DiscussMormonism.com

"With very few exceptions - aren't we all really agnostic?"

What are the exceptions?

Finn the human wrote:"With very few exceptions - aren't we all really agnostic?"

What are the exceptions?

I think that is true. Whether a true believer or an atheist, it all really comes down to "I don't know". Some can be more honest about that than others.

Quasimodo wrote:

Finn the human wrote:"With very few exceptions - aren't we all really agnostic?"

What are the exceptions?

I think that is true. Whether a true believer or an atheist, it all really comes down to "I don't know". Some can be more honest about that than others.

I think of it as varying degrees of confidence. I "know" that the Sun will come up tomorrow. That is, I have a high confidence, in the absence of contrary data, that the earth's rotation will produce the visual effect of the rising Sun. I can't say that "nobody knows" that. Of course they do. We also know about gravity. Does anybody here doubt gravity?

The whole idea of scientific discovery is to see what we can have confidence in, enough that we can act with expectations of repeatability. The fact that we are interacting on a network that was created by scientists is not trivial or irrelevant.

Maksutov wrote:

Quasimodo wrote:I think that is true. Whether a true believer or an atheist, it all really comes down to "I don't know". Some can be more honest about that than others.

I think of it as varying degrees of confidence. I "know" that the Sun will come up tomorrow. That is, I have a high confidence, in the absence of contrary data, that the earth's rotation will produce the visual effect of the rising Sun. I can't say that "nobody knows" that. Of course they do. We also know about gravity. Does anybody here doubt gravity?

The whole idea of scientific discovery is to see what we can have confidence in, enough that we can act with expectations of repeatability. The fact that we are interacting on a network that was created by scientists is not trivial or irrelevant.

Of course. I was only referencing those things that pertain to the existence of God or an afterlife. There are many things that can be known. Gravity is a good one.

When I drop my keys or a Starbucks latte (always messy) they always fall down. Now, which direction is down is another matter. It all depends on where you are standing on earth. In Australia, it's nearly the opposite direction.

I have a question wrote:

fetchface wrote:Amen. Once I decided that the best way to live a moral life was to listen first and foremost to my own conscience, the desperate need to determine if God exists disappeared.

This.
Accepting that this life might be all there is has actually stimulated me to live a more fulfilling life.

But what happens when there's an interpersonal, communal, national conflict of conscience? When one's definition of what constitutes a moral life or fulfilling life does not agree with or is in conflict with someone else's? Who or what determines what is moral or fulfilling? I assume cultural influence would be the largest factor. So everyone goes their own way and we wreck relationships and communities in the process.

In the US we talk about tolerance which may be a partial answer to conflicting ways of life, but I think tolerance is a poor excuse for love. Jesus loved to the point of giving up not just his life but his communion with his dad. And he loved the men that murdered him in their hearts and who were literally murdering him, asking his dad to forgive them. In my own life, I've seen how little I've loved other people, even the closest to me, how self serving my most altruistic actions can be, aND how relationship suffers because of this. And Jesus asks his dad to forgive me cause I don't know what the hell I'm doing.

We may all be agnostic about factual, historical claims, but I think what the Bible is spot on when it tells us about our own nature and what is worth living for and how to grab it.

I have a question wrote:Accepting that this life might be all there is has actually stimulated me to live a more fulfilling life.

What does this mean to you IHAQ?

by the way, Ceeboo, yes I believe that most of us that count ourselves as hopeful believers in a creator/God...unless we have had some sort of undeniable witness/vision that we KNOW is from God...are in a position of having to exercise faith. Exercising faith can be a form of agnosticism.

Welcome to the crowd, fellow agnostic!

Regards,
MG

bubbachen wrote:But what happens when there's an interpersonal, communal, national conflict of conscience? When one's definition of what constitutes a moral life or fulfilling life does not agree with or is in conflict with someone else's? Who or what determines what is moral or fulfilling? I assume cultural influence would be the largest factor. So everyone goes their own way and we wreck relationships and communities in the process.

In the US we talk about tolerance which may be a partial answer to conflicting ways of life, but I think tolerance is a poor excuse for love. Jesus loved to the point of giving up not just his life but his communion with his dad. And he loved the men that murdered him in their hearts and who were literally murdering him, asking his dad to forgive them. In my own life, I've seen how little I've loved other people, even the closest to me, how self serving my most altruistic actions can be, aND how relationship suffers because of this. And Jesus asks his dad to forgive me cause I don't know what the hell I'm doing.

We may all be agnostic about factual, historical claims, but I think what the Bible is spot on when it tells us about our own nature and what is worth living for and how to grab it.

Said morals are attributed to Jesus/god, but are they really? Are they any better than those we come to as a society? Slavery is endorsed by the Old Testament. We as a society have become more moral than the god of the Old Testament.

Perhaps that morality supposedly from god is nothing more than the codification of the morality of its society, with a shellacing of diety to give more gravitas?

Apathetic atheist.

I don't care about what men, and women have made up about the life before and after this one, if it exists.

I focus on what I can sense, effect, and experience now.

Life is a one time roller coaster ride. Don't keep your head down worrying about the exit because you will miss the whole experience.

SteelHead wrote:

bubbachen wrote:But what happens when there's an interpersonal, communal, national conflict of conscience? When one's definition of what constitutes a moral life or fulfilling life does not agree with or is in conflict with someone else's? Who or what determines what is moral or fulfilling? I assume cultural influence would be the largest factor. So everyone goes their own way and we wreck relationships and communities in the process.

In the US we talk about tolerance which may be a partial answer to conflicting ways of life, but I think tolerance is a poor excuse for love. Jesus loved to the point of giving up not just his life but his communion with his dad. And he loved the men that murdered him in their hearts and who were literally murdering him, asking his dad to forgive them. In my own life, I've seen how little I've loved other people, even the closest to me, how self serving my most altruistic actions can be, aND how relationship suffers because of this. And Jesus asks his dad to forgive me cause I don't know what the hell I'm doing.

We may all be agnostic about factual, historical claims, but I think what the Bible is spot on when it tells us about our own nature and what is worth living for and how to grab it.

Said morals are attributed to Jesus/god, but are they really? Are they any better than those we come to as a society? Slavery is endorsed by the Old Testament. We as a society have become more moral than the god of the Old Testament.

Perhaps that morality supposedly from god is nothing more than the codification of the morality of its society, with a shellacing of diety to give more gravitas?

Hence the prohibition against murder and adultery, both probably not great for an efficient, cohesive society. But how about taking to take it to another level when big J says if you hate your brother you've already murdered him in your heart. Or if you lust (various definitions here) after a woman in your heart, you've already committed adultery. There's a deeper meaning to the said morals that society, in particular our own, cannot understand let alone codify. And how does loving an enemy, even someone who deserves your animosity and disgust, make sense in any society? What does it even mean to love?

Slavery - I don't know. That's a problem attributed to deity's character for which I have insufficient answers. Same with wiping out entire nations and their cattle, killing of women and children. Again, no answers although I think a nuanced and well studied approach would be wise for anyone who seeks to understand.

Really, you think society can't come up with those kinds of things on their own? The code of Hammurab predates the 10 commandments. Confucius, Lao, Mo Tzu, Buddha predate Christ. Maybe you ought to read what he taught. Chinese humanism taught many of these ethics, long before Jesus arrived on the scene.

An excellent question!
"Doing the work first, and considering the reward afterwards;"
is that not piling up virtue?
"Attack the evil that is within yourself,
rather than attacking the evil that is in others;"
is this not repairing shortcomings?


Because of a morning's blind rage
To forget one's own safety
And even endanger one's kith and kind
-Confucius

"If all people in the world love each other, states do not attack on each other, families do not interfere with each other, no robbers and no thieves, kings and fathers are kind to their court officials and sons while court officials and sons are filial to their kings and fathers, if so, the whole world will be orderly.”
-Mo Tzu