I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
It's not petty. Atheist claim outright there is no god. Agnostic atheists claim there is no God, but that they lack the knowledge to prove it wholly. Clear difference. Not petty.
It's not petty. Atheist claim outright there is no god. Agnostic atheists claim there is no God, but that they lack the knowledge to prove it wholly. Clear difference. Not petty.
Since we lack knowledge so does Christianity theirs no solid proof or little to no trustworthy proof.
They are all jazz but with important distinctions. That's the difference, in case you can't appreciate such subtle nuances.
They're all from the same root so I would consider jazz in the same category for all of those.
They're all from the same root so I would consider jazz in the same category for all of those.
Agnostic atheists share the some of the same characteristics of the umbrella term of atheism, but they have important differences to warrant a sub category, much like Soul jazz from the broad categorization of Jazz.
Since we lack knowledge so does Christianity theirs no solid proof or little to no trustworthy proof.
No, Christians claim to have knowledge, so do atheists, for their own views. Agnostics don't claim to do so.
Agnostic atheists share the some of the same characteristics of the umbrella term of atheism, but they have important differences to warrant a sub category, much like Soul jazz from the broad categorization of Jazz.
And doesn't that sub category try to gain Independence from the root and become a new category altogether? and this is a reason why their are so many different views on this topic and there-forth bring rise to more controversies.
No, Christians claim to have knowledge, so do atheists, for their own views. Agnostics don't claim to do so.
Well isn't this the reason this thread is still going it will keep on going until we find a clear trustworthy answer both sides would accept but then again neither side will accept something that easily,
Agnostic atheists share the some of the same characteristics of the umbrella term of atheism, but they have important differences to warrant a sub category, much like Soul jazz from the broad categorization of Jazz.
The way you're arguing the point it sounds as if you are treating the umbrella term atheism as a subcategory.
The way you're arguing the point it sounds as if you are treating the umbrella term atheism as a subcategory.
Well if we want to find the roots of Christianity won't we have to use all of the sub categories to reach the original and if we do reach an original it might be different from what we expected why? because a subcategory could become more popular than the root of it all.
The way you're arguing the point it sounds as if you are treating the umbrella term atheism as a subcategory.
No, I think it's just my sentence structure. Agnostic atheism is a subcategory of the umbrella of atheism.
And doesn't that sub category try to gain Independence from the root and become a new category altogether? and this is a reason why their are so many different views on this topic and there-forth bring rise to more controversies.
And point being? I can believe in what I want, I'm not going to limit myself because it confuses others.
Well isn't this the reason this thread is still going it will keep on going until we find a clear trustworthy answer both sides would accept but then again neither side will accept something that easily,
Won't ever happen. And that's good, diversity brings progress.
Well if we want to find the roots of Christianity won't we have to use all of the sub categories to reach the original and if we do reach an original it might be different from what we expected why? because a subcategory could become more popular than the root of it all.
You misinterpreted what Mage is saying. And I'm still not sure what you're point is by raising such statements, because it's not of any dire consequence that a derivative gets more popular.
No. There will almost certainly not be a way to find the truth about God and his existence in the short run; diversity helps to expand opinions instead of having it confined to a small spectrum of narrow opinions.
We can all live the way we want to live there-forth people bend the rules to fit their liking's and get rid of those limits.
Bend what rules? Get rid of what limits? Are you suggesting we all go back to a few viewpoints and not have alternate ones? I'm sorry, but you aren't conveying your points well.
No, I think it's just my sentence structure. Agnostic atheism is a subcategory of the umbrella of atheism.
Let's go back a bit, your statement was "Or agnostic atheist" I assume in response to my statement "That would make you an atheist." This would seem to indicate you're saying atheist or agnostic atheist, separating agnostic atheist from the umbrella term atheist. This is not the case agnostic is just a modifier in this case further explaining ones position. They are both atheist, no "or" involved. the agnostic only helps further define the position letting us known ones stance on knowledge. In this case that the knowledge is unknown or treated as knowable to that person. The only baring this might have on being atheist is that could be what's influencing the lack of belief, but that doesn't even have to be the case. For the label atheist the reason behind the lack of belief is inconsequential.
I merely said he could be an agnostic atheist, and not just an atheist, that doesn't mean I think atheism is not an umbrella term, but merely that he was of another group. And another group can just mean a subgroup of a larger umbrella group. I've been around long enough to know they're not separate groups on an equal level.
