Quote:
Originally Posted by greywolf90  Quote:
Originally Posted by Geshtinnanna Quote:
Originally Posted by godlovesyou View Post
have you ever read the bible ? studied it ? made part of a evangelical church ? read books ? i recommend you to do it, then you will understand maiby better what i am talking about.
| How come we have to read your book? How come when the majority of Christians have any sort of conversation with non Christians they don't have a clue as to that person's belief system? It's kind of ignorant and arrogant. And it's annoying when I have a discussion with a Christian and I am the only one among us two that has a clue of both sides of the discussion. Do you even take the time to try to understand (in an unbiased way) why we think the way we think? I mean besides the basic Oh he's a lost soul kind of mentality. | i think that might be considered herasy for the extreme christians (the ones that dont allow people to read books like harry potter or anything else that seems unchristian). i think this is a flaw that people limit there knowlege to strictly christian views. they dont have to stop being christian, but i think it would help them to have an understanding of other beliefs and views. |
This cuts to the heart of the matter. Geshtinnanna said, "It's kind of ignorant and arrogant. And it's annoying.." That sums up how I often feel when in this kind of discussion. Is this thread an intelligent discussion or an opportunity for prosyletizing? I don't know you very well godlovesyou, and so that is a sincere question. What is your true motivation for being here?
As an agnostic forum, this board is open to all views. Nonetheless, a central value for most agnostics is rationality, and so I would assume a central standard for discussions on this board would be rationality.
Many agnostics not only are open to other views, but seek out to understand other views. One Christian(Paul) in another thread claimed that he was genuinely interested in other views. I don't know if he is genuinely interested, but I have my doubts that most Christians visiting an agnostic or atheist forum are motivated by sincere open-minded curiosity.
I'm sure there are some Christians who visit here because they're questioning their religious beliefs, but I'm guessing that this isn't the majority(?). I suspect that many Christians come here seeking to prosyletize whether that means seeking to convert or simply seeking to witness... it comes out to the same difference. Basically, it means no rational discussion will happen.
I've read some apologetics and I might read any links to apologetics that any Christian offers. However, I don't feel very motivated to do so if they don't return the favor. As was said, for some Christians, it goes against the dogma of their religion to read non-Christian writings. Even for the Christians who aren't so constrained, I have yet to meet a literalist Christian(on-line or otherwise) who was willing to carefully study any information that I offered.
The reason is partly because there is very little rational response they can give to much of the mainstream Biblical scholarship, and so it would endanger their convictions if they actually thought about it beyond a superficial perusal. Any criticism they could offer, I could throw several back ad infinitum. Plus, if someone really wants to believe, then rational discussion has no benefit for them, but rather their whole worldview is threatened by it.
As I see it, an agnostic has the advantage over either theists or atheists. There is no easier position to defend than agnosticism. As an agnostic, I can speak to a theist using theological terminology, and I can speak to an atheist using more philosophical terminology. A hardcore theist is forced to not give full credibility to rational argument, and a hardcore atheist is forced to not give full credibility to religious experience.
An agnostic can speak from many perspectives, but an agnostic need not defend any particular perspective. If they so wish, an agnostic can simply argue against another's claim. For instance, an agnostic can simply put the responsibility for historical proof of Jesus back onto the Christian. Since there is no historical proof, the agnostic's job is fairly easy. The agnostic just has to keep pointing out the obvious. As an agnostic, it really matters not whether Jesus existed historically or not. I don't need to prove Jesus didn't exist historically, but the literalist Christian has to prove that he did... if he wants to be considered rational that is(which is a big if in many cases).
The theist and the atheist can project their sense of conflict onto the other. The difficulty of an agnostic position is that one must incorporate this sense of conflict within oneself. My spiritual leanings and my rational leanings don't always mesh easily, but I'd rather struggle with trying to balance them as equally useful rather than dismissing one or else attempt make one superior.
In case anyone is wondering, I'm not arguing against Christianity as a general category. What I'm arguing against is literalist Christianity. I'm not directly arguing that literalist Christianity is false even though I am arguing that its morally and socially problematic. My most central argument is simply that literalist Christianity can't be proven true.