HOME | DD
SolJuniper — Man Created God
#god #1 #atheism #atheist #christian #christianity #homophobia #homophobic #islam #jewish #judaism #lgbt #muslim #quotes #racism #religion #sexism #sexist
Published: 2015-04-08 01:37:00 +0000 UTC; Views: 7238; Favourites: 126; Downloads: 12
Redirect to original
Description
meetville.com/quotes/tag/relig…I'd like to thank everyone for their comments and favorites
Related content
Comments: 89
If that's how you want to see it, I'm not going to stop you
Nice Dalek, by the way ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This isn't an opinion, really. This is a case of simple definition. Fact, if you will.
And thanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the Mb>rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.
So, in layman's terms
Atheist: No Gods, period
Agnostic: No one really knows or can understand if there's a God or not
....yeah, there's a reason I try to avoid conversations about religion; there's so many views on the matter it becomes a cesspool of "WTF is happening"
*nopes into the Tardis and flies to the end of the universe*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Atheist: No Gods, period
Agnostic: No one really knows or can understand if there's a God or not"
Yeah, that's not actually it. The atheist doesn't necessarily count out god, period- he or she just doesn't believe in one. Agnosticism, for its part, can be applied to just about any belief- you can be an agnostic christian as much as you can be an agnostic atheist. Agnostics do not believe in god, and as such are de facto atheists, to a man.
In short, your logic only holds up if you count atheism as a whole as gnostic atheism.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I stand by my hilariously flawed logic because I'm tired of everything else
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All right, as you wish.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
agnostic
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*facepalm*
The continued ignorance of what agnosticism really means continues to astound me. "Agnostic" is not a third, separate position on the existence of god. Agnosticism is a huge, incredibly important intellectual principle, applied to anything and everything that requires critical thinking. It's a cornerstone of the scientific method. In its essence, it means "this might sound reasonable, but I could be wrong". That's all it is. It's in no way a separate camp from atheism, nor a softer version of atheism- it's a completely separate intellectual discipline, who area of application is enormously larger than just religion. If you were to draw a circle to represent agnosticism, religion would be a tiny dot inside a big circle, because agnosticism isn't a religious position.
And what else, it's not only compatible with atheism, but a natural ally to it. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any god, and an agnostic because I know it's possible I could be wrong.
So to finish: an agnostic, with regard to god, is still an atheist, because he/she does not believe in a god or gods.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
One of the best explanations to what the difference between atheists and agnostics are:
* Agnostics don't believe in god(s) but they will believe when there is proof that there is in fact one (or more).
* Atheists do not and will not believe in god(s) and have rejected the idea that there is a possibility of one existing.
Agnostics are atheists only in the sense that they do not believe in god (yet).
I love being on the 'I don't care' side that sits eating popcorn while everyone in their labelled boxes are shooting at each other :')
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Agnostics don't believe in god(s) but they will believe when there is proof that there is in fact one (or more).
This applies to atheists as well, unless we're talking about gnostic atheists. This is, in fact, a key part of organized atheist rationale- the demand for evidence.
Atheists do not and will not believe in god(s) and have rejected the idea that there is a possibility of one existing.
See the above. No atheist I know, nor any prominent atheist in the new atheism movement, reject the possibility of god outright- not even Richard Dawkins himself.
The differences you posted are non-differences, and agnosticism is not, will never be, a separate and third position on the existence of god, because agnosticism itself is an intellectual principle with a much wider application. Claiming it in the name of wobbly non-belief is to be ignorant of what agnosticism means. As a principle, it is not only compatible with atheism, but very well suited to it.
As for the "I don't care" side- great, you've distanced yourself from the "monkeys flinging shit at each other" part of the internet. That really doesn't have much of anything to do with what atheism and agnosticism is, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And yet there are seemingly hundreds that believe that agnosticism is a "religion" or what you want to call it.
'No atheist I know, nor any prominent atheist in the new atheism movement, reject the possibility of god outright- not even Richard Dawkins himself.' - Alright, but that doesn't change the "textbook definition" of what an atheist 'should be'. My question is then, if agnosticism is not a third position on the existance, then what am I labelled under? I don't believe in a god yet I don't deny his/their existance for others. If there is proof that there is a god or multiple, it wouldn't be "believing" anymore, like we don't believe in birds, because they are there.
And no, the "I don't care" side applies to my "religious" preference as well. I don't wish to label myself in different boxes for the sake of existing. I seem to not think about all of these things and just enjoy some sort of 'neutrality' where I just respect everyone and everyones opinion.
Sorry if I don't make much sense, haven't had much sleep and maybe I'm expressing myself wrongly, because I agree with you on half of what you say =__=;
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah. These people have not done their research.
The textbook definition is not one that is in any way incompatible with agnosticism. Popular perception of atheism would be, but that's neither accurate with reality, nor with thr dictionary.
You would be an atheist-by-default. Perhaps a non-issuing one, one that doesn't really care about religion- and that's just fine. I mean, I don't believe in a god- boom, there you go, atheism. Atheism only means to not believe in god, when it comes down to it. That there are movements that associate themselves with the word doesn't change this.
Labels aren't always great, but sometimes they exist for a reason. You don't have to pay them much mind, you don't have to go around making agnosticism or atheism part of your identity- to me, agnostic atheism is one stance on one issue.
That's all right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think the main issue here is that people kind of forget that there are exceptions to a rule and that those not neccesarily all have a label or name to go by ^^ Or that a "rule" is not always followed 100%, in the case of atheism.
In my opinion there are just too many "labels" these days that I can't keep track. Especially in religion and sexuality. Maybe I'm just not involved enough to stay up to speed with all the definitions these days
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The biggest issue is that with these "rules", most people don't seem to know what these rules are or what they mean.
Sexuality and gender has many, many labels these days... but religion is a bit simpler, at least with regards to belief. Believe in god? Theist, deist, pantheist, etc. Don't believe in god? Atheist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Don't tell me, tell the dictionary.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Even under your dictionary definition, your agnostics are still per definition atheists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Agnosticism deals with knowledge, and atheism deals with belief.
If you're an agnostic atheist, you don't believe in a deity, but you don't know for certain.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The two are not separate stances on belief. One is a discipline on intellectual correctness compatible with both belief and nonbelief, and the other is the lack of belief in a god.
And yes, I'm an agnostic atheist, but the agnostic part is a formality- I can't disprove pixies or gnomes either, but that doesn't make them reasonable to believe in.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
In my personal experience, atheists are assholes on the internet who constantly shout about all the bad things religion has done and how much better science is, but who don't actually know anything about history and science.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wish I could contradict you, but those people do represent a sizeable and vocal chunk of atheists. The thing is, reasonable, more quiet atheists aren't going to form groups and make themselves heard- you don't know that these people reflect the majority of atheists. As for the definition of what an atheist is- that is not incompatible in any way with your dictionary definition of an agnostic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Proud to be an intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent gay man then. I thought Atheists were suppose to be enlighten and above petty insults but I was wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Who claimed that Sol was atheist? Fact is that they're reposting OC from another website (they even linked it in the comment).
The truly enlightened are those who believe in what they want without judging anyone else their beliefs. Every "side' has their rotten apples, really.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's a protest against the god of the bible, who certainly is a reflection of the society wherein he was created- a society that kept slaves, regarded women as property, and killed homosexuals, adulterers, rebellious children and people who practiced crop rotation.
Atheists are not above petty insults, because atheists really aren't that different from people in general. That doesn't mean we're wrong about god being a monster, though- just look at the bible and see the work of a megalomaniacal, insane monster.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't think anyone is above insulting when you get down to it. We're all human and whole atheists and religious goers thing can be very "us vs them" sort of thing and such mentality doesn't bode well for anyone. It usually turns into people talking past each other because people have an opinion and need to win. It's how the internet seems to be these days. However, I think there are enough Christians imposing their views on others where it doesn't really count but it's apparently all in the name of God. Like why does someone else's sexuality and such affect their salvation in any way? They probably won't even remember the gay person five years from now because life will demand for their attention elsewhere.
There are rotten Christians and rotten Atheists. Every group has a vocal and jerkish minority that makes everyone else look bad. I don't find this particularly insulting though, just something to ponder on when it comes to traditional views in a changing society and different interpretations on the bible.
I guess talk of religion just make me emotional tired because I've had some bad experiences with someone before who was down right insulting because apparently if you don't worship God like you're having a party, you put God to sleep.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
When we impose our flaws on God, he can certainly seem that way, but it is our own faults that make us intolerant, sexist, homophobic, sexist, and violent. Jesus ate with all people (therefore tolerant), preached peace (therefore not violent), never once mentioned homosexuality, but did mention love more than anything else (therefore not homophobic), and one if his closest supporters and disciples was Mary Magdalene (therefore not sexist).
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
What the deviation points out is: the god of the bible is intolerant, bigoted, sexist, and a number of other, nasty things. The deity himself, as described in the bible. It's as simple as that.
Also
and one if his closest supporters and disciples was Mary Magdalene (therefore not sexist).
Fallacy. Just because one of his supporters- and she was not a disciple- was a woman, it doesn't mean he couldn't have been sexist. How many bigots have invoked "some of my best friends are X" to avoid being called what they are- bigots?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
God in the Bible is exactly what we make him to be; and it is always His people that followed his commands, thereby giving a human lens to whatever He may have commanded or said.
I figured you might point out the fallacy in that response -- my intention was not to put it in those terms. I despise conservatives who claim they are not racists because they are friends with a certain minority group or another. Perhaps a better example would be the time he defended the woman who would have been stoned for adultery, or the time he helped the woman at the well. Unless someone was specifically looking to prove that Jesus was a nasty person (which I think most people would agree he was not, even if having not read the New Testament) it would be hard to find evidence of that.
I don't mean to get into a debate here, and I see all the time when other Christians give those of us who wish peace and equality a bad name. Thanks for responding.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What we "make him to be"? The god of the bible murders infants, commits genocide, slaughters whole populations, terrorizes people with his powers...
"What we make him to be", you say? I really don't see how you can make anything but a monster out of that. (And that's not even counting the problem of evil/suffering)
Well, what did you mean to put it as, then? As far as I know (ex christian), Jesus was neither a supporter of women's rights, nor a vicious sexist- his book was written by men in a very male-centric age and culture; that he's not 'orribly sexist is a pretty big improvement in itself.
Well, if you don't want to debate, I'll leave it be. If you do respond though, I'll respond in turn.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's what I'm saying; all of the histories we have are inspired by God and written, so come through a very human lens. I don't pretend to understand the destruction of Canaan or really what goes down in a lot of the Old Testament; what I do know is that looking at those books, and the New Testament, from a modern, enlightened perspective gives us insight into how we should see God, with help from scripture.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That sounds mightily convenient. If the bible is "inspired" by god, yet whenever it's utterly horrible, that's due to the fallaciousness of man- well, how can you ever actually tell when it was written by god? That is a recipe for cherry picking if there ever was one, and it completely undermines any credibility the bible has- if it's not the word of god, then it's not the word of god, in which case it's just a book of mythology.
And, I might add, it's not like the new testament is that brilliant in itself. For one, Jesus explicitly okays the old testament and everything about it- "not an iota shall be lost".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's God word written through humans. God never wrote it himself, nor claimed to.
Of course Jesus okayed the Old Testament, but there is a lot in there that I don't know what he would have done with either. Not everything can be explained.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And what method would you use to discern which is god's will, and which is human fallibility? I'm all ears.
He okayed it, in all its horror. Yeah, not everything can be explained- but this is holy scripture; if you believe this is the book that contains the way and the light, this is something that should be explained, something that needs to be explained.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Context clues are a big indicator, and sometimes things don't make sense now that made sense then, like slavery -- oftentimes used to pay back debts -- or polygamy -- because women had no rights, so they needed someone to support them financially. When we want to justify something to our jaded way of thinking (say, using Paul's writings to justify sexism or homophobia), it is better to look to Jesus and see that the law is love, and that love in the end wins -- when there is a question, use love as the measuring stick.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Indeed but do not forget that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet attempting to prepare his followers for the imminent end of the world. There was violence in him too.
and we must put mankind's sins upon god because it is we who created god
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. God's time is much different from our time -- "imminent" to God may be thousands of years for us. The only specific example of violence he ever enacted was when he overturned the tables of the merchants at the temple in righteous anger. There are many examples of his peaceful sermons, lessons, and actions.
2. That is your opinion, so I cannot argue with you because we do not have the same basis of understanding on the matter. As someone who believes in a Creator and a Savior I believe we cannot put our sins on anyone but ourselves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Holy crap. Did Marie de France actually say/write that? Just wrote a paper on her for school not even a week ago. Could've used that...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
All very true - and not just violent, but murderous and vindictive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |