DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: AndyDT on June 07, 2011, 06:29:43 AM
-
Just wondering why you go, what you get out of it or are able to give there?
Why can't you find God, friends, service elsewhere?
If you don't go to church - do you think you can live without God or spirituality?
-
You dont need to go to church to live a life that includes god and/or spirituality.
-
I go to church because I feel it keeps me grounded spiritually. Frankly, I'm too lazy to be completely on my own spritually. When I'm going to church regularly, I'm more likely to pray, read the Bible, etc. When I don't go for a few weeks, I feel myself slipping on that stuff.
Plus church is a convenient place to meet people with similar values. We're new to our current church and really haven't developed any relationship there yet, but our previous church we had most of our best friends there and our social life greatly revolved around doing stuff with them.
If you feel you can explore your spirituality fully without a church setting, that's great for you. I've found that I can't.
-
I don't really go to church. I probably should, because I am a lot like lordxizor in that it helps me stay "on the path" better.
-
You dont need to go to church to live a life that includes god and/or spirituality.
No offense but, why would anyone take spiritual advise from an Atheist? Seems like a bad source for the questions posed.
As far as going to church. Staying in fellowship with the body certainly keeps you on a stronger path. Gods word also says to fellowship with the body so its important in Gods eyes.
I have been working many Sundays since I started working at Lowe's in December. I find that being an island have been a detriment for me. I find my attitudes towards things have kind of sucked lately.
A strong church body will gird you up and help edify you.
Walking the path of the believer alone is a slippery slope and eventually you will find yourself very far away from God. I am currently slipping into that place and its a hard rut to pull yourself out of.
-
The simple answer is: because God requires it.
Beyond that, I will say that, although I understand the question and it is phrased in the most common vernacular, the way the question is posted reflects either a linguistic laziness or a misunderstanding what what the "church" is. One cannot really "go to church" because the church is not the building or the place. The church is the people. And there are both examples and commands for the people of God to assemble together. Some of the additional reasons have been expressed well by Tick and in the first paragraph of lordxizor's post. As the author of Hebrews puts it: "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching." (Heb 10:24-25)
-
The simple answer is: because God requires it.
Beyond that, I will say that, although I understand the question and it is phrased in the most common vernacular, the way the question is posted reflects either a linguistic laziness or a misunderstanding what what the "church" is. One cannot really "go to church" because the church is not the building or the place. The church is the people. And there are both examples and commands for the people of God to assemble together. Some of the additional reasons have been expressed well by Tick and in the first paragraph of lordxizor's post. As the author of Hebrews puts it: "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching." (Heb 10:24-25)
Thank you for pointing out that a physical building is not the church. The Church is the bride of Christ. The Lord will return for his bride, or the church. Staying in fellowship is the important thing, whether its in a home church, a building, or a bible study in your own living room.
-
The simple answer is: because God requires it.
Beyond that, I will say that, although I understand the question and it is phrased in the most common vernacular, the way the question is posted reflects either a linguistic laziness or a misunderstanding what what the "church" is. One cannot really "go to church" because the church is not the building or the place. The church is the people.
And the institution defined by the people presumably which is where you visit whether it moves around or not.
And there are both examples and commands for the people of God to assemble together. Some of the additional reasons have been expressed well by Tick and in the first paragraph of lordxizor's post. As the author of Hebrews puts it: "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching." (Heb 10:24-25)
In Paul's opinion 2000 years ago he thought it important for the people he was addressing. Does that speak to you? If so great, but I'd like to know why.
-
The simple answer is: because God requires it.
Beyond that, I will say that, although I understand the question and it is phrased in the most common vernacular, the way the question is posted reflects either a linguistic laziness or a misunderstanding what what the "church" is. One cannot really "go to church" because the church is not the building or the place. The church is the people. And there are both examples and commands for the people of God to assemble together. Some of the additional reasons have been expressed well by Tick and in the first paragraph of lordxizor's post. As the author of Hebrews puts it: "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching." (Heb 10:24-25)
Thank you for pointing out that a physical building is not the church. The Church is the bride of Christ. The Lord will return for his bride, or the church. Staying in fellowship is the important thing, whether its in a home church, a building, or a bible study in your own living room.
Why do you think it's important?
-
The simple answer is: because God requires it.
Beyond that, I will say that, although I understand the question and it is phrased in the most common vernacular, the way the question is posted reflects either a linguistic laziness or a misunderstanding what what the "church" is. One cannot really "go to church" because the church is not the building or the place. The church is the people. And there are both examples and commands for the people of God to assemble together. Some of the additional reasons have been expressed well by Tick and in the first paragraph of lordxizor's post. As the author of Hebrews puts it: "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching." (Heb 10:24-25)
Thank you for pointing out that a physical building is not the church. The Church is the bride of Christ. The Lord will return for his bride, or the church. Staying in fellowship is the important thing, whether its in a home church, a building, or a bible study in your own living room.
Why do you think it's important?
Andy, I clearly answered that question? as did others. What more explanation do you require because I offered up mine already.
-
You dont need to go to church to live a life that includes god and/or spirituality.
No offense but, why would anyone take spiritual advise from an Atheist? Seems like a bad source for the questions posed.
My rebuttal to this would be that spirituality and God are not mutually exclusive. At least in my experience
-
You dont need to go to church to live a life that includes god and/or spirituality.
No offense but, why would anyone take spiritual advise from an Atheist? Seems like a bad source for the questions posed.
As far as going to church. Staying in fellowship with the body certainly keeps you on a stronger path. Gods word also says to fellowship with the body so its important in Gods eyes.
I have been working many Sundays since I started working at Lowe's in December. I find that being an island have been a detriment for me. I find my attitudes towards things have kind of sucked lately.
A strong church body will gird you up and help edify you.
Walking the path of the believer alone is a slippery slope and eventually you will find yourself very far away from God. I am currently slipping into that place and its a hard rut to pull yourself out of.
LOL. Excuse me? What in the world would make you think I am an atheist?
Not only that, going to church is only what god wants if you are a follower of a particular religion or church. Seems pretty circular to me...
"I go to church because it is what god wants.....really? How do you know?.....my church tells me"
Regardless, to say that going to church is what god wants, or that you will fall away from god and spitituality if you dont go to church, is a pretty narrow view of what a relationship with god can be.
-
No offense but, why would anyone take spiritual advise from an Atheist?
-
Uh, didn't eric just say that he wasn't an Atheist?
-
No. He merely asked a question that, on its surface, is meant to imply that he isn't. An obvious tactic to distract us from the fact that he really is. His true colors are showing and there's nothing he can do to hide it.
-
LOL. Excuse me? What in the world would make you think I am an atheist?
Not only that, going to church is only what god wants if you are a follower of a particular religion or church. Seems pretty circular to me...
"I go to church because it is what god wants.....really? How do you know?.....my church tells me"
Regardless, to say that going to church is what god wants, or that you will fall away from god and spitituality if you dont go to church, is a pretty narrow view of what a relationship with god can be.
All of this. I don't go to church. I was confirmed Catholic, and while my belief in a God is often shaken, I've still taken the basic teachings of Christ that I learned when I was younger to try and live a fulfilling, happy life by a strong moral code. I'm not a fan of most organized religions, for many reasons eric just stated.
EDIT: Bosk and Tick, I don't think being an atheist should mean eric's opinion is completely invalid. Also he should probably say whether he is an atheist or not before assumptions are made. :P
-
No. He merely asked a question that, on its surface, is meant to imply that he isn't. An obvious tactic to distract us from the fact that he really is. His true colors are showing and there's nothing he can do to hide it.
I...uh....what?
EDIT: you arent really serious are you? I have never once said I am an atheist. Never. In fact, I have stated on several occassions that I am NOT an Atheist. Please make note of this fact in my file for future reference.
-
Don't try to deny it, atheist. We're onto you.
-
:lol
I just don't think this is a thread where the opinions of the non-religious should count.
-
I disagree.
-
Well, since half of the OP's question is why DON'T you go to church...
-
AFAICT most people when they're not talking about ideology are saying that they go to hold themselves to a high standard by comparing to others and/ or that others will expect standards of them.
The first I can understand, it's putting yourself into the arena and tempering yourself. To the second I'd say for me that is an obligation and approval seeking trap and is putting my power into the hands of others which I'll just resent. I believe you HAVE to (and ultimately there's no other way whatever ideology you recite by rote) think for yourself but you have to give of yourself in some way to other people. But to go because of external edicts and expectations causes resentment because it's giving my power over to others. You have to go back to source in short and keep going back to source.
-
Don't try to deny it, atheist. We're onto you.
This genuinely made me :lol
-
I have never once said I am an atheist. Never. In fact, I have stated on several occassions that I am NOT an Atheist. Please make note of this fact in my file for future reference.
Look man, I like you and all. But please understand, I can't just go making changes willy-nilly in people's files. The Bureau doesn't allow just anybody to do that. Even my powers aren't absolute.
you arent really serious are you?
Of course not. :lol
-
AFAICT most people when they're not talking about ideology are saying that they go to hold themselves to a high standard by comparing to others and/ or that others will expect standards of them.
The first I can understand, it's putting yourself into the arena and tempering yourself. To the second I'd say for me that is an obligation and approval seeking trap and is putting my power into the hands of others which I'll just resent. I believe you HAVE to (and ultimately there's no other way whatever ideology you recite by rote) think for yourself but you have to give of yourself in some way to other people. But to go because of external edicts and expectations causes resentment because it's giving my power over to others. You have to go back to source in short and keep going back to source.
I'm trying, but I really have no idea what you are trying to say.
-
Isnt the term agnostic more appropriate? I do not say there is or isnt a god, as I am unsure, but do not discout the possibility of either. I also do not subscribe to any religion. Agnostic? Yes? Put it in my file dammit!.
-
EDIT: Bosk and Tick, I don't think being an atheist should mean eric's opinion is completely invalid.
AH HA!!! So you admit he's an Atheist? :lol
-
I would go to church every day because the lord Jesus is in my heart and I just personally like to see all those warm, smiling, corn-fed country boy Christian faces on a Sunday morning before we start to worship Him and praise His Name and hear the Word from the Good Book. Sometimes I just lay awake at night and tears of joy come to my eyes when I think of all that He has blessed Me with and I say a prayer for all the people out there who have not heard His good Word and hope that one day someone will show them the Light of Him so that they may know His Unconditional Love And Forgiveness.
-
Oh Chris I love you :lol
-
the biblical picture of the church is better represented as a community. a place where relationships are built and practiced so as to further deepen ones relationship with the creator. My experience with local churches has been good and bad, but I can't imagine not being involved in a church in trying to preserve my relationship with God.
-
I think that if you subscribe to a specific religion, with all of its dogma, requirements, and procedures, etc.....it seems like it would be difficult to stay focused enough to follow all of it unless you are at church doing it on a regular basis. It seems to me sometimes that the church itself creates and perpetuates the need for the church. The church sets in place so many requirements for faith that it makes itself a necessity.....a necessity to keep a followers participation in dogma and ritual up to par....not so much keeping a real relationship with god up to par.
-
I think that if you subscribe to a specific religion, with all of its dogma, requirements, and procedures, etc.....it seems like it would be difficult to stay focused enough to follow all of it unless you are at church doing it on a regular basis. It seems to me sometimes that the church itself creates and perpetuates the need for the church. The church sets in place so many requirements for faith that it makes itself a necessity.....a necessity to keep a followers participation in dogma and ritual up to par....not so much keeping a real relationship with god up to par.
I agree that there are churches out there that resemble your comments. they are certainly completely opposed to the biblical picture. I will say, though, that I have been a part of dozens of churches and never witnessed anything like that.
-
I think that if you subscribe to a specific religion, with all of its dogma, requirements, and procedures, etc.....it seems like it would be difficult to stay focused enough to follow all of it unless you are at church doing it on a regular basis. It seems to me sometimes that the church itself creates and perpetuates the need for the church. The church sets in place so many requirements for faith that it makes itself a necessity.....a necessity to keep a followers participation in dogma and ritual up to par....not so much keeping a real relationship with god up to par.
I agree that there are churches out there that resemble your comments. they are certainly completely opposed to the biblical picture. I will say, though, that I have been a part of dozens of churches and never witnessed anything like that.
I think the reason you never witnessed it is because you yourself are obvioulsy much more involved in your faith in your own personal way. You study it, and live it, and do so not as just a set of rituals. I would hazard that a large percentage of church goers have only a cursory or surface level faith that is based primarily in the rituals of a religion or church...and the only way they feel involved or engaged in their faith is by practicing those rituals. For these people, the church has made itself necessary. Practicing rituals, to me, seems to have little to do with a relationship with god.
-
I think that if you subscribe to a specific religion, with all of its dogma, requirements, and procedures, etc.....it seems like it would be difficult to stay focused enough to follow all of it unless you are at church doing it on a regular basis.
Close enough. Yes.
It seems to me sometimes that the church itself creates and perpetuates the need for the church. The church sets in place so many requirements for faith that it makes itself a necessity.....a necessity to keep a followers participation in dogma and ritual up to par....not so much keeping a real relationship with god up to par.
[/quote]
I can see why you would think that, but I disagree. Yes, that is what a lot of churches do. But, no, that is not what they are supposed to do. Not sure whether the subtlety of this distinction will matter or make sense to you, but: the chruch itself is not supposed to come up with any dogma/ritual/doctrine/etc. All of what the church does collectively and what its members do individually is supposed to come directly from the word of God. If a church is coming up with stuff on its own that contradicts or goes beyond what is biblical, the church is far exceeding its authority, which it has no business doing. And it is up to the members individually to see that that does nto happen. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the denominations and a lot of other churches do.
-
I get nothing out of it.
-
I think that if you subscribe to a specific religion, with all of its dogma, requirements, and procedures, etc.....it seems like it would be difficult to stay focused enough to follow all of it unless you are at church doing it on a regular basis.
Close enough. Yes.
It seems to me sometimes that the church itself creates and perpetuates the need for the church. The church sets in place so many requirements for faith that it makes itself a necessity.....a necessity to keep a followers participation in dogma and ritual up to par....not so much keeping a real relationship with god up to par.
I can see why you would think that, but I disagree. Yes, that is what a lot of churches do. But, no, that is not what they are supposed to do. Not sure whether the subtlety of this distinction will matter or make sense to you, but: the chruch itself is not supposed to come up with any dogma/ritual/doctrine/etc. All of what the church does collectively and what its members do individually is supposed to come directly from the word of God. If a church is coming up with stuff on its own that contradicts or goes beyond what is biblical, the church is far exceeding its authority, which it has no business doing. And it is up to the members individually to see that that does nto happen. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the denominations and a lot of other churches do.
I absolutely agree with the distinction. What is and what should be are usually not the same. It seems pretty obvious that is not what the church should be....but like you sais, it all too often is. And that is probably for a variety of reasons. Money/time constraints, laziness, and perhaps even a lack of understanding in what the church should actually be.
EDIT: To me there are paralells with the school system. We all know what it should do...what it should achieve....but in real life, there are a myriad of things that water it down and make it disfuntional.
-
Funny thing is.....I go to church. My wife is a teacher at a Catholic school (she isnt even catholic LOL), and my kids go there. So...get this...we are required to attend and give $850 in offerings per child....to get a discount on tuition.
First, that just seems silly to coerce someone to go for financial reasons.
But my point was that I find 90% of the mass to be mind-numbing repetitions of the same phrases every single week.
The one solitary thing I find of value is the "sermon" for lack of a better word, when the priest gets up and just talks about a specific subject/story/moral. No one learns anything about god, or deepens their relationship with god, by mindlessly repeating the same phrases every week....IMO. I find church to be 90% a waste of time.
-
Funny thing is.....I go to church. My wife is a teacher at a Catholic school (she isnt even catholic LOL), and my kids go there. So...get this...we are required to attend and give $850 in offerings per child....to get a discount on tuition.
First, that just seems silly to coerce someone to go for financial reasons.
But my point was that I find 90% of the mass to be mind-numbing repetitions of the same phrases every single week.
The one solitary thing I find of value is the "sermon" for lack of a better word, when the priest gets up and just talks about a specific subject/story/moral. No one learns anything about god, or deepens their relationship with god, by mindlessly repeating the same phrases every week....IMO. I find church to be 90% a waste of time.
That is terrible.
-
Funny thing is.....I go to church. My wife is a teacher at a Catholic school (she isnt even catholic LOL), and my kids go there. So...get this...we are required to attend and give $850 in offerings per child....to get a discount on tuition.
First, that just seems silly to coerce someone to go for financial reasons.
But my point was that I find 90% of the mass to be mind-numbing repetitions of the same phrases every single week.
The one solitary thing I find of value is the "sermon" for lack of a better word, when the priest gets up and just talks about a specific subject/story/moral. No one learns anything about god, or deepens their relationship with god, by mindlessly repeating the same phrases every week....IMO. I find church to be 90% a waste of time.
That is terrible.
What part is terrible?
-
Funny thing is.....I go to church. My wife is a teacher at a Catholic school (she isnt even catholic LOL), and my kids go there. So...get this...we are required to attend and give $850 in offerings per child....to get a discount on tuition.
First, that just seems silly to coerce someone to go for financial reasons.
But my point was that I find 90% of the mass to be mind-numbing repetitions of the same phrases every single week.
The one solitary thing I find of value is the "sermon" for lack of a better word, when the priest gets up and just talks about a specific subject/story/moral. No one learns anything about god, or deepens their relationship with god, by mindlessly repeating the same phrases every week....IMO. I find church to be 90% a waste of time.
Catholic churches are definitely based way more on ritual than most other Christian churches. The few times I've visited Catholic churches I've found them to be a bit disturbing. Everyone just knows when to kneel and what to say at the right times. Very creepy and cult-like in a lot of ways. Most other denominations are much less ritual based.
-
Funny thing is.....I go to church. My wife is a teacher at a Catholic school (she isnt even catholic LOL), and my kids go there. So...get this...we are required to attend and give $850 in offerings per child....to get a discount on tuition.
First, that just seems silly to coerce someone to go for financial reasons.
But my point was that I find 90% of the mass to be mind-numbing repetitions of the same phrases every single week.
The one solitary thing I find of value is the "sermon" for lack of a better word, when the priest gets up and just talks about a specific subject/story/moral. No one learns anything about god, or deepens their relationship with god, by mindlessly repeating the same phrases every week....IMO. I find church to be 90% a waste of time.
That is terrible.
What part is terrible?
The whole thing. It's a business behind the religious facade they put on.
-
Well, it wouldn't be the first time the Catholic Church accidentally the whole thing.
-
Oh Chris I love you :lol
Why? Its certainly not because he is funny.
-
Oh Chris I love you :lol
Why? Its certainly not because he is funny.
Just not your kind of funny.
I fing his sarcasm drive-by's to be amusing.
-
I agree with eric that my favorite part about going to church was the sermon, and that the mass singing did nothing for me. The way that church is acting is quite despicable, but its important to remember that it doesn't mean that the entire Catholic Church is filled with scumbags. I for one never had any problems with the church in my catholic upbringing.
Oh Chris I love you :lol
Why? Its certainly not because he is funny.
Funnier than ending statements with a question mark?
-
I agree with eric that my favorite part about going to church was the sermon, and that the mass singing did nothing for me. The way that church is acting is quite despicable, but its important to remember that it doesn't mean that the entire Catholic Church is filled with scumbags. I for one never had any problems with the church in my catholic upbringing.
Oh Chris I love you :lol
Why? Its certainly not because he is funny.
Funnier than ending statements with a question mark?
?
-
Oh Chris I love you :lol
Why? Its certainly not because he is funny.
Just not your kind of funny.
I fing his sarcasm drive-by's to be amusing.
Well, I guess when you have nothing relevant to add, it works for some.
-
I agree with eric that my favorite part about going to church was the sermon, and that the mass singing did nothing for me. The way that church is acting is quite despicable, but its important to remember that it doesn't mean that the entire Catholic Church is filled with scumbags. I for one never had any problems with the church in my catholic upbringing.
Oh Chris I love you :lol
Why? Its certainly not because he is funny.
Funnier than ending statements with a question mark?
?
It was a side joke aimed at you. You tend to end some statements with a question mark. I find it amusing. :)
And in Sonata's defense, his post was actually a brilliant piece of social satire of religious dogma and ritual. I thought it was funny.
So anyways let's get back to the whole "going to church or not" thing.
-
I agree with eric that my favorite part about going to church was the sermon, and that the mass singing did nothing for me. The way that church is acting is quite despicable, but its important to remember that it doesn't mean that the entire Catholic Church is filled with scumbags. I for one never had any problems with the church in my catholic upbringing.
Oh Chris I love you :lol
Why? Its certainly not because he is funny.
Funnier than ending statements with a question mark?
?
It was a side joke aimed at you. You tend to end some statements with a question mark. I find it amusing. :)
And in Sonata's defense, his post was actually a brilliant piece of social satire of religious dogma and ritual. I thought it was funny.
So anyways let's get back to the whole "going to church or not" thing.
Yeah, I got that. Hence my "?"
In my view, Sonata has nothing real to add, so sarcastic(brilliant?)mockery is his best delivery. I get it.
Humor is certainly in the eye of the beholder.
Whatever... back to our regularly scheduled program folks.
-
Oh Chris I love you :lol
Why? Its certainly not because he is funny.
Just not your kind of funny.
I fing his sarcasm drive-by's to be amusing.
(https://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k34/Zook85/mustainefunny.jpg)
-
:lol :lol :lol
-
Isnt the term agnostic more appropriate? I do not say there is or isnt a god, as I am unsure, but do not discout the possibility of either. I also do not subscribe to any religion. Agnostic? Yes? Put it in my file dammit!.
You're an atheist. If you don't believe in a god, you're an atheist.
-
Isnt the term agnostic more appropriate? I do not say there is or isnt a god, as I am unsure, but do not discout the possibility of either. I also do not subscribe to any religion. Agnostic? Yes? Put it in my file dammit!.
You're an atheist. If you don't believe in a god, you're an atheist.
Where in my statement does it say I dont believe in a god? I said I am unsure either way. I thought an atheist is sure there is no god.
EDIT:
a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] –noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik] –noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things (is) unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
I think I am WAY more under the agnostic umbrella
-
Oh Chris I love you :lol
Why? Its certainly not because he is funny.
It is okay my brother, for you do not have to answer to me in the end. There is a higher power and authority, and it is He. His eye sees humor for what it is, and will cast down those who oppose him in His Holy Name.
God bless you.
-
:lol :lol
-
Isnt the term agnostic more appropriate? I do not say there is or isnt a god, as I am unsure, but do not discout the possibility of either. I also do not subscribe to any religion. Agnostic? Yes? Put it in my file dammit!.
You're an atheist. If you don't believe in a god, you're an atheist.
Where in my statement does it say I dont believe in a god? I said I am unsure either way. I thought an atheist is sure there is no god.
EDIT:
a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] –noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik] –noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things (is) unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
I think I am WAY more under the agnostic umbrella
I had this idea too. But new atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of God, yet not a rejection of the existence of God itself. If that makes sense. So, the line between new atheism and agnosticism is very blurry.
-
Just put it all in his file so we're covered either way.
-
H, I wasn't aware there was a "new atheism." It seems very clear-cut to me, and your definition of this supposed "new atheism" doesn't make any sense.
Atheists don't believe in God. People who are unsure of whether there is a God or not are agnostics. Simple as that.
-
I think it's actually spelled, "nu atheism," and has a more aggressive, harsh slant to it. Personally, I like it, but the vocals take some getting used to.
-
It is pop hook heavy atheism with some well placed ping harmonics and some rapping.
-
Progressive Atheism is the only good music and anyone who disagrees is
1. Listening to Richard Dawkins wrong
2. Is not atheistically sophisticated
3. Probably some nascar fan who's missing a few teeth who watches Fox news and prays to God or something and he's responsible for everything wrong with the world.
-
:lol :lol
You really find that cliche sarcasm that funny? Well then...enjoy yourself.
-
H, I wasn't aware there was a "new atheism." It seems very clear-cut to me, and your definition of this supposed "new atheism" doesn't make any sense.
Atheists don't believe in God. People who are unsure of whether there is a God or not are agnostics. Simple as that.
I'm not going to pretend to know the details of all the nomenclature, but prominent atheist figures like Richard Dawkins don't say that they "believe there is no God." They say they "don't believe in God." The difference is really subtle, and I don't grasp it completely, but most of the prominent atheists today are careful to phrase it that way.
-
You might be the first and only person I've ever met who believes that there is some secret double meaning behind that phrase.
-
Perhaps it is meant that they do not discount the idea that there might very well be a higher supreme being, etc....but do not believe in the portrayal of said being as shown in any of our religions.
And that my friends is called being Agnostic. If they want to call it "new" atheism, then that is just marketing.
-
Yep. I remember Dawkins saying he doesn't rule out the possibility of a God. He just says he doesn't believe in God because he thinks the probability is too small. So, he is by definition an agnostic, but he prefers the term atheist.
But like eric said, it is just marketing. The line between atheism and agnosticism is very blurry, but the term "atheist" gives the wielder a stronger sense of conviction than the term "agnostic."
-
Tick and Sonata, please knock it off. Just because I allow a lot of leeway to post little humorous bits and other stuff that isn't stricly on topic doesn't give you guys free reign to derail the thread with your little snipes at each other.
-
Yep. I remember Dawkins saying he doesn't rule out the possibility of a God. He just says he doesn't believe in God because he thinks the probability is too small. So, he is by definition an agnostic, but he prefers the term atheist.
But like eric said, it is just marketing. The line between atheism and agnosticism is very blurry, but the term "atheist" gives the wielder a stronger sense of conviction than the term "agnostic."
I do not see the line between Atheist and Agnostic as being blurry at all. One says "NO WAY" to there being a God, and one says "Sure...could be...just dont know/not sure"
They are very different and distinct.
-
Yep. I remember Dawkins saying he doesn't rule out the possibility of a God. He just says he doesn't believe in God because he thinks the probability is too small. So, he is by definition an agnostic, but he prefers the term atheist.
But like eric said, it is just marketing. The line between atheism and agnosticism is very blurry, but the term "atheist" gives the wielder a stronger sense of conviction than the term "agnostic."
I do not see the line between Atheist and Agnostic as being blurry at all. One says "NO WAY" to there being a God, and one says "Sure...could be...just dont know/not sure"
They are very different and distinct.
Look, I'm just telling you what the prominent leaders of the Atheist movement are saying. I agree with you, but that's not how they look at it.
-
Tick and Sonata, please knock it off. Just because I allow a lot of leeway to post little humorous bits and other stuff that isn't stricly on topic doesn't give you guys free reign to derail the thread with your little snipes at each other.
I've sniped no one, but fair enough.
-
Yep. I remember Dawkins saying he doesn't rule out the possibility of a God. He just says he doesn't believe in God because he thinks the probability is too small. So, he is by definition an agnostic, but he prefers the term atheist.
But like eric said, it is just marketing. The line between atheism and agnosticism is very blurry, but the term "atheist" gives the wielder a stronger sense of conviction than the term "agnostic."
I do not see the line between Atheist and Agnostic as being blurry at all. One says "NO WAY" to there being a God, and one says "Sure...could be...just dont know/not sure"
They are very different and distinct.
Look, I'm just telling you what the prominent leaders of the Atheist movement are saying. I agree with you, but that's not how they look at it.
Prominent leaders of the atheist movement? Do you just mean famous people who happen to be atheists? Because they have no movement, despite small groups of them.
-
Tick and Sonata, please knock it off. Just because I allow a lot of leeway to post little humorous bits and other stuff that isn't stricly on topic doesn't give you guys free reign to derail the thread with your little snipes at each other.
I've sniped no one, but fair enough.
To give you the benefit of the doubt, your first post appears to just be the typical "drive-by" joke that isn't aimed at anyone, but once Tick responded, your next one is just egging him on. I'm not officially "warning" either of you or getting on your case, but let's just stop that let the discussion commence, 'k?
-
I mean the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism". These are guys that define themselves as Atheists, but (by eric and SD-N's defnition) are technically agnostic.
EDIT: from Wikipedia: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." That's basically what I was trying to say a couple posts back.
-
Tick and Sonata, please knock it off. Just because I allow a lot of leeway to post little humorous bits and other stuff that isn't stricly on topic doesn't give you guys free reign to derail the thread with your little snipes at each other.
I've sniped no one, but fair enough.
To give you the benefit of the doubt, your first post appears to just be the typical "drive-by" joke that isn't aimed at anyone, but once Tick responded, your next one is just egging him on. I'm not officially "warning" either of you or getting on your case, but let's just stop that let the discussion commence, 'k?
That works for me.
-
I mean the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism". These are guys that define themselves as Atheists, but (by eric and SD-N's defnition) are technically agnostic.
But that doesnt blur any line between them (Atheist and Agnostic)....it just makes them wrong in their description of themselves. Just because they are prominent in the discussion of the topic, they do not define the term.
-
Atheists don't believe in God, but say that yes, there is a small possibility. Agnostics don't believe in God either, but say that there is a fair-sized possibility that there is and we really can't "know". That's why the line is blurry.
-
Atheists don't believe in God, but say that yes, there is a small possibility. Agnostics don't believe in God either, but say that there is a fair-sized possibility that there is and we really can't "know". That's why the line is blurry.
Atheists admit the possibility of a god as much as theists admit the possibility of there being no god.
-
Atheists don't believe in God, but say that yes, there is a small possibility. Agnostics don't believe in God either, but say that there is a fair-sized possibility that there is and we really can't "know". That's why the line is blurry.
so by those definitions, what is the term for someone who does not believe in the existence of a god whatsoever?
-
I don't get it either. Maybe this would help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa82GQWmvDM at about timestamp 1:05
-
Atheists don't believe in God, but say that yes, there is a small possibility. Agnostics don't believe in God either, but say that there is a fair-sized possibility that there is and we really can't "know". That's why the line is blurry.
Where do you see in the definition of Atheism that an atheist says there is a possibility there is a god?
-
Atheists don't believe in God, but say that yes, there is a small possibility. Agnostics don't believe in God either, but say that there is a fair-sized possibility that there is and we really can't "know". That's why the line is blurry.
so by those definitions, what is the term for someone who does not believe in the existence of a god whatsoever?
I don't know anyone that says "There is for sure no God, not even a tiny possibility."
-
I don't get it either. Maybe this would help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa82GQWmvDM at about timestamp 1:05
It seems you want to define the terms as follows.
Theist - Someone who believes 100% in a god with no doubt at all.
Atheist - Someone who doesn't believe in god, but is open to being wrong about it.
Agnostic - Someone who doesn't believe in god, but is open to being wrong about it.
The problem with that, is that you're assuming that god exists and that everyone else is open to believing it.
-
Atheists don't believe in God, but say that yes, there is a small possibility. Agnostics don't believe in God either, but say that there is a fair-sized possibility that there is and we really can't "know". That's why the line is blurry.
Where do you see in the definition of Atheism that an atheist says there is a possibility there is a god?
They reject God on the basis of probability. But by doing so, they acknowledge that there is some probability that there is a God. Just like the teapot analogy in the link I just posted.
Look, the problem with this whole thing is that we've developed two terms to try to categorize millions of people. Of course the line is going to be blurry.
-
H, do you admit even the slightest possibility that there is no god? If not, then why is it hard to believe that someone could hold an opposing opinion to your own?
And if you do, then that's the difference between Atheist and Agnostic.
-
I don't get it either. Maybe this would help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa82GQWmvDM at about timestamp 1:05
It seems you want to define the terms as follows.
Theist - Someone who believes 100% in a god with no doubt at all.
Atheist - Someone who doesn't believe in god, but is open to being wrong about it.
Agnostic - Someone who doesn't believe in god, but is open to being wrong about it.
The problem with that, is that you're assuming that god exists and that everyone else is open to believing it.
No, I'm assuming that no one can prove there is no god, therefore everyone has to acknowledge the possibility (no matter how slim). Just like I don't think anyone is under my bed right now, I have to acknowledge that there is a 1/10000 chance of it being so.
-
Well then I will ask directly, again, do you BrotherH admit even the slightest possibility that there is no god?
-
Then if EVERYONE agrees that there is a chance that there might/might not be a god, and that the fact is that we just cant know.....isnt everyone Agnostic? ;)
-
Well then I will ask directly, again, do you BrotherH admit even the slightest possibility that there is no god?
Yeah. But like I've said a billion times, the line is pretty slim and you're not going to capture billions of beliefs in 3 categories.
Atheism -- belief in no god because they see possibility of god as very slim
Agnosticism -- belief in no god, but possibility is wishy washy, and there's no way to know whether there is a god or not
Theism -- belief in god because they see possibility of god as very high
-
You can't boil belief down to probabilities. I doubt anyone here has said "Well the chances of god existing have finally reached over 51%, looks like it's time to start going to church".
Also agnosticism as a term has as much to do with god as it does everything in existence or non existence.
-
Well then I will ask directly, again, do you BrotherH admit even the slightest possibility that there is no god?
Yeah. But like I've said a billion times, the line is pretty slim and you're not going to capture billions of beliefs in 3 categories.
Atheism -- belief in no god because they see possibility of god as very slim
Agnosticism -- belief in no god, but possibility is wishy washy, and there's no way to know whether there is a god or not
Theism -- belief in god because they see possibility of god as very high
Those seem just to be your own personal definitions.
I was under the impression that these were more correct definitions:
Atheism -- Do not believe there is a god, and reject beleiefs in god
Agnostic -- Are unsure either way, as they do not think it is something that can be known or truly understood.
Theism -- Belief in a god.
Just like sexual preference or skin color, not everyone fits neatly in the category. There are degrees for sure. But that doesnt change the definitions.
-
I completely agree with eric's definitions. Let me be very clear and say that the definitions I posted are those that atheists and agnostics use to define themselves. And they are wrong for doing so, for the criticisms you are pointing out.
-
Ask someone the simple question:
"Do you believe in God?"
If the answer is:
"yes" -- Theist
"no" -- Atheist
"maybe/not sure" -- Agnostic
There. Done. Lets Eat. Its Taco night at the eric42434224 household :)
-
I completely agree with eric's definitions. Let me be very clear and say that the definitions I posted are those that atheists and agnostics use to define themselves. And they are wrong for doing so, for the criticisms you are pointing out.
You're the first person I've heard use those definitions, all of the atheists and agnostics I have ever met have gone with the same definitions as Eric.
-
Ask someone the simple question:
"Do you believe in God?"
If the answer is:
"yes" -- Theist
"no" -- Atheist
"maybe/not sure" -- Agnostic
There. Done. Lets Eat. Its Taco night at the eric42434224 household :)
What kind of meat? Can I bring any toppings/condiments, or are we covered?
-
Atheism/Theism are statements of belief. "I do believe"/"I don't believe".
Agnosticism is a statement of certainty. "I don't know if there is or isn't....".
They aren't mutually exclusive. A believer who is open to being wrong is an Agnostic Theist, a non-believer who is open to being wrong is an Agnostic Atheist.
I don't think anyone here would claim with 100% certainty that their belief is correct. So we can just dispense with even mentioning Agnosticism because we all come from the position of being open to discussion and debate on the topic of belief.
-
They aren't mutually exclusive.
That's a good way to look at it.
-
Bombardana, I get it, but I don't think it is useful in most discussions to make that distinction. IMO, slicing it that thinly usually just leads to tangential argument about whether we are applying the correct label rather than actually discussing whatever the topic at hand is (Exhibit A: this thread).
-
Bombardana, I get it, but I don't think it is useful in most discussions to make that distinction. IMO, slicing it that thinly usually just leads to tangential argument about whether we are applying the correct label rather than actually discussing whatever the topic at hand is (Exhibit A: this thread).
That's what I've always said. If you believe in god(s), you're a theist. There's no reason to assign a label indicating how sure you are of that belief. If you don't believe in gods, you're an atheist. It doesn't matter how open you are to whatever possibilities; as long as you don't believe, you're an atheist.
-
Ask someone the simple question:
"Do you believe in God?"
If the answer is:
"yes" -- Theist
"no" -- Atheist
"maybe/not sure" -- Agnostic
There. Done. Lets Eat. Its Taco night at the eric42434224 household :)
This is pretty much it. BrotherH I'm not really sure how your definitions are at all relevant, especially when there isn't much of an Atheist "movement" and even less of an Agnostic one. Actually, pretty much everything Adami responded to you with is spot-on, and this post from Eric is the icing on the cake.
So why do you go to church or not go to church? I'm actually interested to hear what people say about this! Figures the one time I post in P/R... :P
-
I don't go to church because I'm not religious. The only reason I do go to church is for Christenings and Weddings. I say the prayers, I sing the hymns, and when I was younger I did use to go to Church as a part of the Sunday School, I'd help out the younger kids with the activities and the end of year Nativity. I respect those who do have a religion, and have the dedication to go to church on a regular basis, but I guess it's just not my thing
-
I don't go because there are just as many hypocrites in church as anywhere else. They don't go for fellowship or spiritual learning. They go to compare clothing, 1 up each other, and talk behind people's backs. They do it now just like they did 35 years ago when I used to go to church. It's a farce and they do it all in the name of god. :lol
-
I agree. But don't people need other people for connection and growth?
-
You dont need a church to spend time with other people
-
I said connection and growth.
-
I haven't been to church since my last day of school when I was in 8th grade. I've been back a few times for funerals but I don't count those. When you don't have faith, I find it impossible to sit through mass, or even go in the first place. Two days after my fall last September, a priest came in my hospital room and said he wanted to join me in a prayer. I politely said that I coudnt do that as I am not a man of faith. He pulled his white thing out of is collar, sat down, and just bull shitted with me for a half hour or so. He was a pretty cool guy.
-
I said connection and growth.
You can find connection and growth with people outside of church. As described in this thread, church is not always a place that fosters either.
-
Most places are not designed to foster those things, they're activity and outwards directed. I know very well church isn't but it seems better directed towards these things than anywhere else.
I've been to inner martial arts/self-defence classes and that's the only other place I've found this.
-
I have found that (for me) the deepest, most interesting, and life-affecting conversations/interactions have been with people in non-structured places.
-
AFAIR, I've not been able to manifest these things outside of sometimes in church and inner martial arts classes.
-
AFAIR, I've not been able to manifest these things outside of sometimes in church and inner martial arts classes.
Thats an AndyDT issue. From your posts it appears you have a difficult time growing relationships and interacting with other people in a loose organic way. Connections and growth are most certainly attainable outside of structured places like church. I would say they are necessary to live a normal fulfilling life.
-
I think it's an issue for many people which is why they go to church in the first place. They just find ego outside of it. But you also find it within church and that's the hard part.
-
I only go few times a year, i'm not really all that religious.
-
I'm going in a few hours, and its pentecost sunday. Shall be coolies.
-
@OP, because after being forced for 18 years to go to church by my mother (the physical holy building where a Catholic Priest tells the mass), it was natural that I would feel an aversion towards it. I hope that one day I will overcome this phase and start practicing again.
-
Because it is a place that I am called to participate in the living God. It is a disciple, an offering of my time, a dedication of my love, but most of all, it is for my own ultimate good.