Situational Ethics or Tickbox ethics?

[Kristoffer]

And also accept what I like? Because I want what is true!

You can reject what you like.

Maybe it is such, so your definition and their definition means "you are one or the other", funny how both sides want the same thing sort off.

Your rejection doesn't weaken the meanings of agnostic and atheist. I fear you have succumbed to the 'postmodern' attempt to calve up these meanings, all in the aid of recruiting more numbers to the slow-dying atheism. And also, perhaps, used by atheists as a get-out clause.

I would like the evidence

...By definition, an atheist would say that based on evidence (or lack of evidence) they believe that there is no god.

My position is the intention of what is true. Nothing less is good enough.

begs the question of Do you really know your own position?

Yes, but with so many religions which is right

However, when it comes down to the existence of God, people either 'believe' or not.

I thought it was accurate...Maybe your 2nd point is right, or maybe its wrong...do nut know

Why you choose to call yourself an agnostic atheist heaven only knows. Is it a buffer for your flimsy atheism? Is it a get-out clause?

[DannyM]

You can reject what you like.

And also accept what I like? Because I want what is true!

And what does this mean?

Your rejection doesn't weaken the meanings of agnostic and atheist. I fear you have succumbed to the 'postmodern' attempt to calve up these meanings, all in the aid of recruiting more numbers to the slow-dying atheism. And also, perhaps, used by atheists as a get-out clause.

Maybe it is such, so your definition and their definition means "you are one or the other", funny how both sides want the same thing sort off.

How do "both sides want the same thing"? What has this to do with the point?

...By definition, an atheist would say that based on evidence (or lack of evidence) they believe that there is no god.

I would like the evidence

What evidence would you like, and for what?

begs the question of Do you really know your own position?

My position is the intention of what is true. Nothing less is good enough.

Again, what on earth does this mean? Lovely statement and everything, but it means absolutely nothing.

However, when it comes down to the existence of God, people either 'believe' or not.

Yes, but with so many religions which is right

Another stormer of a question!

Why you choose to call yourself an agnostic atheist heaven only knows. Is it a buffer for your flimsy atheism? Is it a get-out clause?

I thought it was accurate...Maybe your 2nd point is right, or maybe its wrong...do nut know

Could you explain why you believe you are an "agnostic atheist"?

[Kristoffer]

Because I do not believe in god(Athiest) and are open to the ideas of religion? Also I don't Know if there is or is not a god, maybe there is maybe no, why not? (Agnostic) Anyway it doesn't automatically remove me from an argument, because I could all-ways argue from the same assumptions that both Atheists and Theists make

[DannyM]

Because I do not believe in god(Athiest) and are open to the ideas of religion? Also I don't Know if there is or is not a god, maybe there is maybe no, why not? (Agnostic) Anyway it doesn't automatically remove me from an argument, because I could all-ways argue from the same assumptions that both Atheists and Theists make

Saying what you do not believe says nothing at all about you. It is true that I am not Kristoffer, and that says what I am not, not what I am. You not believing in God, you lacking belief in God, etc, does not say a thing about you as you are not the subject of the statement: what I do not believe/lack belief in. Lacking belief is not anything whatsoever; it is not something, anymore than not Kristoffer is something. So by defining atheism as lacking belief in God is not only wrong but highly illogical. Everything you have said above tells me you are agnostic.

Danny

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Everything you [Kristoffer] have said above tells me you are agnostic.

Agreed.

FL

[Kristoffer]

hmm, but you said I have to choose?

So I choose Kristus or Atheism? Mohmammed and krizhena gets no word in edgeways i guess?

Ja well give some time!

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

hmm, but you said I have to choose?

I said that you have to choose between agnosticism and atheism.

You are a very confused young man.

FL

[Kristoffer]

Well I choose Atheist, but if there is good Evidence for god then I would like to know him.

I am not that confused, maybe confused at how I could be confused.

[Proinsias]

Agnostic atheist? These two terms are mutually exclusive. You are either one or the other...choose. If you admit the possibility of a god but consider such an entity unknowable and/or unprovable, you are an agnostic.

Here is the definition of

Atheism:...disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity...the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity...godlessness... (Merriam Webster dictionary)

An atheist is someone who subscibes to or practices atheism. An atheist cannot be an agnostic. If you are an agnostic who leans toward atheism, you are still an agnostic.*

Choose which you are! Choosing one or the other will help you to resolve your confusion.

FL

*And vice-versa, any «atheism» which admits the possibility of a deity is just nonsense.

Not sure that the Merriam-Webster dictionary is the best port of call for these type of definitions. I recall Jerry McDoanld, whom I believe is a member here, writing an article regarding the Merriam-Webster dictionary of faith and why it was incorrect "b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof". I can't find the article atm, my web-fu is failing me. The gist being that Christian faith should be defined by that which Christians respect, generally the Bible and other Christians. If one is athiest one is more likely to listen to other atheists, most of whom would make some allowance for God in a Russel's teapot or random silly mythical beast type argument, than Christians pointing to a book which they may see as unfit when applied to themselves. If atheism is some sort of attempt to make oneself God, one is hardly going to be bound by the latest definition of the Merrriam-Webster dictionary or by what a Christian tells them they must adhere to. I don't own the book myself, or pay much attention to it, but I've heard a few Americans say it has done little to improve the language and a lot to wreck it. I don't imagine you put much value in Christian defintions of your stance when you were atheist, and likewise now put little value in how atheists define your current Christain stance.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Proinsias,

any dictionary will do. I have 6 or 7 here at home besides the Merriam Webster Third New International. I am certain - certain - that all dictionaries will agree on the definition of the words atheist and agnostic; and I'm so sure that I won't even bother to look up these words in my various dictionaries.

Christian faith should be defined by that which Christians respect, generally the Bible and other Christians.

Christian faith should be determined by the Bible but CERTAINLY NOT by other Christians! However, the accepted definitions of words is the work of dictionaries. (I just checked, Merriam Webster doesn't have a definition of the term «Christian faith.»)

I don't imagine you put much value in Christian defintions of your stance when you were atheist, and likewise now put little value in how atheists define your current Christain stance.

Correct. This part you got right. However, I now realize that those Christians praying for me while I was an atheist were doing something heroic for which no positive outcome could be forseen. Now, I am in their position and see atheists like yourself or Kristoffer or vile as hopelssly lost... I don't even bother to pray for you, having concluded you will be getting what you want and deserve. Atheism perverts. Atheism perverts so intensely that even after one has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, one's wounded spirit wants to continue serving the former evil master:

When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisonner of the law of sin at work within my members...*

What a wretched man I am! At one and the same time I want to say «To Hell with you, idiot Proinsias!» ...and then I feel sorry for you, real pity because you are toast and don't know it.

Maybe, if God wants, you'll understand.

FL

*Romans 7:21-24

[cslewislover]

No one can talk about anything when there can't be agreement on definitions. It's pretty absurd when people go around making up definitions for words that are contrary to what they have meant . . . a person can go around and say they are right about something becuase, lo and behold, that something has a new definition (created by themselves, of course).

All my life, through high school, college, university, and beyond (lol, YES, dictionaries are useful things), as discussed by Ph.D professors, etc., "atheism" means a conviction that there is no God; "agnostic" means that one doesn't believe in a God, but is open to the possibility of there being one. This is the common, bare-bones understanding of these words. Kristoffer, what you have stated a few times at this discussion board would make you an agnostic. But, you know yourself and if you say you're an atheist, then we'll take you for your word.

I was agnostic for a long time, and I believed definitions of Christianity (and Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), even though I wasn't one. I know that some of what I thought about some people turned out not to be true, and I'm sure what some people think of my beliefs now is incorrect. However, there are basic definitions and knowledge about the faiths which can be known and certainly should be acknowledged or respected by all. Aren't contrary thoughts just prejudice, purposeful ignorance, and the like? Maybe I'm not getting some of the points here.

[Proinsias]

6 or 7 dictionaries agree? how do you know that one dictionary agrees with another? You may see them as in agreement, others may not. Who decides? If you can post 6 or 7 identical, complete, defintions of atheism or faith from your dictionaries I'll be both impressed and sad.

Merriam Webster may not have a defintion of "Christain faith", why would they as it's not a word. It does have a definition of faith, and I imagine you don't agree with the part of the definition I quoted. If Kristoffer decides he is a 'Kristoffer athiest', or a 'Dawkins atheist' or whatever then the definition of atheist doesn't apply to him either, assuming ze's a male. He can run with any defintion he wants, if Christains aren't bounds by the Merriam Webster dictionary why should anyone else be? If someone likes the biblical definition and another prefers that of the vile beast that is Christphen Hitchens, who's calling the shots? certainly not the dictionary. You're not bound by it as you've found something better, as have others who disagree with you. For common ground you all disagree with some of the Merriam-Webster definitions. Generally I find many people dislike those that apply to them and enjoy those that apply to others.

Correct. This part you got right. However, I now realize that those Christians praying for me while I was an atheist were doing something heroic for which no positive outcome could be forseen. Now, I am in their position and see atheists like yourself or Kristoffer or vile as hopelssly lost... I don't even bother to pray for you, having concluded you will be getting what you want and deserve. Atheism perverts. Atheism perverts so intensely that even after one has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, one's wounded spirit wants to continue serving the former evil master:

When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisonner of the law of sin at work within my members...*

What a wretched man I am! At one and the same time I want to say «To Hell with you, idiot Proinsias!» ...and then I feel sorry for you, real pity because you are toast and don't know it.

Maybe, if God wants, you'll understand.

FL

I'm not an atheist, I have a love for religion but it extends far beyond Christianity. That you have went from an atheist who despises Christianity to a Christian who mocks atheism does not surprise me. One exteme to the other. But I do think we need those who are passionate in thier course, even if they make the occasional u-turn.

It seems to me that regardless of your stance those who disagree with you will be viewed as morons. You thought of Christians as idiots then made the life changing decision to view atheists as idiots instead. The fence is quite comfortable, contrary to popular belief.

[cslewislover]

Why do you assume that we think people who disagree with us are idiots or morons? You must have an unrealistic view of devout Christians. From what I have read and heard many times, atheists are much more likely to view people who disagree with them that way. We view all persons as God's creation, and worthy of respect. It may not always come out totally that way in everyday conversation, but one can disagree with someone and that not translate to hate or downright disrespect. We all get upset, too, but we don't hold on to that and nurture hatred or vengeance or things of that nature.

From the way you talk, you make yourself out to be so loving . . . you seem to think that since we made a decision, we can't be loving. In the end it's not just a human decision, but I don't think it would be anywhere near possible for you to understand what I'm talking about even if I were to explain it in the most explicit language. Part of why this is so is that you cannot possibly believe in objective truth. For us to believe in objective truth does not negate the possibility of us loving those who disagree with us. On the contrary, that's exactly what Christ calls us to do.

[Proinsias]

Apologies, that post was not directed at you. It was directed at FL. From what I gather FL was a very anti Christian and now is rather pro Christian, to the point of calling people "major fools" as in this thread and similar terms in others. Mocking those who are not in agreement with him as he done when he was an atheist, from what I gather from his posts.

I do not assume that any of you are idiots or morons, I really like you all, but I find the manner in which FL dismisses those who do not agree with him unpleasant. To me it seems that the attitude is prevelant on both sides and largely unhelpful.

I do not for a moment think that your philisophical or religious opinions will prevent you from being a loving and wonderful person, as you appear to be.

If you call someone a "major fool" or something similar and I don't agree, I'm going to voice my opinion. As I would hope you would do for me.

[DannyM]

Well I choose Atheist, but if there is good Evidence for god then I would like to know him.

I am not that confused, maybe confused at how I could be confused.

You are quite clearly one of the most confused individuals to have entered this board since my time here. You really do have no clue as to what you are and/or believe.