# Guilt about agnosticism



## wordscancutyoulikeglass (May 4, 2012)

Does anyone ever feel guilty about being atheist or agnostic?

I don't know, it's just my family is so into the Christian thing and they always talk about god and all these great pastors and churches and things they did in church growing up and I feel like I'm ruining something but not being Christian. 

To top it off, my middle name is Faith.

Anyone with similar feelings?


----------



## detweiler (Aug 2, 2009)

I can relate completely. 

Identifying as agnostic when surrounded by religious family no matter how well-intentioned can be challenging.

Tremendous respect and admiration to you given that you're only 14.

I didn't 'come out' so to speak until I was about 20.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

Can you qualify what you mean by agnosticism? You can be an agnostic theist; infact many theists are or in denial that they are. I'd go as far to say EVERYONE is agnostic regardless of belief or lack thereof (making it moot). (A)Gnosticism is simply a position of knowledge. One would require absolute knowledge that a god exists (or doesn't in the case of atheism) in order to be a true gnostic. I suggest skipping the whole idea of (a)gnosticism and ask yourself: do I believe in a god or not? If you believe in any god, you are a theist...if you do not, you are an atheist. You are then to ponder your justification and validation of your postion. It is a good exercise for any to write this down to further scrutinize your logic in your list. This really helps in identifying what you believe and why...and to discriminate rational conclusions from fantasy.


To answer your question: No--for the same reason I do not feel guilty for not believing Santa Claus exists as a guy that flys a sleigh powered by flying reindeer.


----------



## albrecht (Oct 18, 2011)

I feel more guilty about "lying through omission" about what I believe.


----------



## wordscancutyoulikeglass (May 4, 2012)

Foh_Teej said:


> Can you qualify what you mean by agnosticism? You can be an agnostic theist; infact many theists are or in denial that they are. I'd go as far to say EVERYONE is agnostic regardless of belief or lack thereof (making it moot). (A)Gnosticism is simply a position of knowledge. One would require absolute knowledge that a god exists (or doesn't in the case of atheism) in order to be a true gnostic. I suggest skipping the whole idea of (a)gnosticism and ask yourself: do I believe in a god or not? If you believe in any god, you are a theist...if you do not, you are an atheist. You are then to ponder your justification and validation of your postion. It is a good exercise for any to write this down to further scrutinize your logic in your list. This really helps in identifying what you believe and why...and to discriminate rational conclusions from fantasy.
> 
> To answer your question: No--for the same reason I do not feel guilty for not believing Santa Claus exists as a guy that flys a sleigh powered by flying reindeer.[/QUOTE
> 
> Ive heard my beliefs called strong agnosticism.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

ok...but strong agnosticism is rather arbitrary and pointless position. It can even be as far as being self refuting depending on how you consider knowledge. There is simply no point in believing it is impossible to know god does or doesn't exist. On one end, you have a claim 'to know something about something you know nothing about' (that is self refuting and contradictory) ...and the other end is not being able to distinguish the unknowable from the non existent. 

You should ask yourself what you believe then justify it with evidence to support that conclusion...not ponder your position of knowledge.


----------



## yes (Feb 27, 2008)

Foh_Teej said:


> ok...but strong agnosticism is rather arbitrary and pointless position. It can even be as far as being self refuting depending on how you consider knowledge. There is simply no point in believing it is impossible to know god does or doesn't exist. On one end, you have a claim 'to know something about something you know nothing about' (that is self refuting and contradictory) ...and the other end is not being able to distinguish the unknowable from the non existent.
> 
> You should ask yourself what you believe then justify it with evidence to support that conclusion...not ponder your position of knowledge.


That's rude, to tell others their position is pointless. Furthermore, there is a point. It is the difference between choosing sides, like clicking "cancel" when presented if you want to save your document or not (cancel is not clicking yes or no). You want the OP to justify higher powers (in either direction) with evidence but what exactly would evidence look like? In religion, and spirituality in general, there are so many roads and differing opinions and texts that this subject is not some easy choice given. Agnosticism can then be for those who don't have enough belief to stick to something concrete but think there is something to how all the different cultures perceived another state of being or afterlife, etc. It's also for those who believe that there might be another plane but we currently don't have good evidence.


----------



## vulgarrobot (Jul 23, 2012)

I do. My family is very religious so it's weird when they start talking about faith, spirituality, and God because I don't believe in that. And I can't tell them I don't because that will just open a can of worms and they'll probably try to exorcise me or start speaking in tongues to save me or something.


----------



## harrison (Apr 14, 2012)

wordscancutyoulikeglass said:


> Does anyone ever feel guilty about being atheist or agnostic?
> 
> I don't know, it's just my family is so into the Christian thing and they always talk about god and all these great pastors and churches and things they did in church growing up and I feel like I'm ruining something but not being Christian.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't worry about it too much. If your surrounded by people that are religious or have strong beliefs you're bound to feel a bit strange if you're ideas about this are starting to change, or you're questioning them. Questioning things is very important and guilt is a waste of energy. ( Although I'm very familiar with it myself, although not in this context. ) As the years go by you'll find plenty of other things to think and worry about, and this question will only be important to you if you make it important, not if your family or society tells you it is.


----------



## Chichie (Jul 27, 2012)

Imagine how I felt when I first started considering myself to be agnostic but my name being Christian. I still like having it sometimes for the sake of irony though.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

If they're truly "into the Christian thing", they should be willing to 'forgive' you for how you think and feel about things. Maybe you can mention that if you tell them and they react poorly.


----------



## detweiler (Aug 2, 2009)

Chichie said:


> Imagine how I felt when I first started considering myself to be agnostic but my name being Christian. I still like having it sometimes for the sake of irony though.


That's awesome.


----------



## silentk (Apr 22, 2012)

It's alright to not believe the same way as your family - they're your family and they will love you no matter what. (For example, I'm pro-choice, while my family is pro-life. Although that's a small disagreement compared to some things, it's something that we've all accepted). 

Also, because they are Christians - and if they're really strong in their faith as they seem to be - then they will accept you for who you are, because to them (and me) you are a child of God, and God's children are to be loved and cared for.

If you feel comfortable telling them, tell them. If they react negatively, that's alright. Think of it this way: they're strong Christians, and they are trying to raise their children to be strong in their faith as well. It can hurt when a child doesn't believe the same way a parent does about a particular religion. While they should be open and accepting to you, you should also be open to your family. You may have to give them time to become comfortable with your decision, but that doesn't mean they won't love you. People aren't perfect, and Christians are no different. Just accept it and move on. There's no need to begin a fight within your family. They're your family, and family is one of the most important things in life. If they accept what you tell them, then good for all of you. Just know that even though you've told them, doesn't mean they'll stop talking about God all the time. They're still going to discuss Christian things, and sometimes you'll be around to hear it. And that's okay, because it won't kill you.

I know you probably weren't expecting a response from a Christian, but I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say. 

-K

PS: At your age, I know you think your parents are always against you, but trust me, they're not.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

yes said:


> That's rude, to tell others their position is pointless. Furthermore, there is a point. It is the difference between choosing sides, like clicking "cancel" when presented if you want to save your document or not (cancel is not clicking yes or no). You want the OP to justify higher powers (in either direction) with evidence but what exactly would evidence look like? In religion, and spirituality in general, there are so many roads and differing opinions and texts that this subject is not some easy choice given. Agnosticism can then be for those who don't have enough belief to stick to something concrete but think there is something to how all the different cultures perceived another state of being or afterlife, etc. It's also for those who believe that there might be another plane but we currently don't have good evidence.


It is nothing like saving a document. However, that is irrelevant. How was my post rude? Just read the damn definition to see yourself why it is pointless. I thought I explained why, well enough...apparently I did not.


----------



## TJenkins602 (Jul 18, 2012)

wordscancutyoulikeglass said:


> Does anyone ever feel guilty about being atheist or agnostic?
> 
> I don't know, it's just my family is so into the Christian thing and they always talk about god and all these great pastors and churches and things they did in church growing up and I feel like I'm ruining something but not being Christian.
> 
> ...


It's natural to feel at least some kind of discomfort when your beliefs differ from others around you.


----------



## fallfires (Dec 27, 2011)

Foh_Teej said:


> It is nothing like saving a document. However, that is irrelevant. How was my post rude? Just read the damn definition to see yourself why it is pointless. I thought I explained why, well enough...apparently I did not.


I thought yes's analogy was great, actually, because it lightly captured the emotional struggle involved in making a decision. Using an analogy to explain a position is not irrelevant at all, it helps to clarify a point and lets our brains think about things in different ways (Brain science- creating analogies promotes advanced cognitive thinking. Don't diss em!). In good humor, I challenge you to make an analogy that represents your own explanation 

Your previous post seemed a little harsh because it completely removed the very real emotional and social struggle from the rational equation. The path from religious to atheist is not easy for many people, and there is a point where they can't possibly answer yes or no to the question "Do you believe in god". Especially for a teen already struggling with the natural emotional hell of that age, and the struggle to both "fit in" and "be yourself". Agnosticism is a time of transition, one way or the other. Which will win, faith and cultural brain-washing, or intelligence and clear thinking (yeah, I may be a little biased)? Be gentle with young agnostics. There is a lonely place in their hearts that still LONGS for that the unicorn at the circus to be real, but they KNOW that it's just a goat with a birth defect, or a horse with a narwhal tusk attached. 
_

wordscancutyoulikeglass, yes, when I was your age, sometimes I felt some guilt, but I was from an only moderately religious family, so religion was a very occasional thing. More often I felt a little regret that I was missing out on Something Wonderful. By my 20's it was a feeling of superiority and an incredulity at the ridiculousness of religion. I've let go of the feeling of superiority, but I still think religion is truly bizarre, lol!


----------



## anthrotex (Oct 24, 2011)

I feel guilty that I haven't been able to save my friends from religion.


----------



## wordscancutyoulikeglass (May 4, 2012)

Foh_Teej said:


> ok...but strong agnosticism is rather arbitrary and pointless position. It can even be as far as being self refuting depending on how you consider knowledge. There is simply no point in believing it is impossible to know god does or doesn't exist. On one end, you have a claim 'to know something about something you know nothing about' (that is self refuting and contradictory) ...and the other end is not being able to distinguish the unknowable from the non existent.
> 
> You should ask yourself what you believe then justify it with evidence to support that conclusion...not ponder your position of knowledge.


I don't exactly find my position pointless. I simply see no evidence for or against something, so I draw no conclusions from the matter to either side.


----------



## wordscancutyoulikeglass (May 4, 2012)

silentk said:


> It's alright to not believe the same way as your family - they're your family and they will love you no matter what. (For example, I'm pro-choice, while my family is pro-life. Although that's a small disagreement compared to some things, it's something that we've all accepted).
> 
> Also, because they are Christians - and if they're really strong in their faith as they seem to be - then they will accept you for who you are, because to them (and me) you are a child of God, and God's children are to be loved and cared for.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the advice, it nice to see things from an inside view


----------



## wordscancutyoulikeglass (May 4, 2012)

Chichie said:


> Imagine how I felt when I first started considering myself to be agnostic but my name being Christian. I still like having it sometimes for the sake of irony though.


Christian the agnostic. Hehe


----------



## Adversary (Mar 20, 2012)

haha My name is Christian too.

But to answer your question: No, it only makes me feel like the only sane person in my family.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

fallfires said:


> I thought yes's analogy was great, actually, because it lightly captured the emotional struggle involved in making a decision.


If saving a word document is such an emotional struggle for you -and you still think the analogy is relevant- good for you. I still think it wasn't very good. However, our opinions to this point are completely irrelevant.



fallfires said:


> Using an analogy to explain a position is not irrelevant at all, it helps to clarify a point and lets our brains think about things in different ways (Brain science- creating analogies promotes advanced cognitive thinking. Don't diss em!).


Well it helps if the analogy actually has something to do with the original concept. Pardon me if I disagree, that whatever mental challeges arise from clicking yes, no, or cancel to saving a document, has anything to do with the OP's question or my argument.



fallfires said:


> In good humor, I challenge you to make an analogy that represents your own explanation


Why would I need an analogy when I can be direct and say exactly what I mean?

On that note...I don't know if there's an unknowable sport, being by an unknowable number of unknowable teams, at an unknowable time, at an unknowable venue. Do you care to discuss the score and highlights with me after the game? I just KNOW this game will be awesome regardless.



fallfires said:


> Your previous post seemed a little harsh because it completely removed the very real emotional and social struggle from the rational equation.


You opinion that it "completely removed the very real emotional and social struggle from the rational equation" is completely irrelevant. However, my post did no such thing. If it truly had the power of which you attribute, then I saved the ****ing day by fixing the OPs problem in one fell swoop! No more guilt! I completely removed the very real emotional and social struggle from the rational equation!!!!!!!!!



fallfires said:


> The path from religious to atheist is not easy for many people, and there is a point where they can't possibly answer yes or no to the question "Do you believe in god".


...yet you just compared it to the click boxes on a word document? Come on now...

Here is one of the best defintions of strong agnosticism:

"The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience"

If you can't distinguish the unknowable from the imaginary or the non-existent, that is absolutely POINTLESS to discuss it. I don't know why you'd even argue this. How many times have you ever had a conversation about something you have absolutely no knowledge of? Seriously, how many times? If you can't figure out where I'm going with this, you should consider dropping the 'brain science' for actual critical thinking. Oh yeah, did you want to start a thread about that game on here or just use chat?



fallfires said:


> Especially for a teen already struggling with the natural emotional hell of that age, and the struggle to both "fit in" and "be yourself".


I truly doubt the OP had this much struggle about the easter bunny and Santa. Let's ask her.



fallfires said:


> Agnosticism is a time of transition, one way or the other. Which will win, faith and cultural brain-washing, or intelligence and clear thinking (yeah, I may be a little biased)? Be gentle with young agnostics. There is a lonely place in their hearts that still LONGS for that the unicorn at the circus to be real, but they KNOW that it's just a goat with a birth defect, or a horse with a narwhal tusk attached.


This isn't a bus stop on the way to atheism. Agnosticism is a position of knowledge (or lack there of) and nothing more. If you want to subscribe to the notion that the truth value to claims are unknowable, good for you. This, however, is largely an academic postion and moot. I didn't write the defintion so don't diss reading it yourself!



wordscancutyoulikeglass said:


> I don't exactly find my position pointless. I simply see no evidence for or against something, so I draw no conclusions from the matter to either side.


Well, you identified yourself as strong agnosticism. I was only saying the term -by its own definition- is pointless. I coulndn't care less what your position is actually. However, if you read the defintion of it, I hope you determine yourself that it is self refuting and pointless. I, however, never said nor implied whatever you experience is pointless--only that of its defintion.


----------



## fallfires (Dec 27, 2011)

Wow, Foh Teej, you get rather pissed off at people that you consider to be pointless and completely irrelevant. :rofl

You can win, you are way superior to irrelevant and pointless me.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

fallfires said:


> Wow, Foh Teej, you get rather pissed off at people that you consider to be pointless and completely irrelevant. :rofl
> 
> You can win, you are way superior to irrelevant and pointless me.


But I didnt consider you nor anyone else pointless or irrelevant. Furthermore, I'm hardly pissed off. My aim is never to be superior nor win an argument for the sake of innerweb credz. Having said that, I tried to explain (perhaps I failed to adequately do so) that we're all agnostic and that some of the perspectives of agnosticism are entirely subjective epistemological talking points. As far as strong agnosticism goes, its definition is self refuting as you cannot have knowledge of something one claims to be unknowable. I was NOT attacking the OP nor what she experiences--simply the definition and how it doesn't make sense.


----------



## BobbyByThePound (Apr 4, 2012)

Foh_Teej said:


> Can you qualify what you mean by agnosticism? You can be an agnostic theist; infact many theists are or in denial that they are. I'd go as far to say EVERYONE is agnostic regardless of belief or lack thereof (making it moot). (A)Gnosticism is simply a position of knowledge. One would require absolute knowledge that a god exists (or doesn't in the case of atheism) in order to be a true gnostic. I suggest skipping the whole idea of (a)gnosticism and ask yourself: do I believe in a god or not? If you believe in any god, you are a theist...if you do not, you are an atheist. You are then to ponder your justification and validation of your postion. It is a good exercise for any to write this down to further scrutinize your logic in your list. This really helps in identifying what you believe and why...and to discriminate rational conclusions from fantasy.
> 
> To answer your question: No--for the same reason I do not feel guilty for not believing Santa Claus exists as a guy that flys a sleigh powered by flying reindeer.


So you're encouraging this girl to come to a conclusion and then figure out the reasoning that supports her conclusion? Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't she reason and then choose the conclusion that her reasoning leads to?

And why do you only allow for her to choose two out of the three possible conclusions? You allow for her to come to the conclusions "Yes, I believe in God" or "No, I do not believe in God." But couldn't she also come to the conclusion that "I do not know whether there is a God or not."? Is it not a sign of humility to admit when you don't know something? Is humility not a good thing?

Also, gnosticism doesn't mean what you think it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Also, a lot of your commentary in this thread consists of weird semantic games. According to Webster, "agnostic" means this:

"1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>"

The OP in this thread is referring to the first definition. Throughout this thread you seem have to been using a third definition that you appear to have made up. The only reason you're able to make weird claims about everyone being agnostic is because you've twisted the definition. That's not philosophizing, that's playing games with words.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

BobbyByThePound said:


> So you're encouraging this girl to come to a conclusion and then figure out the reasoning that supports her conclusion?


No. Nowhere did I say or imply "come to a conclusion and then figure out the reasoning that supports her conclusion." That would be leading the evidence instead of following it.

I suggested she ask herself what she believes then justify it with evidence to support that conclusion. Perhaps I could have worded it better but there was a reason for it. If she is a self proclaimed agnostic (or "strong agnostic" according to her peers), she hasn't formed any conclusions obviously. I had to approach it from that perspective. If you ask yourself what you believe, you then have to justify that belief with evidence to support it. If you do not or can't justify it, then you likely have a bad reasoning for believing it. This was actually to help her draw her own conclusion based on following the evidence.



BobbyByThePound said:


> Shouldn't she reason and then choose the conclusion that her reasoning leads to?


Absolutely. That is what I was trying to say from an angle that may have been lost in delivery.


BobbyByThePound said:


> And why do you only allow for her to choose two out of the three possible conclusions?


I didn't. I simply argued strong agnosticism was ponitless by its own defintion. If you claim the impossibility to the knowledge of something, it might as well be imaginary or non existent.



BobbyByThePound said:


> You allow for her to come to the conclusions "Yes, I believe in God" or "No, I do not believe in God."


I simply suggested she ask herself what she believed then justify it with evidence.



BobbyByThePound said:


> But couldn't she also come to the conclusion that "I do not know whether there is a God or not."? Is it not a sign of humility to admit when you don't know something? Is humility not a good thing?


Well that technically isn't a conclusion now is it? Humility is irrelvant.



BobbyByThePound said:


> Also, gnosticism doesn't mean what you think it means.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism


It absolutely does mean what I think it means. You can actually check it out for yourself by a little tidbit called etymology. I suggest you go look it up a bit more then tell me what your foot tastes like.












BobbyByThePound said:


> Also, a lot of your commentary in this thread consists of weird semantic games.


List one example please. If you are referring to the definition of agnosticism vs. strong agnosticism, that distinction needed to be made since the OP brought it up.



BobbyByThePound said:


> According to Webster, "agnostic" means this:


I know exactly what it means. Do you think this is my first rodeo? I'm fairly certain it is yours since you used the incorrect defintion of gnosticism. You should have known better. Don't feel too bad though as there is a relation to your wiki mining...you just didn't dig deep enough.



BobbyByThePound said:


> The OP in this thread is referring to the first definition. Throughout this thread you seem have to been using a third definition that you appear to have made up.


No I used the defintion of "strong agnosticism" of which you can look up yourself. What defintion are you referring? If you are referring to agnosticism itself.....well...as your forthcoming research into the meaning, usage, and etymology will undoubtedly turn up, you will find that agnosticism is indeed a position of knowledge. You should have figured this out since you quoted a ****ing dictionary that contained the key words. HINT: clues are contained in the first definition you said the OP was referring to.



BobbyByThePound said:


> The only reason you're able to make weird claims about everyone being agnostic is because you've twisted the definition.


No I have access to all the major dictionaries. Where did I twist the definition? Cite my actual words please.



BobbyByThePound said:


> That's not philosophizing, that's playing games with words.


Like I said, what games with what words. Examples please.

Oh hows that foot taste again?


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

Not at all. I believe agnostic is the perfect spiritual state. I used to believe I was atheist but the more I thought about it, the more problems I found with it.

Don't get me wrong. I guess it would be nice to be able to have faith in a deity. That is IF I could do that. But I can't. My natural state is uncertainty and agnosticism is ideal.


----------



## JGreenwood (Jan 28, 2011)

You're supposed to feel guilt for it. Religions are DEPENDING on your guilt. If you feel guilty over questionining a belief you are more likely to end up subscribing to that belief than somebody who firmly denies it.


----------



## wordscancutyoulikeglass (May 4, 2012)

Adversary said:


> haha My name is Christian too.
> 
> But to answer your question: No, it only makes me feel like the only sane person in my family.


Huh, I do sort of feel like the only sane one in mine as well, but also I feel like the outcast of the family as well.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

PickleNose said:


> I used to believe I was atheist but the more I thought about it, the more problems I found with it.


Can you be specific about what problems you found with it?


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo (Jan 22, 2012)

there is a lot of guilt associated with mainstream religion, like christianity

the whole system of sin and sacrifice is enough to make you feel guilty. not to mention the constant threat of being punished and "going to hell"

there is nothing wrong with being agnostic though. you shouldn't accept something just because there is a threat of being punished if you don't. you also shouldn't accept something just because your parents do either. you should always question things to find out the truth of the matter. 

you should be proud to be an agnostic!


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

Foh_Teej said:


> Can you be specific about what problems you found with it?


 Yes. Blind faith was what I thought I was getting away from when I decided to be an atheist. And then I realized it takes just as much faith to believe you know everything (or that it's even possible to know everything) as it does to believe in a deity.

Basically, what agnosticism means to me is this - None of the deities sound the slightest bit plausible to me. But it's not worth it to me to argue with a guy who believes in God for the rest of my life. People are going to believe what they want to believe. I can't prove them wrong. I have no desire to have any faith in any deity. I also don's believe human beings know everything or are infallible.

Atheism is still faith. Faith that you know everything there is to know. That's a big problem. Feel free if that's your thing but it's not for me.


----------



## wordscancutyoulikeglass (May 4, 2012)

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> there is a lot of guilt associated with mainstream religion, like christianity
> 
> the whole system of sin and sacrifice is enough to make you feel guilty. not to mention the constant threat of being punished and "going to hell"
> 
> ...


Thanks! that makes me feel a lot better


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

PickleNose said:


> Yes. Blind faith was what I thought I was getting away from when I decided to be an atheist. And then I realized it takes just as much faith to believe you know everything (or that it's even possible to know everything) as it does to believe in a deity.


Atheism has nothing to do with knowledge. It is a single position on a single issue. Simply, it's the position that theists have not met the burden of proof. If you actually claimed to know everything and were also an atheist, you'd be a gnostic atheist.



PickleNose said:


> Basically, what agnosticism means to me is this - None of the deities sound the slightest bit plausible to me. But it's not worth it to me to argue with a guy who believes in God for the rest of my life.


Whether you engage in debate or not has nothing to do with atheism.



PickleNose said:


> People are going to believe what they want to believe. I can't prove them wrong. I have no desire to have any faith in any deity. I also don's believe human beings know everything or are infallible.


You do not have to know everything (or anything necessarily) to be an atheist. Atheism isn't a position of knowledge; it's a positon of belief (or lack thereof). Human falliability has nothing to do with (a)theism.



PickleNose said:


> Atheism is still faith.


No it isn't. Faith by definition is: firm belief in something for which there is no proof ---Merriam Webster

Atheism is the the absence of belief.



PickleNose said:


> Faith that you know everything there is to know.


This is definitley NOT atheism by any defintion nor stretch thereof.



PickleNose said:


> That's a big problem. Feel free if that's your thing but it's not for me.


That's certainly not my thing either an I am an atheist.


----------



## FlowerChild13 (Aug 1, 2012)

Meh. Not really. My dad is a hardcore Christian. I guess I feel worse about the fact that I might disappoint him. I just don't share any of my opinions with my family.


----------



## Shockjaw (Aug 2, 2012)

Everyone in my family and extended family are hardcore Christians, and me being the only one is hard. I feel kinda guilty because I know that if they knew they would probably kick me and/or hurt me.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

Foh_Teej said:


> Atheism has nothing to do with knowledge. It is a single position on a single issue. Simply, it's the position that theists have not met the burden of proof.


 I disagree. Our knowledge is among the most reliable compasses we have. I think it is possible to draw upon your own personal knowledge and to say with reasonable certainty that the God of the Bible is nonsense. But I believe people should use their knowledge, their common sense and their intuition to make these kinds of judgments.

You are really contradicting yourself. First you say it has nothing to do with knowledge but then you say the theists have not met the burden of proof. How would you know that if you are not relying upon your knowledge to examine the arguments they're making?



> Atheism is the the absence of belief.


 Frankly, I think you're just splitting hairs. What is the problem with just admitting there are certain things you don't know enough about to either believe or disbelieve? I think it has to be faith to believe you are capable of making that judgement when you have absolutely no evidence one way or another.


----------



## wordscancutyoulikeglass (May 4, 2012)

Shockjaw said:


> Everyone in my family and extended family are hardcore Christians, and me being the only one is hard. I feel kinda guilty because I know that if they knew they would probably kick me and/or hurt me.


That's exactly how I feel. My extended family will always talk about how bad non Christians are and I just have to smile and nod when I'm shaking inside. I know they have good intentions, but they can see the damage they're doing.

I don't think I could ever come out and tell them.


----------



## Adversary (Mar 20, 2012)

PickleNose said:


> Frankly, I think you're just splitting hairs. What is the problem with just admitting there are certain things you don't know enough about to either believe or disbelieve? I think it has to be faith to believe you are capable of making that judgement when you have absolutely no evidence one way or another.


There is nothing wrong with admitting there are things you don't know. The problem is it tells us nothing about your beliefs. This is why agnosticism is such a pointless label when it comes to determining the existence of anything. Would you say your agnostic about ghosts, big foot, Santa clause, and etc? You have no proof for their existence, but that doesn't mean you have to say "I don't know" when asked if you believe in them or not.

You have a misunderstanding of what Atheism really is. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. It is not the claim that god does not exist. Most atheist actually consider themselves agnostic as well. Agnosticism/Gnosticism deals with knowledge, while Atheism/theism deals with belief.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

PickleNose said:


> I disagree.


You are certainly free to disagree but I am also free to demonstrate how you are incorrect. 
Here is the definition- atheism: ***disbelief*** in the existence of deity --Merriam Webster

If you still want to argue and disagree with its meaning, take it up with good ole Webster.



PickleNose said:


> Our knowledge is among the most reliable compasses we have.


If it is actually justified and true, then yes, I agree with this.



PickleNose said:


> I think it is possible to draw upon your own personal knowledge and to say with reasonable certainty that the God of the Bible is nonsense.


ehhh I'd rather you replace "own personal knowledge" with "logic". If you claim knowledge then you have a burden of proof to support such a claim. I'm curious has to how you actually qualify "knowledge."



PickleNose said:


> But I believe people should use their knowledge, their common sense and their intuition to make these kinds of judgments.


Knowledge isn't personal. Whether a fact is true or false is completely independent of the person. However, you can use_* logic*_ to determine what is most probably true. You can then have others peer review your logic. If it holds true, you can call it knowledge. I highly recommend this logic thing.



PickleNose said:


> You are really contradicting yourself.


No I am not. Citing a defintion and stating that "theists have not met the burden of proof" makes me think you don't know what the defintion of contradiction. This is a perfect sequitur actually. One does not believe in the existence X because the burden of proof has not been met to support the existence of X. I can't fathom why youd argue this...leta****inlone figure out why youd charge me with a contradiction.



PickleNose said:


> First you say it has nothing to do with knowledge


No I didn't--the dictionary did. hell i even went over this the other damn day. You people have the same access to the same sources as me.



PickleNose said:


> but then you say the theists have not met the burden of proof.


In my opinion, theists have not met the burden of proof. If you think that they have, you should cite this evidence. Clearly you do not think they have or you'd be a theist yourself, right?. Clearly they too -by their own admission- do not have evidence either (or there would be no need for faith).



PickleNose said:


> How would you know that if you are not relying upon your knowledge to examine the arguments they're making?


This isn't how it works. If you make a claim, you have the burden of proof. *PERIOD. PERIOD.* *PERIOD*. However, I dont need "knowledge" to deconstruct the many logical fallacies from which theists draw. The proper tool is logic. I really think you are confused with what knowledge is and what logic and reason are.



PickleNose said:


> Frankly, I think you're just splitting hairs.


I like to call it "picking out flaws in arguments, sentence by sentence and word for word"



PickleNose said:


> What is the problem with just admitting there are certain things you don't know enough about to either believe or disbelieve?


Well, nothing, in and of itself. However, knowledge and belief are irrespective of one another. You don't know whether there is or isn't a band of green monkeys orbiting in the oort cloud...but that doesn't preclude drawing a logical conclusion to the claim. Either way, your beliefs have nothing to do with what is true. On that note, indecision is not a conclusion anymore than indicision with what to eat for breakfast as being a type of food.



PickleNose said:


> I think it has to be faith to believe you are capable of making that judgement when you have absolutely no evidence one way or another.


I think you are incorrect. There is a word for what it is...I mentioned it a few paragraphs up. It is called logic. You really do need to brush up on how burden of proof actually works too. Also, who declared themselves "capable of making that judgement when you have absolutely no evidence one way or another?" I certainly didn't. Since I did not, your opinion doesn't apply to me.


----------



## Raging Squid (Aug 9, 2012)

Arg I'm so tired of America's ultra-conservative ways. Religious groups are holding this nation back, just like much of the middle-east. People are way too blind. A religion which forced itself upon the world through endless bloodshed is certainly not something I want to embrace.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

No guilt here. I think religious is total nonsense, a fact which I make no attempt to hide.

All religions are silly, it's just that some are wildly psychoticaly insane while others are only harmless myths.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Raging Squid said:


> Arg I'm so tired of America's ultra-conservative ways. Religious groups are holding this nation back, just like much of the middle-east. People are way too blind. A religion which forced itself upon the world through endless bloodshed is certainly not something I want to embrace.


Exactly.

In fact America's conservatism holds much of the world back, seeing as how it has influence on so many countries.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Foh_Teej said:


> Atheism has nothing to do with knowledge. It is a single position on a single issue. Simply, it's the position that theists have not met the burden of proof. If you actually claimed to know everything and were also an atheist, you'd be a gnostic atheist.
> 
> Whether you engage in debate or not has nothing to do with atheism.
> 
> ...


Well said.

I've noticed a few people, almost always theists, who have no idea what atheism actually is and think it's a claim to knowing everything. :con


----------



## Solomon's Tomb (Aug 14, 2012)

wordscancutyoulikeglass said:


> Does anyone ever feel guilty about being atheist or agnostic?
> 
> I don't know, it's just my family is so into the Christian thing and they always talk about god and all these great pastors and churches and things they did in church growing up and I feel like I'm ruining something but not being Christian.
> 
> ...


Never, ever be ashamed of what you believe.

I am an existential nihilist. I believe that there is nothing in this world to believe in. I'm proud of that, and you should be proud of your beliefs. Every now and then, someone's going to come along and tell you to change, and I don't care if it's your Mom or Dad or your boyfriend or girlfriend-- you need to stand up and fight for what you know you believe in.


----------



## Billius (Aug 7, 2012)

I don't believe anything about anything. I refuse to be called agnostic or atheist. Is there a name for this position?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Billius said:


> I don't believe anything about anything. I refuse to be called agnostic or atheist. Is there a name for this position?


Nihilist.


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo (Jan 22, 2012)

religion is holding the world back from what, exactly?

from being a "good" world without war, violence or hate? I sincerely hope you don't *really* believe that would be gone if religion were gone.


----------



## Solomon's Tomb (Aug 14, 2012)

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> religion is holding the world back from what, exactly?
> 
> from being a "good" world without war, violence or hate? I sincerely hope you don't *really* believe that would be gone if religion were gone.


Heavens, no. I don't think the world would be a better place without religion. Everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want-- even if it's nothing, like me. I'm just a cynical, existential nihilist. But like the song says: _There are Jews in the world, there are Buddhists, there are Hindus and Mormons and then there are those who follow Mohammed but-- I've never been one of them.
_


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

silentk said:


> It's alright to not believe the same way as your family - they're your family and they will love you no matter what. (For example, I'm pro-choice, while my family is pro-life. Although that's a small disagreement compared to some things, it's something that we've all accepted).
> 
> Also, because they are Christians - and if they're really strong in their faith as they seem to be - then they will accept you for who you are, because to them (and me) you are a child of God, and God's children are to be loved and cared for.
> 
> ...


Well I tend to mind my own business among my religious family and relatives and do not tell them how to live, except when it comes to human rights and saving other's from their bigotry, hate, and abuse.

I am not just going to sit there and listen to them bash homosexuality and say they deserve to die by HIV/AIDs. I WILL defend myself with a vengence when they dare insult my intelligence and call me foolish/stupid when they believe whole heartedly in the most ridiculous, absurd, bullsh*t/scam to ever exist and think they have the ability to talk down to me?

I do not just sit there and tolerate them trying to tell me how to live my life and insult the stuff I like and tell me who I can date or sleep with when I am am adult as well. I do not sit there and tolerate my father's abuse just because some "bible" that I do not even give a sh*t about btw, tells me to respect my father even though he deserves no respect at all.

I also cannot share their level of artificiality regarding how righteous they think they are when they are no better(if not WAY worse) than anyone else I know who doesn't subscribe religion.

So to the OP, NO I feel no guilt whatsoever that I am not a hypocritical, bigoted, imbecile like that of family.


----------

