what does agnostic mean to you?

General discussions that don't fit in other forums can go here.
Forum rules
Feel free to discuss any topics here. Please use the Politics sub-forum for political conversations. While most topics will be allowed please be sure to be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.
Message
Author
User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#101 Post by flash2015 » Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:34 am

yavuzovic wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:41 pm
I can't read the all thread now but here's something:

When I talked with an atheist, she told me that she believes science will eventually explain the thing we call first creation. Every moment matter changes but first creation is something today's science can't explain. I still would like to hear other non-believers to tell me what they think about this first creation. Let me come to my point about agnosticism, they don't want to say yes matter is created by a superior power for whatever reason they have; and they avoid saying no matter's first appearance will be enlightened by science - because yeah future is unpredictable.
Anyway, I could never understand this mentality.
Define creation. You mean the Big Bang?

User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#102 Post by flash2015 » Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:45 am

yavuzovic wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:48 pm
Pardon my ignorance, is it possible an atheist to believe in souls, giving human's power to opt?
(The text following isn't a mushroom trip, I guarantee)
Like, the atom-energy physics, there could be a complete different system that we miss because it has nothing related with our system: It doesn't fill the space, doesn't affect the energy around and... makes the soul? If that's too dumb just answer the question.
Anything is possible...just like it is possible that everyone is being followed around by an invisible little pink elephant (not trying to mock). But you have to actually be able to prove it exists with reproducible experiments. I am not going to take your word for it because you want it to exist.

I am not sure what you are trying to say with the atom-energy physics analogy. Are you trying to make some sort of reference to the quest to make the theory of general relativity line up with quantum field theory? The analogy doesn't make sense.

RoganJosh
Silver Donator
Silver Donator
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:02 am
Location: Stockholm
Karma: 464
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#103 Post by RoganJosh » Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:25 am

Science might say we currently don't understand this. But referring to a divine entity is saying we cannot understand this. I don't think there is reason to give up so easily.

That said, it's possible for anyone believe that there are things we will never be able to understand. I can understand that mentality. But to add a divine entity to the equation, that seems like self-deception to me.

User avatar
Fluminator
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:50 pm
Karma: 3305
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#104 Post by Fluminator » Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:11 pm

flash2015 wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:18 pm
<snip>
You really don't have to worry about filtering your thoughts on religion, I wouldn't be insulted. I've been in many debates about it online with people much less diplomatic than you lol.

I looked a bit into the dating of the gospels, and it seems like there's a lot of debate and a huge rabbit hole indeed. I find it really funny how biased the wikipedia article is on really subjective scholarship on the texts.
I personally find the arguments for it being written pre-70 AD more compelling than post-85 AD at a quick glance, but I'm not sure how interested you are in talking about this, and I don't think either date would affect our views much at all anyway.

It's not that people dying for their beliefs is proof they're correct. I know there are lots of martyrs for other religions. But it is evidence that they believed they were correct. The disciples gained literally nothing from the lie if they didn't believe it. They all got killed, ostracized, scattered etc. and they didn't gain much in return. If the disciples were pranking people, what was the point?

yavuzovic
Posts: 2912
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:42 pm
Location: Istanbul
Karma: 570
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#105 Post by yavuzovic » Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:04 pm

flash2015 wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:34 am
yavuzovic wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:41 pm
I can't read the all thread now but here's something:

When I talked with an atheist, she told me that she believes science will eventually explain the thing we call first creation. Every moment matter changes but first creation is something today's science can't explain. I still would like to hear other non-believers to tell me what they think about this first creation. Let me come to my point about agnosticism, they don't want to say yes matter is created by a superior power for whatever reason they have; and they avoid saying no matter's first appearance will be enlightened by science - because yeah future is unpredictable.
Anyway, I could never understand this mentality.
Define creation. You mean the Big Bang?
No no, all matter was densely stocked as a small, very small ball before big bang. Define creation is how did this ball existed.

yavuzovic
Posts: 2912
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:42 pm
Location: Istanbul
Karma: 570
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#106 Post by yavuzovic » Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:06 pm

RoganJosh wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:25 am
Science might say we currently don't understand this. But referring to a divine entity is saying we cannot understand this. I don't think there is reason to give up so easily.
What what what, which divine entity is that asking you to believe what you can't understand. What you say is possible if we knew it's true for sure but... how to start believing if you can't understand it?

RoganJosh
Silver Donator
Silver Donator
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:02 am
Location: Stockholm
Karma: 464
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#107 Post by RoganJosh » Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:09 pm

Can you understand God? Good for you! Maybe I should have used the word explain instead. Though, it is not clear to me what you put into these words.

Your question about an explanation for the first creation is rhetorical. Whatever science explains, you will move the marker and ask for an explanation of whatever was before. I mean, it's not even clear that there is such a thing as a first creation.
1

yavuzovic
Posts: 2912
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:42 pm
Location: Istanbul
Karma: 570
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#108 Post by yavuzovic » Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:00 pm

We may not understand God, but we should be completely understanding the religion's purposes and orders to believe in it. Instead of asking another question, can you tell me how you started believing without understanding it at all? What makes you deserve the heaven/final peace/nirvana/whatever you believe as the prize - you were just born with it and whoooop God rolls the roulette and you rolled the right parents YAAAY you got the heaven because you were born as a believer. How else can you get into it?

User avatar
Jamiet99uk
Posts: 29456
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 18259
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#109 Post by Jamiet99uk » Tue Jun 18, 2019 8:12 pm

The "first cause" or "first creation" argument is bunk. It's nonsense.

If everything had to have a first cause, and thus God must exist, what caused God?

If the answer is "God is special and doesn't require a creator" then I could just reply "the universe is special and doesn't require a creator".

User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#110 Post by flash2015 » Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:50 am

Fluminator wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:11 pm
flash2015 wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:18 pm
<snip>
You really don't have to worry about filtering your thoughts on religion, I wouldn't be insulted. I've been in many debates about it online with people much less diplomatic than you lol.

I looked a bit into the dating of the gospels, and it seems like there's a lot of debate and a huge rabbit hole indeed. I find it really funny how biased the wikipedia article is on really subjective scholarship on the texts.
I personally find the arguments for it being written pre-70 AD more compelling than post-85 AD at a quick glance, but I'm not sure how interested you are in talking about this, and I don't think either date would affect our views much at all anyway.

It's not that people dying for their beliefs is proof they're correct. I know there are lots of martyrs for other religions. But it is evidence that they believed they were correct. The disciples gained literally nothing from the lie if they didn't believe it. They all got killed, ostracized, scattered etc. and they didn't gain much in return. If the disciples were pranking people, what was the point?
I think wikipedia may potentially oversimplify. I am not sure it is explicitly biased though. To have any hope of objectivity on this, you can't take too seriously those who base their scholarship on the assumption that the Bible is inerrant. This is my understanding of what they are doing.

So how early do you think Matthew was written? Are you suggesting it comes before Mark? At least to my understanding, Matthew was written with a specific agenda. He was trying to prove that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, that believing in Jesus was a continuation of the Old Testament. He was also quite hostile to the Jews, talking about things like "their synagogues"(4:23, 9:35, 10:17, 12:9, 13:54) and adding things like 'All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”' (27:25) in referring to the Jews (probably helping to lead to centuries of anti-semitism by Christians). If I understand correctly, the Jews finally kicked the Christians out of the synagogues around 85AD. Given the agenda and style of Matthew's Gospel it strongly suggests that he wrote his Gospel on or after this event.

All the Gospels refer in some way to the fall of the Second Temple, either directly or through metaphor (e.g. like the fig tree thing in Mark). The simplest explanation for all these references is that all the Gospels were written after the Temple fell...which should date all the Gospels 70AD+.

I don't doubt that the Apostles may have believed that Jesus was the Son Of God. Lots of people have very very spiritual beliefs. I have someone close to me that believes he/she speaks to his/her father through dreams (the father died a very traumatic death). I have been to meditation courses where people claim to have had very spiritual experiences. I am not challenging this.

I am just arguing that the written descriptions of Jesus life (written after almost all apostles were dead) were grossly exaggerated, especially all the miracles. The deeper you go into analyzing this stuff dispassionately, you see there are more and more discrepancies in the Gospels. For example, Mark getting basic geography wrong (if you were speaking to a real eyewitness I doubt you would make such a mistake)...or Mark repeating the same miracle essentially twice (Feeding the 5000 then Feeding The 4000). Or Luke getting dates wrong by a decade (the census of Quirinius and Herod). Or John making up the Beloved Disciple, Lazarus, who was not a real person in any other Gospel. I didn't realize this before but only John mentions that Lazarus was raised from the dead. It would have been such an important event that it makes no sense that it didn't appear in any other Gospel. Having come from the "inside" and also seeing the way the Buddhists created similar magical stories around Buddha and his Arahants, I can't logically reject one set of miracles without rejecting the other set too.

User avatar
Fluminator
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:50 pm
Karma: 3305
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#111 Post by Fluminator » Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:45 pm

flash2015 wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:50 am
Fluminator wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:11 pm
<snip>
I think wikipedia may potentially oversimplify. I am not sure it is explicitly biased though. To have any hope of objectivity on this, you can't take too seriously those who base their scholarship on the assumption that the Bible is inerrant. This is my understanding of what they are doing.

So how early do you think Matthew was written? Are you suggesting it comes before Mark? At least to my understanding, Matthew was written with a specific agenda. He was trying to prove that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, that believing in Jesus was a continuation of the Old Testament. He was also quite hostile to the Jews, talking about things like "their synagogues"(4:23, 9:35, 10:17, 12:9, 13:54) and adding things like 'All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”' (27:25) in referring to the Jews (probably helping to lead to centuries of anti-semitism by Christians). If I understand correctly, the Jews finally kicked the Christians out of the synagogues around 85AD. Given the agenda and style of Matthew's Gospel it strongly suggests that he wrote his Gospel on or after this event.

All the Gospels refer in some way to the fall of the Second Temple, either directly or through metaphor (e.g. like the fig tree thing in Mark). The simplest explanation for all these references is that all the Gospels were written after the Temple fell...which should date all the Gospels 70AD+.

I don't doubt that the Apostles may have believed that Jesus was the Son Of God. Lots of people have very very spiritual beliefs. I have someone close to me that believes he/she speaks to his/her father through dreams (the father died a very traumatic death). I have been to meditation courses where people claim to have had very spiritual experiences. I am not challenging this.

I am just arguing that the written descriptions of Jesus life (written after almost all apostles were dead) were grossly exaggerated, especially all the miracles. The deeper you go into analyzing this stuff dispassionately, you see there are more and more discrepancies in the Gospels. For example, Mark getting basic geography wrong (if you were speaking to a real eyewitness I doubt you would make such a mistake)...or Mark repeating the same miracle essentially twice (Feeding the 5000 then Feeding The 4000). Or Luke getting dates wrong by a decade (the census of Quirinius and Herod). Or John making up the Beloved Disciple, Lazarus, who was not a real person in any other Gospel. I didn't realize this before but only John mentions that Lazarus was raised from the dead. It would have been such an important event that it makes no sense that it didn't appear in any other Gospel. Having come from the "inside" and also seeing the way the Buddhists created similar magical stories around Buddha and his Arahants, I can't logically reject one set of miracles without rejecting the other set too.
I'm only recently looking into the dating the gospels (like after you brought it up) but it's more interesting than I thought.
I don't currently think the Bible is inerrant but I've always thought it was decently reliable. It looks like everyone is agreement that Mark was the first written based on Luke and Matthew using it as one of their sources (which makes sense since it's the most concise).
Luke and Matthew were written after, and Luke and Acts are basically a part 1/part 2 story. Acts is all about Luke allegedly recording what Paul had done up to a point, and it ends abruptly with his temporary imprisonment in Rome which was under Nero. It seems logical that would be around when it was written because if it was after, you would think his release, further ministry, or martyrdom would be mentioned.

The arguments it was written after the temple destruction (as you pointed out) was the distancing between the writers and the Jews which some scholars interpret as anti-semitism and anti-semitism was a big thing in the destruction of the temple. I don't know, I just feel like it's a lot more of a weak reason then just believing it was written to around where Luke ended the story abruptly.
The other argument that Jesus talks about the destruction of Jerusalem (so it must have been written after the destruction in happened) isn't that convincing to me either because his statements seem like he's referencing and mirroring the description of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, not the Roman one. And the destruction and rebuilding of Israel was a common recurring archetype in Jewish/Christian mythos.

So you believe the disciples believed Jesus was divine. Do you believe the apostles and witnesses believe they physically saw Jesus after he was dead? Or was that a later addition added by Matthew and Luke and John etc. and they didn't actually claim that?

Again the discrepancies in the gospels don't bug me. That just makes me believe they were 4 largely independent sources and makes me trust that it's decently accurate.
Like Mark recording two different times Jesus allegedly fed people is a shrug to me. Some I haven't heard of before so will have to look later. I know the beloved disciple is John though, so it's not a new disciple made up. (John was very humble) And the gospel John containing different aspects of Jesus's life makes sense sine the last 3 accounts were largely the same, and the writer was probably interested in things not already mentioned.

User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#112 Post by flash2015 » Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:13 pm

Fluminator wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:45 pm
flash2015 wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:50 am

<snip>
I'm only recently looking into the dating the gospels (like after you brought it up) but it's more interesting than I thought.
I don't currently think the Bible is inerrant but I've always thought it was decently reliable. It looks like everyone is agreement that Mark was the first written based on Luke and Matthew using it as one of their sources (which makes sense since it's the most concise).
Luke and Matthew were written after, and Luke and Acts are basically a part 1/part 2 story. Acts is all about Luke allegedly recording what Paul had done up to a point, and it ends abruptly with his temporary imprisonment in Rome which was under Nero. It seems logical that would be around when it was written because if it was after, you would think his release, further ministry, or martyrdom would be mentioned.

The arguments it was written after the temple destruction (as you pointed out) was the distancing between the writers and the Jews which some scholars interpret as anti-semitism and anti-semitism was a big thing in the destruction of the temple. I don't know, I just feel like it's a lot more of a weak reason then just believing it was written to around where Luke ended the story abruptly.
The other argument that Jesus talks about the destruction of Jerusalem (so it must have been written after the destruction in happened) isn't that convincing to me either because his statements seem like he's referencing and mirroring the description of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, not the Roman one. And the destruction and rebuilding of Israel was a common recurring archetype in Jewish/Christian mythos.

So you believe the disciples believed Jesus was divine. Do you believe the apostles and witnesses believe they physically saw Jesus after he was dead? Or was that a later addition added by Matthew and Luke and John etc. and they didn't actually claim that?

Again the discrepancies in the gospels don't bug me. That just makes me believe they were 4 largely independent sources and makes me trust that it's decently accurate.
Like Mark recording two different times Jesus allegedly fed people is a shrug to me. Some I haven't heard of before so will have to look later. I know the beloved disciple is John though, so it's not a new disciple made up. (John was very humble) And the gospel John containing different aspects of Jesus's life makes sense sine the last 3 accounts were largely the same, and the writer was probably interested in things not already mentioned.
On the Temple thing, I have read many people's arguments about it. I had understood that it is generally accepted that Jesus is "allegedly" making a prophecy about the current Temple's destruction, not the previous one. I have seen arguments saying that the Temple's destruction was never mentioned in the Gospels...but then go on to say what a miracle it was that Jesus prophesied the Temple's destruction. Or people claim that others are "biased" against Christianity because they won't start with the assumption that Jesus was divine. But that isn't how all this works. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof and that proof just doesn't exist (circular reasoning is not proof). In fact there is very little, if any, existence of the historical Jesus outside of documents written by believers.

Yes, Acts does not explicitly go into detail about all the things that happened in Rome, but it does have Paul prophesying his own torture and death (Acts 20). What is more likely to be true - Paul is able to see into the future OR this was written after all the bad stuff happened? Extraordinary claims thing again.

In the ancient world people exaggerated or falsified stories all the time, often these stories could appear very quickly (like the stories around Marcus Aerelius and the Thundering Legion or Josephus making fables about the fall of the Temple - many, many examples here). Christians and non-Christians alike did this. So whether it was 62AD or 85AD or even 37AD (as I saw one theologian claim for Matthew), there would have been great pressure to show how powerful Jesus was too, especially with all the other competing stories. Again a lot of the miracles around Jesus aren't unique (virgin birth or resurrection). These stories came up many, many times before.

I don't believe that the apostles physically met Jesus after his death. However I do believe they may have had visions and dreams about him. At least to my understanding, in those times it would have been commonly believed that visions/dreams are the way $DEITY's speak to us. And periods of intense meditation and prayer (prayer is essentially just one specific form of meditation) can make you believe you are having a spiritual experience, especially if your object of focus is your $DEITY of choice. I know this personally from discussing experiences with people after doing many multi-day silent meditation courses.

It is well known that people can either be convinced they saw something which never happened (e.g. repressed memories scandals) or convince themselves that they saw something not true (any number of overturned convictions based on eye witness testimony which turned out to be false). To take a more recent example, I don't see any reason why Blaisey-Ford and Kavanaugh don't both sincerely believe they were telling the truth even though we know at least one account was wrong. So even eyewitness accounts can often not be trusted for accuracy. Many exaggerated stories from the ancient world were made by people that actually witnessed the events at hand.

Anyway, this is where I am after much thought over a long period of time. But I understand that everyone wants to find meaning and purpose in their life, even me, and whilst I am no longer a believer in the supernatural, I know when things turn out certain ways I subconsciously think "there must be a reason". If people really want to believe the Gospel is the literal truth or close to it and it provides them meaning in their lives, good luck to them (as long as they don't force that belief on others). It just no longer makes any sense to me.

yavuzovic
Posts: 2912
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:42 pm
Location: Istanbul
Karma: 570
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#113 Post by yavuzovic » Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:56 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 8:12 pm
The "first cause" or "first creation" argument is bunk. It's nonsense.

If everything had to have a first cause, and thus God must exist, what caused God?

If the answer is "God is special and doesn't require a creator" then I could just reply "the universe is special and doesn't require a creator".
No man no, the God's existence is apart from time and place - this means we can't say God existed before universe. We can only say time was created with universe. I personally am not a philosopher, but this thing was explained in one of the recent books I read. But this message is definitely more nonsense - even if we assume God doesn't exist, you just flee from answering how the substance came up first.

RoganJosh
Silver Donator
Silver Donator
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:02 am
Location: Stockholm
Karma: 464
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#114 Post by RoganJosh » Fri Jun 21, 2019 6:54 am

In lack of observations and/or data, while it's definitely interesting to theorize, the responsible thing to do is not to make bold claims. To flee the question is to make up some BS. Like a God.

And, to repeat, it is not know whether there was a point in time when substance came up first. Science makes no such claims.

yavuzovic
Posts: 2912
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:42 pm
Location: Istanbul
Karma: 570
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#115 Post by yavuzovic » Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:56 pm

RoganJosh wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 6:54 am
In lack of observations and/or data, while it's definitely interesting to theorize, the responsible thing to do is not to make bold claims. To flee the question is to make up some BS. Like a God.

And, to repeat, it is not know whether there was a point in time when substance came up first. Science makes no such claims.
Well, what triggered the big bang?

RoganJosh
Silver Donator
Silver Donator
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:02 am
Location: Stockholm
Karma: 464
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#116 Post by RoganJosh » Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:06 pm

We don't know, yet. Does that scare you?
1

User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#117 Post by flash2015 » Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:24 pm

I don't know why...but the title of the topic makes me think of big pharma ads:

"Ask your doctor if agnosticism is right for you"

yavuzovic
Posts: 2912
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:42 pm
Location: Istanbul
Karma: 570
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#118 Post by yavuzovic » Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:24 pm

More like curious.
All the matter we know existed after that.
Next question:
Are physic rules we know effective outside of universe?

User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#119 Post by flash2015 » Fri Jun 21, 2019 3:10 pm

yavuzovic wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:24 pm
More like curious.
All the matter we know existed after that.
Next question:
Are physic rules we know effective outside of universe?
Once we prove there is something outside what we understand to be the universe (if anything) and we are able to run some tests there, we will let you know.

yavuzovic
Posts: 2912
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:42 pm
Location: Istanbul
Karma: 570
Contact:

Re: what does agnostic mean to you?

#120 Post by yavuzovic » Fri Jun 21, 2019 3:36 pm

Even if there was something there, it has to be questioned in the same way.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CaptainFritz28, cdngooner, Milky, Pengwinja and 97 guests