it to be. Damn it! I've just spent an entire paragraph on religion, which is something I said I wouldn't do!!!!

That doesn't exactly sound like the same sort of agnosticsm as most agnostics describe it. In fact, many have taken great pains to describe their beliefs as 'believing in a higher power, but not giving it a particular name, and not ascribing to particular religious beliefs' rather than firmly not believing one way or the other. And you've described atheism as a religious belief, which I don't consider it to be. Damn it! I've just spent an entire paragraph on religion, which is something I said I wouldn't do!!!!

[peer pressure] But all the kids are doing it! You don't want to get left out, do you? [/peer pressure] =)

[peer pressure] But all the kids are doing it! You don't want to get left out, do you? [/peer pressure] =)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...okay.

Seriously...I've heard people call atheism a religious belief before and it always confounds me. I don't mean this following bit to be insulting, but I compare the argument that you can't prove their ISN'T a God to telling someone that they can't prove that little faeries don't live in their garden. You're right. They can't. But that doesn't make the idea of them any less preposterous...and it certainly doesn't make the lack of belief in them a religious belief (if faery worship is the in religion of the time).

Incorrect. One cannot truly have faith without questioning it and questioning requires open-mindedness.

I would say it is just the opposite, one cannot have faith while truly questioning their beliefs. Faith is based on irrational principles, and to take a cynical viewpoint of faith would effectively destroy it.

One who has dismissed religion would certainly think so. One who has not might find them very important. One who cares not about the "truth", but finds religion interesting from a sociological point of view would not find it pointless either.

I am not talking about personal importance. I think my PS2 is pretty important, but it would be a stretch to say that my videogaming is not pointless.

And by religious discussions, I am not referring to empirical discussions on the effects of religion on society.

My views are not non-committal, I am firmly committed to the belief that the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable. I am firmly committed to the belief that any religious belief (atheism included) is irrational, and therefore invalid.

I'd think it would be more popular to accept the idea that there is a God and reject any organized religon. Religous groups have all been watered down and doctrines are different since they were origionally so who knows what Christ said or meant when human influence change things over the millenia?

That doesn't exactly sound like the same sort of agnosticsm as most agnostics describe it. In fact, many have taken great pains to describe their beliefs as 'believing in a higher power, but not giving it a particular name, and not ascribing to particular religious beliefs' rather than firmly not believing one way or the other. And you've described atheism as a religious belief, which I don't consider it to be. Damn it! I've just spent an entire paragraph on religion, which is something I said I wouldn't do!!!!

What would you call that belief, I don't think it is agnosticism. Agnosticism, by my definition, at least, is the belief that the existence of a god or spiritual force is unknowable and incomprehensible to the human mind.

What your friends are proclaiming is a theistic view that is incompatible with agnosticism.

I'd think it would be more popular to accept the idea that there is a God and reject any organized religon. Religous groups have all been watered down and doctrines are different since they were origionally so who knows what Christ said or meant when human influence change things over the millenia?

Religion was never valid.

It doesn't matter how religion has changed over the course of time, because people have never been able to comprehend the work of a creator, so all opinions, no matter when they were formulated, are equally valid and invalid.

What would you call that belief, I don't think it is agnosticism. Agnosticism, by my definition, at least, is the belief that the existence of a god or spiritual force is unknowable and incomprehensible to the human mind.

What your friends are proclaiming is a theistic view that is incompatible with agnosticism.
Whoa now...I never claimed they were my friends!:D

But honestly, this is the first and only exposure I've had to your definition of agnosticism. I'm not saying it's wrong...just that I think other people have different definitions of their agnosticsm.

Religion was never valid.

It doesn't matter how religion has changed over the course of time, because people have never been able to comprehend the work of a creator, so all opinions, no matter when they were formulated, are equally valid and invalid.

Given the widespread belief in religion it seems the majority of the world does not have any issue. It is the snobbish West that says people who believe in God are stupid.

Given the widespread belief in religion it seems the majority of the world does not have any issue. It is the snobbish West that says people who believe in God are stupid.

I made no comment on the intelligence of religious followers. It is possible (nothing is impossible in this area) that there can be some spiritual connection within a person, but once it gets beyond an individual level, it becomes invalid.

Whoa now...I never claimed they were my friends!:D

But honestly, this is the first and only exposure I've had to your definition of agnosticism. I'm not saying it's wrong...just that I think other people have different definitions of their agnosticsm.

I would say that they are using the wrong word, but hey, I don't really care.

I would say that they are using the wrong word, but hey, I don't really care.
No problem...as long as I understand how you define it, I won't be working from the wrong definition if we discuss it. And ditto for those who define it differently.

Seriously...I've heard people call atheism a religious belief before and it always confounds me.

Me too, although I have met people who hold to atheism with more of a religious fervor than any rational belief. The one thing I think is important in any discussion of religion, whether from the POV of an atheist, agnostic, or theist, is that we all have to admit the possibility that we might be wrong. We all have to realize that we can't, in empirical terms, prove any viewpoint at all.

I don't mean this following bit to be insulting, but I compare the argument that you can't prove their ISN'T a God to telling someone that they can't prove that little faeries don't live in their garden. You're right. They can't. But that doesn't make the idea of them any less preposterous...and it certainly doesn't make the lack of belief in them a religious belief (if faery worship is the in religion of the time).

I've heard this comparison quite a bit. It is somewhat accurate, especially from the atheist's viewpoint. But there are a few things that make it a bit of an improper analogy. For one thing, fairies are not supernatural. If they exist (and I have seen no evidence that they do), they are bound by the rules of the universe (whatever those may be), same as the rest of us and can be empirically measured. As many stories as there have been about fairies, one would expect that we would have found some such evidence by now. On top of that, we've found all sorts of evidence that the various acts attributed to fairies can be explained by other phenomena. Thus, disbelieving in fairies, while still being able to admit that empirical evidence of their existence might change your mind, makes sense.

God, on the other hand, by most beliefs, is supernatural - outside of nature - outside the rules and bounds of the universe. As such, one cannot expect empirical evidence of God's existence, even if God does exist. ((One obviously cannot expect empirical evidence to the contrary, either)). Making a statement either way is done without empiricism to back you up. It is a spiritual statement, no matter what statement you make.

On top of that, to truly understand a theist (an earnest one anyways), an atheist who uses this argument must imagine what they would feel like if they actually had experienced fairies - had seen them, talked to them, sensed them, whatever -that fairies existed but only some people were aware of it. Even without empirical evidence to show someone else, a person who had seen fairies would believe in them, and wouldn't understand the disbelief of others. They might look for other explanations (hallucinations, etc.), but without finding any, would have to rely upon their own senses.


I would say it is just the opposite, one cannot have faith while truly questioning their beliefs.

And you would be wrong. I never stop questioning my beliefs, but it doesn't make my faith any less strong. Too many people try to define "faith" as "belief without questioning" or "belief without evidence". That really isn't what it comes down to - although the evidence may not be of the empirical kind.

Faith is based on irrational principles, and to take a cynical viewpoint of faith would effectively destroy it.

I never said anything about a cynical viewpoint. Perhaps you meant "skeptical"? Of course, being skeptical doesn't destroy faith, any more than questioning a scientific theory destroys science.


What your friends are proclaiming is a theistic view that is incompatible with agnosticism.

One can be an atheist or a theist and still be an agnostic, by most definitions. Most people see agnosticism as the viewpoint that one can never know for sure whether there is a God or not - or what the attributes of that God might be. By that definition, I am an agnostic - as well as a theist. The thing is that not knowing "for sure" doesn't daunt me. I will still try to find out, to the best of my ability, to the closest approximation of "for sure" I can find.

I made no comment on the intelligence of religious followers. It is possible (nothing is impossible in this area) that there can be some spiritual connection within a person, but once it gets beyond an individual level, it becomes invalid.

Didn't you say Ohio people were stupid?


:p

Didn't you say Ohio people were stupid?

:p

Are they? I've never been there, so I will believe your assessment of them.....

=)

Edit: Crap, actually, I have been there. I went to Cincinnati (is that spelled right???) for a day once. But considering that most of what I saw was the people on the road, I might be inclined to believe such an assessment. =)=)

Didn't you say Ohio people were stupid?


:p

Is this a jab? For your information it is those across the river who are of questionable intellect. Besides, I'm from Massachusetts and still think of myself that way.

Are they? I've never been there, so I will believe your assessment of them.....

=)

Edit: Crap, actually, I have been there. I went to Cincinnati (is that spelled right???) for a day once. But considering that most of what I saw was the people on the road, I might be inclined to believe such an assessment. =)=)

Yeah you spelled it right. :) As I've said we are close to Kentucky so there is some spillover. :p

Didn't you say Ohio people were stupid?


:p

No I didn't, but I was thinking it.

Get out of my head.

And you would be wrong. I never stop questioning my beliefs, but it doesn't make my faith any less strong. Too many people try to define "faith" as "belief without questioning" or "belief without evidence". That really isn't what it comes down to - although the evidence may not be of the empirical kind.

What else would you call faith? "Belief without evidence" seems to be the only way I could describe it, as once there is established evidence and data, belief no longer requires faith.

I never said anything about a cynical viewpoint. Perhaps you meant "skeptical"? Of course, being skeptical doesn't destroy faith, any more than questioning a scientific theory destroys science.

You will catch me using cynical and skeptical interchangeably, but I think cynical works. I meant that once you begin to question your religious beliefs from a cynical standpoint, looking for underlying causes for your beliefs, you will ruin your faith. I have a feeling that you are are referring to examining your moral beliefs and changing and adjusting them to your unchanging religious beliefs. You don't truly question the existence of a higher power, you just question its nature, and what it wants from you and the world.

One can be an atheist or a theist and still be an agnostic, by most definitions. Most people see agnosticism as the viewpoint that one can never know for sure whether there is a God or not - or what the attributes of that God might be. By that definition, I am an agnostic - as well as a theist. The thing is that not knowing "for sure" doesn't daunt me. I will still try to find out, to the best of my ability, to the closest approximation of "for sure" I can find.

I was trying to avoid making a definitive judgement as to what is an agnostic and what wasn't. I wanted to express that I was going by my personal definition of what agnostic beliefs pertain to and not get into a debate on its meaning.

To me, agnosticism is not a statement on whether God exists or not, it is a statement of what we, as people, can know. Since my stance on agnosticism states that people cannot possibly understand the nature of a supreme being, even searching for an understanding of religion is pointless.

What else would you call faith? "Belief without evidence" seems to be the only way I could describe it, as once there is established evidence and data, belief no longer requires faith.

It depends on how you define "evidence". Does personal experience count as "evidence", or do you have to have empirical evidence that can be shared with others? Faith is belief without empirical evidence. It is belief in something that you cannot ever know with absolute or near-absolute certainty, at least not in this life.

You will catch me using cynical and skeptical interchangeably, but I think cynical works. I meant that once you begin to question your religious beliefs from a cynical standpoint, looking for underlying causes for your beliefs, you will ruin your faith.

Mine hasn't been ruined yet. In fact, it has only been strengthened. I still wouldn't use cynical - but I would use skeptical.

I have a feeling that you are are referring to examining your moral beliefs and changing and adjusting them to your unchanging religious beliefs. You don't truly question the existence of a higher power, you just question its nature, and what it wants from you and the world.

And your feeling is wrong. I have questioned the existence, the nature, what God may or may not want - and I continue to do so. I have found nothing to convince me that God does not exist, and I have personal experience that convinces me that God does exist, but it doesn't stop me from continuing to question it.

To me, agnosticism is not a statement on whether God exists or not, it is a statement of what we, as people, can know.

Again, it gets down to exact semantics. As I used it, it is a statement about what we can know - with know being replaced by "know with certainty." To me, there are different levels of "knowing". We can know nothing with absolute certainty, but there are things we can "know" with a great degree of certainty - these usually fall under the more empirical categories.

And then there are things we "know" with some degree of certainty, but not with anything approaching absolute certainty. I know that my boyfriend loves me. Can I know that with absolute or even close to absolute certainty? Of course not - that love is something that only he can feel, so I can never know for sure if he feels it or not. But I am damn sure that he does, to the point that I would say that I "know" it.

Since my stance on agnosticism states that people cannot possibly understand the nature of a supreme being, even searching for an understanding of religion is pointless.

We cannot possibly ever know everything about the universe. Does that mean we should stop studying it?

This is all getting far to close to a theistic debate.

But my point is that the workings of a supreme being are far above human comprehension and rationality, therefore it is impossible for any evidence to point towards a supreme being

We cannot possibly ever know everything about the universe. Does that mean we should stop studying it?

We can learn about the universe through applying rationality to empirical evidence, but due to the infalsifiable nature of a supreme being we cannot possibly characterize it.

I could come up with ten thousand spiritual explanations for your personal experiences, all equally valid, but you accept your own for irrational reasons.

But my point is that the workings of a supreme being are far above human comprehension and rationality, therefore it is impossible for any evidence to point towards a supreme being

One does not follow from the other. The supreme being is above human comprehension and rationality. That does not mean that certain experiences cannot point towards its existence.

We can learn about the universe through applying rationality to empirical evidence, but due to the infalsifiable nature of a supreme being we cannot possibly characterize it.

You make the philosophical leap here that only that which can be empirically measured can be examined or dealt with. It is certainly a valid philosophical viewpoint, but no more or less valid than its opposite.

I could come up with ten thousand spiritual explanations for your personal experiences, all equally valid, but you accept your own for irrational reasons.

Hardly. If you posited ten thousand explanations, all equally valid, I would examine each of them and consider them. I haven't gone through that many yet, but I have gone through quite a few. I examine them, consider them, and see how they mesh with my own experiences. If a new explanation were to truly make more sense to me, I would go with that instead. Thus far, that has not been the case.

I reason through them, and thus they cannot be suggested to be "irrational". From your viewpoint, they might be, as you cannot examine my experiences, nor my own thoughts and reason. But your viewpoint does not matter in my conclusions. Mine does.

One does not follow from the other. The supreme being is above human comprehension and rationality. That does not mean that certain experiences cannot point towards its existence.

It means that we cannot percieve them as point towards its existence. Even if a supreme being gave us signs, we could not understand them.

You make the philosophical leap here that only that which can be empirically measured can be examined or dealt with. It is certainly a valid philosophical viewpoint, but no more or less valid than its opposite.

Give me a second on this one, I am rushing around at work, and I gotta give this one some time.

Hardly. If you posited ten thousand explanations, all equally valid, I would examine each of them and consider them. I haven't gone through that many yet, but I have gone through quite a few. I examine them, consider them, and see how they mesh with my own experiences. If a new explanation were to truly make more sense to me, I would go with that instead. Thus far, that has not been the case.

This entire time I have been trying to say that no explanation is better than another, so to make a choice would require a level of irrationality. Because a supreme power is not limited by the practical bounds of human perception, it would be impossible for us to disprove any religious theory. It is not possible for you to say that you have examined other possible explanations and chosen yours over them.

Just for shits and giggles, prove that I am not God, that all of existence doesn't dance like a marianette controlled by my imagination.

Actually don't bother replying, because I would just have to say "How do you know I didn't just imagine what you just said?", and you would not have proven anything. It is as rationally viable as any other statement on god's nature.

But your viewpoint does not matter in my conclusions. Mine does.

That is a given.

But I don't even consider it to be a personal viewpoint, I consider it objective truth.

It means that we cannot percieve them as point towards its existence.

No, it doesn't. It just means that we cannot know for sure that they point towards its existence.

Even if a supreme being gave us signs, we could not understand them.

That would all depend upon the being, now wouldn't it? Do you really think a supreme being couldn't find some way to get through to us? Wouldn't be very supreme then, now would it?

This entire time I have been trying to say that no explanation is better than another, so to make a choice would require a level of irrationality.

...which doesn't make sense. One explanation is better than another. There is a "truth". The problem is that we can't know it with absolute certainty.

Because a supreme power is not limited by the practical bounds of human perception, it would be impossible for us to disprove any religious theory. It is not possible for you to say that you have examined other possible explanations and chosen yours over them.

Disproving something is not the only criterion that can be used for rejecting it. Again, you are clinging to a philosophical viewpoint that empiricism = all.

Just for shits and giggles, prove that I am not God, that all of existence doesn't dance like a marianette controlled by my imagination.

I can't, nor do I have to. I have no reason to believe that you are God - and no reason to believe that you control existence.

But I don't even consider it to be a personal viewpoint, I consider it objective truth.

The part where you point out that we can never know the answers with absolute certainty, at least in our current state, is absolutely an objective truth. The extrapolation of that to, "Therefore anyone with a religious belief is irrational," or "It is pointless to try and find out since we can't know for sure," are not.

That would all depend upon the being, now wouldn't it? Do you really think a supreme being couldn't find some way to get through to us? Wouldn't be very supreme then, now would it?

The classic answer, and the central reason I am an agnostic. "God can do anything, he is all powerful."

...which doesn't make sense. One explanation is better than another. There is a "truth". The problem is that we can't know it with absolute certainty.

It makes excellent sense. Since nothing is impossible when dealing with supreme beings, all explanations are perfectly logical. When you assume something can do anything, you cannot assume anything else about it.

Omnipotence is a final assumption.

Disproving something is not the only criterion that can be used for rejecting it. Again, you are clinging to a philosophical viewpoint that empiricism = all.

What other rational ways of rejecting possibilities exist other than weighing evidence and coming to a conclusion that the evidence doesn't support the belief?

I can't, nor do I have to. I have no reason to believe that you are God - and no reason to believe that you control existence.

So what reason do you have to believe in whatever form of god you presently follow? What evidence shows that it is your creator and not me?

The part where you point out that we can never know the answers with absolute certainty, at least in our current state, is absolutely an objective truth. The extrapolation of that to, "Therefore anyone with a religious belief is irrational," or "It is pointless to try and find out since we can't know for sure," are not.

We can never know everything within the natural world with absolute certainty, however we can increase that certainty by observing patterns and setting boundaries. Outside the natural world, it is impossible to increase that certainty, as it is impossible to impose boundaries.

It makes excellent sense. Since nothing is impossible when dealing with supreme beings, all explanations are perfectly logical. When you assume something can do anything, you cannot assume anything else about it.

You are twisting things. Saying that it is perfectly logical is not the same as saying that one explanation is equally valid. There is a "truth" of some sort, whether it be that there is no God, that there is a deistic God, that there is an omnibenevolent God, etc. From the viewpoint of an outside observer of all of humankind, any of these would seem equally logical. That doesn't make them equally valid, as only one is truly valid.

What other rational ways of rejecting possibilities exist other than weighing evidence and coming to a conclusion that the evidence doesn't support the belief?

Once again, you are trying to twist your way out of things. There is a difference between the quote above and "disproving" other religions. Disproving something requires empirical evidence on which to base your conclusions. Your above quote leaves room for personal experience as evidence. I never said I don't weight evidence and come to a conclusion. I simply said I don't seek to disprove anything.

So what reason do you have to believe in whatever form of god you presently follow? What evidence shows that it is your creator and not me?

Personal experience and revelation, the guidance of God, and a healthy dose of skepticism of anyone who would claim to be God.

We can never know everything within the natural world with absolute certainty, however we can increase that certainty by observing patterns and setting boundaries. Outside the natural world, it is impossible to increase that certainty, as it is impossible to impose boundaries.

The boundaries are already there. We simply do what we can within them.

Yes, there is an absolute truth.

Yes, only one explanation is valid.

Yes, you can choose the best explanation with probability decisions, this is more likely than that, and not proven and disproven truths and falsehoods.

But, since the supernatural is not bound, it is impossible to determine any probability. At some point in the deductive process, you had to assume a premise concerning the supernatural, and that is where you made an irrational assumption.

Yes, there is an absolute truth.

Yes, only one explanation is valid.

Yes, you can choose the best explanation with probability decisions, this is more likely than that, and not proven and disproven truths and falsehoods.

But, since the supernatural is not bound, it is impossible to determine any probability. At some point in the deductive process, you had to assume a premise concerning the supernatural, and that is where you made an irrational assumption.

The assumptions are made only if they are backed up by the evidence - including my own personal experience. On top of that, they are constantly reexamined and considered. None have been made without reason (which would be what irrational would mean).