Unless you believe, Exactly the same thing he believes, In exactly the same way he believes it, A fanatical believer will call you an atheist. Unless you disbelieve, Exactly what he disbelieves, In exactly the way that he disbelieves it, An atheist will call you a christian. "Ditto", said Tweedle Diety "Ditto ditto", said Tweedle Denial.
i love it, naykidape, & agree with the connotation. occam said something very similar in the ath/ag forums recently. "Occam proposes that theists and atheists. Are the 'extreme' left and right of the central position called 'agnosticism'" what do you think?
Totally agree Neither are really very good at tolerating and understanding others beliefs. Get the impression that if you disagree with them (which I generally seem to)then theists think you're wrong/hellbound and the atheists think you're deluded/stupid. Diffrent methods to the same madness, and I'm not eager to embrace either.
I would say that that applies to dogmatic theists and atheists, ie, anyone who claims to have settled the issue for themselves one way or the other intellectually. If on the other hand we define "knowledge" as personal experience of, than a "theist" would be someone who's had that experience and an "atheist" is just someone who hasn't yet. Either way, I think a true agnostic is someone who's humble enough and honest enough to say "I don't know", which (I think) means the agnostic has a chance of seeing. In that sense whereas a dogmatic theist or athiest is closed minded--2 sides of the same coin-- a real agnostic is something else entirely.
Lol! I just realised I contradicted the hell out of myself in that last post. I guess the honest answer would have been I don't know.
Meh. I don't call someone who fails to disbelieve like I do a Christian. They may be a Pagan or a Buddhist. Christianity is the religion I focus on most because it is the majority of what I deal with, but I don't set fast that it is either CHRISTIAN or ATHEIST. No way.
Christianity's down fall is that they have some how got it mixed up that they must prove everyone that they "the christians" are right 100% of the time...Jeeez....Only people i saw jesus debate with were other belivers....And even then he was jsut pointing out how F**** up they were...And look at his following at the time. Sides you can catch more flies with honey then vinager .
there is a nasty little paradox that you cannot put taking sides ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in without causing suffering and harm as a direct natural resault of doing so, whatever those sides might happen to be. precisely at what many who call themselves christians see as being their belief's very core to insist upon, or invite you to their hell if you don't. i don't know if muslims of buddhists do this. i'm pretty sure daoists don't and as far as i've ever heard of hindu's don't either, nor most neopagans, though i could be mistaken about hindu's as i'm not familiar enough with it to be certain. it's 'christians', and perhapse muslims, who therefore single THEMSELVES out as the worst offenders. even though they are often lovely wonderful people with a lot of other wise good (as in more bennificial then harmful) ideas.
So many people refuse to state that they aren't sure what reality is exactly. It is my view that it takes a great deal of self confidence to tell others that one does not know for sure. I know that I am still unsure what it's all about. I don't believe in absolute atheist depictions, which assert the impossibility that there is a spiritual side to existence. If I could do so, I most likely would, but my own experiences are very compelling evidence that something beyond the laws of physics and rational explanation are indeed extant. I do not pretend to know anybody else's reality, and believe that whatever theirs may be, however different than mine, it is equally real and valid a perspective. I am nearer in my view of reality to theists, though I haven't yet, and doubt I ever will, decide that any one version of spirituality, faith, or religion is better than the rest. It is my feeling that all faiths can be real, and that they are the true reality for those who believe them. So, Islam is the true faith for Moslems, Hinduism for Hindus, Judaeism for Jews, Christianity for Christians, Wicca for Wiccans, etc. I believe they are all just as valid, and just as real, and true as each other. In my view, no particular faith need be the right one, and none need be wrong. Not because I want to try to please everyone, but because I truly feel that this is the best concept I have yet to come up with. And I see no reason for anyone but me to see it that way. If I am right, no one need alter their present faith, and likewise, there is no need to try to convert others to ones own faith. That would be like trying to impose my life experiences on another, or them attempting to make me understand what they have lived. I doubt that that is possible to do. Contradiction is a sure sign of wisdom in my books. There are at least two sides to all things, from what I have seen.
the difference seem to lieth between those who are living with "the way" vs. "a way" ~~~ hint: "a" way works & is much less likely to generate intolerance exclusivity loony-toon missionary efforts holy inquisition burning times crusade jihad hell (or, at least, hell-on-earth)
For example, I believe Mother Teresa was a missionary, tending to the poorest of the poor in the slums of Calcutta, and of course, expressing her faith to all. Since she is likely my number one hero of modern times, I sure hope you weren't calling her a loony toon. I don't agree with the practice of tying religion in with aid work, myself. I prefer aid organizations that have no religious affiliation. But, I still respect the missionaries' choice to do so. If the conversion of others is important to them, I hope they have some success. But, I don't agree with the concept. I am not so sure about the 'the way' vs. 'a way' point. I have known far too many atheists who 'know' atheism is ' the way.'
