Everyone should be a skeptic to a certain extent. No one knows all of the answers and no one, probably, ever will.
Atheists are not skeptics, they just have more of grip on reality than their counterparts(believers).
If you really want to know what a true skeptic is, you must study David Hume. He is basically saying that we don't know anything for certain because how we think is dictated by the habits of our minds. Atheists are not skeptics. They are absolutely certain that gods do not exist. How did they get that conviction? I have no idea. Maybe they had rough childhood.
Or maybe they have developed common sense, and decided that although we don't know everything, everything we don't know wasn't done by the tooth fairy!
A religious leader once stated that all should "question with boldness" expecially when it comes to faith. In other words we all have the right to question and test all doctrine and systems of belief. We were never meant to blindly follow people or a faith that may lead us to certain destruction. Question with boldness! That is part of the promised relationship with deity. If we question with boldness and exercise in testing what we are questioning then our personal answers will be made manifest. Even if the ending result leads one to believe that there is no God or purpose in life. They have exercised their right and have made a decision through their own agency of choice - and that's the gift that can never be denied.
That was ironic - right? I am starting to like you.
I am in France - half way through mine.
Actually - I was being semi serious in what I said. I have tried to explain to people before that making the sort of claim you are making is where I think a lot of the clash between believers and non believers is coming from.
I have tried to get a straight answer to this on numerous occasions and all I get is an argument.
This is how I see it. You believe by faith and faith alone - and I have no problem with you believing what ever you want to believe, but the very second you tell me that you have - in this case - "questioned boldly" - I think you are full of shit.
It is not possible to "question boldly" - or in other cases - tell me that "Faith is evidence," or "tested proofs" or whatever BS believers want to say they have done.
And the reason it causes a clash is this:
All the time you tell me that you have faith - I can say nothing against you. OK = you believe - fine. Not an issue.
The moment you start telling me you have evidence, or proof, or have tested or questioned - this is telling me that my tests and evidence and proof are garbage. I have found no evidence or proof or been able to test whether or not you are going to become a god on another planet after you die. Is is not possible to test for these sort of things. You cannot question them other than to see if you still believe with no answer or proof or evidence.
So - every time you tell me that you can and do - you are insulting me, my intelligence and my ability to do the same.
Does that make sense?
Greetings, I am back from work. I thoroughly understand your analysis. Just remember that it goes both ways. When you, and others, say our comments are garbage it is putting to shame the testing that we have done and find pertinent in our own lives. This might be where I differ from 99% of other Christians. I try and evaluate both sides of an issue and at all times keep my temper and understanding in check. If we let our emotions run wild we negate all reason.
Based on your comments it seems that part of the conflict is in each of our definitions of testing and evidence. Some accept testing and evidence according to faith and the results in life. Others accept testing and evidence that is tangible or received by the outward senses. Both are fine and I don't have the right to slander either trains of thought nor does anyone else.
Be it known, though, you will never receive a straight answer, accomodating your desire, from someone who tests and receives by faith. Why? Because the answers are offered in a language of faith and not hard science. This, too, causes conflict. I think deep down most of us want to get along but the means of communication differ and annoy the other side.
I do want to thank you for the opportunity for this civil exchange. It is times like these that, to me, make being on the forums worth while. It is only when both sides take a breather, be calm and collected before we establish our posts and words that civility and understanding can take place. At those times what needs to happen is you would lay out your entire concerns and "bold" questions and, in effect, your case. On the other side I would lay out my case. In the end there would be understanding without the intention of conversion. Just understanding. Thanks again for this exchange. I look forward to further civility between us as we are both humans in this world living in the same time. To be anything else but civil would be mute and totally counter productive.
No - not really. You are using the word "tested" to mean something other than the real meaning. I call this "lying"
No - you are exactly the same as all the other kristians and are twisting the words to suit your itrrational beliefs.
No - both are not fine because I can now say - "Oh - I have tested and found that you people who believe that are utter scum and need to be killed inmmediately."
Not really. You are the one causing the conflict - 100%. I would like to bet that when we both test to see if that is boiling water and should we pour it on our heads - we use the same tests. But you expect me to throw that out the window and swallow your ridiculous beliefs without arguments and suck it up that my tests are now total garbage and I should accept your ridiculous "tests" LOL as the same. LOLOLOLOLO
My pleasure -
Sadly - all you have done is defended your right to say whatever you like and lie about it being a test. Invalidating everything I said in favor of your ludicrous beliefs. And are too ignorant to see that this will cause conflict.
So - you have lived up to expectations.
Pity you do not see how this causes conflutc. But - that does not really matter does it?
What is really inmportant is making sure that I understand you do not care about how much conflict you cause.
A real Kristian. Thanks for completely ignoring everything I said.
Why am I not surprised.
Truly sad. All my words have been mutually beneficial in defending each of our rights to express ourselves. This cannot possibly be denied. I have reached across the aisle in understanding and goodwill. My words have always been plain to the understanding. To think there is some hidden agenda is baffling to say the least. I have said nothing about who's right and who's wrong.
Seriously, if anyone has such contention in their hearts, especially toward someone who is trying to be sincere and accepting, please do some serious reflecting. I had high hopes of closing this conversation on good terms and hoped to understand one another. Now, for some reason, my mutually beneficial words are seen as an attack. I have no such guile within me. I have always been the first to cry "tolerance" to all people.
I am truly sorry that life events have placed such disgust in your heart for me and others in the world. My only regret is that I have been unsuccessful in reaching you on good terms through good will and words of friendship. Never once have I strived toward "converting" you but rather to understand you and you understanding me.
I am beside myself and saddened at this part of our exchange. Sorry if I have offended you but my words cannot be any more peaceful than they have been. It's truly sad that in a world where conflict is the norm that two people on different sides of the globe, who love to write, cannot seem to find tolerance and understanding through those means. I guess I seemed to have failed in establishing this trust with you. Sorry again.
Dear me. Once again discarding everything I said and lying.
When I dsay I ave teste dand you habv beenfund wanting why you ar fryting me ythis wya?
WOt u dun wot van vec be why?
U hating me I no it
TOLERANCE is alkl wot I want. I sez u die then you shopuld like wot giod sed No?
Thsi is teh same wpt testing?Lik in science? No?
U riong and iyed to me.
Me uss new words an u no wuse the same - this no lyine we grtee>NO?
I tested and i sez u lye. LYE p -= esaam wurds K?
TOLERANCE 4 WOT I SEZ!!!
U Lid and did - K? MY Gud
You desreve nothing but my contempt - because that is all you offer me.
But - that is OK - because you have the word of a god and do not need to validate anything you say.
My god sez you are a liar. I not sed it. My god sed it - It was tested and proven to be true.
No sweetie pie.
You are too ignorant to understand that that is what you have just said. And you do not care do you?
I mean - I could wrote 20000 words of garbage - as you have just done. Would that help? I could say - oh well - I have tested it and it ios right - the fact that you do not care to use the same tests as me - well - that ios your problem. My test is better tha yours because I HAVE FAITH !!!!
Pity you do not care and did not listen to one word I said.
Yes - your LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL tests LOLOLOLOLO are the same as mine LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
The letters were all mixed up. I don't know if it was intentional to intimidate me or if it was an HP error. If HP disregard my last quote.
No - the letters were not all mixed up. The fact that you choose to disrespect me by saying so is rather disturbing.
I have decided to use letters in a new way to make them mean what I know they mean. If you are so intolerant of that - well - you deserve all you get.
Don't say I did not warn you. I have indeed tested this new way of using words and it has been scientifically and spiritually proven to be the best way of explaining things to people like yourself. The fact that you choose to ignore the clear warning, bringing disgrace onto your family, is not really my fault. You should educate yourself to these new meanings and letter combinations immediately.
Once you have done so I will change them to ensure ongoing mis-communication until you finally get so pissed off at me you tell me I am mixing the letters up.
This is - of course - all your own fault for not being more tolerant. I have been as tolerant as I can of your disgusting behavior, and will not extend that courtesy any further until you accept my new words and the new meanings for old words.
Let me know when you have learned some genuine tolerance and the good manners to accept what I say without question, because I deserve that. Perhaps it would help if I spell the word tolerance in CAPITAL letters? T.O.L.E.R.A.N.C.E - let me know when you have developed some.
Good day sir.
i think they are athiests because they are skeptics.
Yes, as it leads to knowledge when one sets out, purposefully, to find the answers they seek. The objective is to not give up until the questions have been satisfied.
If speaking of skepticism on religion then I would think it would go hand in hand, atheists & skepitcs. Like Pani, said it's good to have a bit of skepticism.
Everyone should be skeptical. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical.
A healthy bit of scepticism is a good thing - especially regarding politicians and religion!
Ignorance leads to fear then scepticism.
Knowledge breaks all fear thus scepticism.
Everythings serves it's purpose.
No. Not to say a good dose of skepticism is ok, but like faith can blind, I believe to much skepticism can prohibit our minds to.
Like with anything, too much of one quality is a bad thing.
I may be an atheist, but for many things, I am very open-minded, however I maintain my skepticism to a point and ALWAYS question.
Atheism is skepticism on religion, if an atheist is not sceptical then he is either agnostic theist, or some branch of theist.
Mikio, you don't know how gods do not believe in God? How do people believe in a great big beard in the sky?
Atheism is a lack of a schizophrenic delusion.
I am the tooth fairy.
And I think some of you may be misdefining the term skeptical.
That could well be the understatement of the month.
I like you.
Have I told you yet that I find your avatar to be quite sexy?
No - but feel free.
I have had a few people mention my new avatar - why is that?
I think your avatar has the look of James Bond It's kind of sexy and mysterious!
I think it is what we expect to see behind the glasses that really does it, combined with the fact that we aren't able to do so.
Skeptics are just people who don't take the first thought that enters their heads (often from someone else) and say yeh- that will be the foundation of my life.
Atheists are usually angry with their mother. Unless they have thought through all the issues issues carefully and reached a balanced judgement. It's quite easy to tell the difference between these two groups.
Jack Nicolson/James Bond? I should cover my face more often for sure.
@pb - yup - that is an awful lot, but I am glad you did so.
Good, glad I could enlighten you a little about the way women think. Now that I know you've seen it, I can delete much of it to keep from being guilty of revealing female secrets.
NO! Don't cover your face. I like Nicholson. He's cool! He is a "strikingly" featured person. If that made any sense. He became one of my favorite actors ever since I first saw "The Shining" some thirty years ago or so.
Personally, I like the picture!
The voice of reason about faith just jumped out the window!
And once again Mark simply states the true situation.
Not a sign of recognition in sight of all the assumptive statements that ignore the knowledge of others and offend those of us who do not believe this man-made nonsense!!
The same response as was given to Mark. I have never once been one sided with any of you. Always, are my words aimed toward understanding and tolerance. Always. It has never be I who has spat upon the other for their beliefs - never. And for that level of sincerity I am literally trashed again and again. You will always find your faults in the doctrines I preach and believe but in your hearts you cannot find fault in my resolve to find peace with all of you - on neutral ground. Compare me to others - go ahead. I never pin one against the other. T O L E R A N C E people. Is this so hard to acquire or is it just too fun to knock the other guy down?
Well quite apart from the assumptive inclusions, you base your beliefs on a book that is only matched for promoting division, hate and death by the quoran, so you could expect opposition from that.
No atheist or any other person who simply does not believe what you do, is implying that you will rot in hell are they?
I don't see a lot of new threads from atheists with headings like the ones on these religious threads do you?
Really don't care right now at this point. I have been tolerant and understanding with all of you and still the response has been that of the "terrible twos". I have said my peace and peace is all I've strived for. I am content with all my words and struggle for neutral ground.
In fact, I haven't even talked of religious doctrines for the past few posts - just tolerance and understanding. Who's talking religion now?
Both of you - try to be tolerant and understanding. Don't condescend others as is the norm. I have done none of that childish garbage and don't deserve it. Neither do any of you.
Now, I have an appointment to do some community service for a while. Later.
As you yourself have said, christians tend to use other tests than ..let us say nonchristians, or nonbelievers. For christians it is all about faith and a relationship, I understand that. That is after all what the bible tells you. The wise shall be foolish and all that. Do you not suppose that if we let our minds be our imaginary jesus we too could experience happy coincidences and the oblivious pleasure of believing we too have a ...let us say guardian angel? Most of us have been there, done that.
But when christians look at evidence, at facts, testing their faith in tangible ways, they throw out what they don't like, twist what they can, and blame everything else on either god's wisdom or the deceit of satan.
Because christian faith rests in this individual ...spirituality, let us say, it has no place creating universal dogma. But because it does, society suffers.
I have no problem if any individual wants to believe in things in their mind no matter how far-fetched those things may be. Any one of us could do that.
But when your ...spiritualism, let us say, involves a perception that everyone else is innately evil, in need of your ...salvation, for lack of a better word, and bound to rot in hell otherwise. It's kind of disturbing, and it necessarily leads to a hardening of the believer's heart, and leads even to hatred, even as your bible has directed.
In effect, you say, "Oh, you're going to hell," and I say "No, I'm not," and you say "I love you and don't wish for you to go to hell, but you are going to hell if you don't start sharing my ...spirituality, let us say," and I say "well that's not what my spirituality says" and you say "mine says you're going to hell" and I say "mine says I'm not", and then you have the chutzpah to say "I don't know why you can't be more tolerant of me. Let's just agree to disagree."
Well, no. I do not agree to be respectful of people who believe that me, my family, my friends, all the unexposed, all the people who grew up with other spiritual traditions, etc. etc. are all going to hell. And I cannot help but be amazed that you or any other christian would suggest that you respect us.
You do not respect us, you tolerate us only because you legally have to, thank goodness, for we all know what unhindered 'christian love' would do to us, and you spend a great deal of energy and hatred attempting to either convert us or legislate us.
Again, you believe I am going to hell, and you want me to respect that. That's... just... utterly unreasonable, let us say.
Hi Mark. It's good to see you at work in the Colosseum so early in the day!
I'm trying to understand the military clock. I never know what time it is... or what day it is for that matter.
I have this image of you as a Roman gladiator taking on every challenger with the confidence of one who knows he's already the victor! It's only ten hundred hours and you already have your foot on a dead man's chest with your bloodied sword at the ready for whoever is next!
In all seriousness - I have been attempting over the last few weeks to explain what I think is one of the root causes of the ill feeling between the Christians and the non believers - and it runs both ways.
As you can see from goldenpath's last response - it is falling on deaf ears.
by paarsurrey7 years ago
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/39536?page=2#post916969Paarsurrey wrote: "It is very natural, pro-evolution and pro-life to believe in the existing of the Creator- God Allah YHWH. Like we believe in our parents; we...
by paarsurrey6 years ago
By nature it is the isolationists, disgruntled and annoyed atheists who venture to create the conflicts.The peaceful followers of the Revealed Religion don’t do it; they only give the Message of peace.
by Mahaveer Sanglikar4 years ago
Is atheism becoming another religion? I am asking this question because many atheists are loudly talking against 'other' religions, like many of the the propagandists of religions do.I myself am an atheist, and I think...
by Claire Evans5 years ago
Atheists often ask for proof of Jesus being the son of God. If Jesus came to earth and everyone realized He is the son of God, would you still reject Him as your saviour?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar3 years ago
Why God created atheists? Isn't it his invitation to self destruction?
by Wentworth356 years ago
First, let me state that I am an atheist, who does not believe in God, not because I don't want to believe, but simply because I find little evidence for the existence for such a being. However, I understand why...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.