Religion: is the cultural compulsion a theological obligation?

[sear]

There's a tenacious cultural background trying to get each of us to commit to belief, and if belief, which denomination of belief; and if disbelief, an affirmative confession of it.

Why?

Is it insecurity among believers? That they wish to know what YOU believe, or not, or they're less comfortable even talking with you?

And why the false dichotomy?

There is belief.
There is disbelief.
Why is non-belief the neglected theological stepchild?

Atheists define themselves by that they do not believe.

Agnostics confess their ignorance.

Here's a secret.

Believers don't know any more about it than agnostics do.

The difference is, the agnostics are more candid about it.

 

[jmotivator]

There's a tenacious cultural background trying to get each of us to commit to belief, and if belief, which denomination of belief; and if disbelief, an affirmative confession of it.

Why?

Is it insecurity among believers? That they wish to know what YOU believe, or not, or they're less comfortable even talking with you?

And why the false dichotomy?

There is belief.
There is disbelief.
Why is non-belief the neglected theological stepchild?

Atheists define themselves by that they do not believe.

Agnostics confess their ignorance.

Here's a secret.

Believers don't know any more about it than agnostics do.

The difference is, the agnostics are more candid about it.

Did you feel cultural compulsion to post that?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

There's a tenacious cultural background trying to get each of us to commit to belief, and if belief, which denomination of belief; and if disbelief, an affirmative confession of it.

Why?

Is it insecurity among believers? That they wish to know what YOU believe, or not, or they're less comfortable even talking with you?

And why the false dichotomy?

There is belief.
There is disbelief.
Why is non-belief the neglected theological stepchild?

Atheists define themselves by that they do not believe.

Agnostics confess their ignorance.

Here's a secret.

Believers don't know any more about it than agnostics do.

The difference is, the agnostics are more candid about it.

I'm agnostic. I don't think "ignorance" is the right word.

I don't believe in things without some sort of proof. A STEM education only reinforced that view. I have read at least 5 apologetics books and a few that attempt to counter those. I remain on the non-believer side of the fence, but with an open mind.

 

[sear]

"Did you feel cultural compulsion to post that?" jm #2

I acknowledge the opportunity to introduce the topic for constructive discussion.

"I'm agnostic. I don't think "ignorance" is the right word." P #3

agnostic (àg-nòs´tîk) noun
One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists.

adjective
1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Noncommittal: "I favored European unity, but I was agnostic about the form it should take" (Henry A. Kissinger).

[a-1 + Gnostic.]
- agnos´tically adverb

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven, for example, but rather holds that one cannot know for certain if they exist or not. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnosis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals- "ists," as he called them- who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870. *

"I don't believe in things without some sort of proof." P

a) Me too.

b) And there is no proof of ANY supernatural ANYthing.

I can't DISprove it.

BUT !!

There's no such thing as "burden of DISproof".

It is the burden of believers to prove their extremely implausible claims: a talking serpent, a pregnant virgin, etc.

"I remain on the non-believer side of the fence, but with an open mind."

Then you are "agnostic", by definition.
We simply do not KNOW for sure.

* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

 

[it's just me]

There's a tenacious cultural background trying to get each of us to commit to belief, and if belief, which denomination of belief; and if disbelief, an affirmative confession of it.

Why?

Is it insecurity among believers? That they wish to know what YOU believe, or not, or they're less comfortable even talking with you?

And why the false dichotomy?

There is belief.
There is disbelief.
Why is non-belief the neglected theological stepchild?

Atheists define themselves by that they do not believe.

Agnostics confess their ignorance.

Here's a secret.

Believers don't know any more about it than agnostics do.

The difference is, the agnostics are more candid about it.

Begging the question....

 

[gilbertc1908]

There's a tenacious cultural background trying to get each of us to commit to belief, and if belief, which denomination of belief; and if disbelief, an affirmative confession of it.

Why?

Is it insecurity among believers? That they wish to know what YOU believe, or not, or they're less comfortable even talking with you?

And why the false dichotomy?

There is belief.
There is disbelief.

The premise is a false one.
By definition belief is self generated. The pressure then, at least for an adult is self generated, it is only external if the individual allows it to be.

There is belief, DOUBT and disbelief. And the believer, agnostic and non believer. may experience all three in many cases over a life time and/or 2 of the three in almost all cases.

Why is non-belief the neglected theological stepchild?

You make this far too easy to answer as stated. Non belief is not and can not be a theology so can not be theological, nor it would seem to me, the atheist want it to be.
To deny the existence of God, a god, many gods can most assuredly be reasonable, logical and of course scientific but it can not be theological.

Atheists define themselves by that they do not believe.

I hope this is not true, anyone who defines themselves based on a negative then has no principles on which to base their moral compass. Most of my atheist friends (I am a Catholic)do indeed believe in some guiding philosophy, it just does not happen to have a god involved.

Here's a secret.

Believers don't know any more about it than agnostics do.

The difference is, the agnostics are more candid about it.

Again here I question the premise, don't know more about what? If it is why they believe the many outrageous things we Christians believe, this I assure you, the believer will know far about.

If you mean the agnostic is more candid about doubt, I doubt that. the assumption of human faults and doubts is all over the new testament and the specific issue of doubt is addressed and assumed time an again. You can not come to believe if you have not had doubt, nor is it likely one can maintain his level of faith at every moment, it is our nature.

If it is whether or not there is a God at all, well that is a matter of Faith.

Thanks for an interesting post which poses some great questions to argue about!!

 

[faithful_servant]

Did you feel cultural compulsion to post that?

It was the result of his insecurity...

 

[soylentgreen]

I can't DISprove it.
.

Right there is where you fall into the trap your op speaks of. which was; "There's a tenacious cultural background trying to get each of us to commit to belief, and if belief, which denomination of belief; and if disbelief, an affirmative confession of it."

By simply accepting the idea that we cannot disprove it we have moved into the thinking of there might be something to disprove. This is nothing more than a trick of reasoning by theists who demand that we start from a position that at least it is possible and should be worth considering.
But as they have never supplied any evidence or managed to give one good reason as to why we should consider a god in the first place. Then there is no reason for me to consider the idea of proving or disproving.
An atheist position is a lack of belief. if you want to consider the idea that but unfortunately that lack cannot be proved then go call yourself for what you are, an agnostic.

 

[soylentgreen]

I hope this is not true, anyone who defines themselves based on a negative then has no principles on which to base their moral compass. Most of my atheist friends (I am a Catholic)do indeed believe in some guiding philosophy, it just does not happen to have a god involved.

!

The only thing you are correct in there is that sear said it badly. It is not that atheists define themselves by that they do not believe. It is a person who lacks a belief is defined as an atheist. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief. the add-ons about moral compass are nothing more than weak arguments by theists. Morality can be defined by reason and is supported in each individual by the strength of their empathy and altruism. Not by the teachings of a silly book or by some government ruling. This is why we have great variations in how we practice our morality on an individual basis.

 

[sear]

"The premise is a false one.
By definition belief is self generated." g1 #6

That is at very best extremely misleading.

Were it purely true, it would astronomically unlikely that over a billion humans independently all arrived at belief in (for example) Christianity.

NOPE !!

Indoctrination is almost surely the more likely explanation in most cases ALTHOUGH I EAGERLY ADMIT, the actual belief (as in the individual's acceptance) and that which is accepted / believed are two different things.

"The pressure then, at least for an adult is self generated, it is only external if the individual allows it to be." g1 #6

Why are so many U.S. presidents ostensible believers?
Why is their proportion of the total presidential population higher than that of gen pop?

Nope!

There's pressure in many ways.
I've seen complaints that Christmas is represented by "Xmas".
Church groups and their affiliates are constantly trying to limit or re-criminalize abortion.
They still haven't given up on the prayer in "public" (meaning U.S. government) schools.

"There is belief, DOUBT and disbelief."

There is water, milk, and beer. What's your point.

There's belief, doubt, skepticism, agnosticism, atheism, and communism.
Please don't try to oversimplify this theological spectrum. It is VASTLY more complicated than 3 points on a line!

Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
Why is non-belief the neglected theological stepchild?

"You make this far too easy to answer as stated. Non belief is not and can not be a theology so can not be theological, nor it would seem to me, the atheist want it to be."

As an expedient, I concede.
So what?
It changes nothing.
If it were about the number 13 it could be triskadecaphobia.
If it were about spiders it could be arachnophobia.
It's about religion, so it's theology; even if defined as the complete lack thereof. Lack of what? RELIGION!! Thus theological.

"To deny the existence of God, a god, many gods can most assuredly be reasonable, logical and of course scientific but it can not be theological."

What alternate scale would you substitute?

- Toilet paper?

- Horsepower?

- Comic relief?

It's theology!!, even when defined by a zero value; just as absolute zero is a temperature, even though numerically (Kelvin) there isn't any! Please stop being silly.

Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
Atheists define themselves by that they do not believe.

"I hope this is not true"

Read the dictionary definition.
If you disagree, your quarrel is with the dictionary, not me. Shoot the messenger is quite passé.

"Believers don't know any more about it than agnostics do."

And agnostics are generally more candid about it, perhaps intrinsically so.
The difference is, the agnostics are more candid about it.

I've quivered in loathing regret hearing believers present their beliefs as verified reality, certitude: "god says ..."

The correct wording in my experience is: "The Holy Bible says ..."

 

[phattonez]

There's a tenacious cultural background trying to get each of us to commit to belief, and if belief, which denomination of belief; and if disbelief, an affirmative confession of it.

Why?

Because we believe that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one goes through the Father except through Him. As such, why would we not want to spread news of His sacrifice and resurrection to the entire world?

 

[phattonez]

I'm agnostic. I don't think "ignorance" is the right word.

I don't believe in things without some sort of proof. A STEM education only reinforced that view. I have read at least 5 apologetics books and a few that attempt to counter those. I remain on the non-believer side of the fence, but with an open mind.

How does a STEM education prepare you for the philosophical arguments necessary to say that "only that which can be empirically verified can be true." Further, how can you even prove that statement using only empirically verifiable statements?

 

[phattonez]

Right there is where you fall into the trap your op speaks of. which was; "There's a tenacious cultural background trying to get each of us to commit to belief, and if belief, which denomination of belief; and if disbelief, an affirmative confession of it."

By simply accepting the idea that we cannot disprove it we have moved into the thinking of there might be something to disprove. This is nothing more than a trick of reasoning by theists who demand that we start from a position that at least it is possible and should be worth considering.
But as they have never supplied any evidence or managed to give one good reason as to why we should consider a god in the first place. Then there is no reason for me to consider the idea of proving or disproving.
An atheist position is a lack of belief. if you want to consider the idea that but unfortunately that lack cannot be proved then go call yourself for what you are, an agnostic.

There are actually plenty of arguments, from the philosophical, to the miraculous. You may find them unconvincing, that's a different issue, but to say that there is no evidence nor any good reason is nonsense.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

How does a STEM education prepare you for the philosophical arguments necessary to say that "only that which can be empirically verified can be true." Further, how can you even prove that statement using only empirically verifiable statements?

It does neither. It reinforced my tendency to think logically, and that when no proof that I deem sufficient is available for multiple hypotheses seeking to explain something, to not dismiss any of them but to lean toward the most likely explanation - the one backed by the most/strongest evidence.

 

[phattonez]

It does neither. It reinforced my tendency to think logically, and that when no proof that I deem sufficient is available for multiple hypotheses seeking to explain something, to not dismiss any of them but to lean toward the most likely explanation - the one backed by the most/strongest evidence.

Occam's Razor is not the same as conclusively proving something to be true, or even disproving something. It's just a best approximation method of evaluating evidence.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I acknowledge the opportunity to introduce the topic for constructive discussion.

agnostic (àg-nòs´tîk) noun
One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists.

adjective
1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Noncommittal: "I favored European unity, but I was agnostic about the form it should take" (Henry A. Kissinger).

[a-1 + Gnostic.]
- agnos´tically adverb

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven, for example, but rather holds that one cannot know for certain if they exist or not. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnosis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals- "ists," as he called them- who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870. *

a) Me too.

b) And there is no proof of ANY supernatural ANYthing.

I can't DISprove it.

BUT !!

There's no such thing as "burden of DISproof".

It is the burden of believers to prove their extremely implausible claims: a talking serpent, a pregnant virgin, etc.

Then you are "agnostic", by definition.
We simply do not KNOW for sure.

* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

You nailed it - the burden of proof lies with the claimant.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Occam's Razor is not the same as conclusively proving something to be true, or even disproving something. It's just a best approximation method of evaluating evidence.

Yes, and though the theist and the atheist offer no proof that I consider indisputable, the atheists, via the physical sciences, for me come closer.

The last books I read on the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-True-You-But-Not-ebook/dp/B006XG0ID4
https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Versus-Fact-Religion-Incompatible/dp/0143108263

It remains a debate for me. I remain interested in hearing new evidence. Not dogma, evidence.

 

[phattonez]

Yes, and though the theist and the atheist offer no proof that I consider indisputable, the atheists, via the physical sciences, for me come closer.

The last books I read on the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-True-You-But-Not-ebook/dp/B006XG0ID4
https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Versus-Fact-Religion-Incompatible/dp/0143108263

It remains a debate for me. I remain interested in hearing new evidence. Not dogma, evidence.

What arguments provided by atheists do you find to be superior to ones provided by theists? Also, what works by theists have you read to consider the other side?

 

[sear]

Please pardon me p #11. I'm not trying to annoy.
I'm not Christian.
But I ask out of curiosity, me not having studied the Holy Bible as much as I should have:

"Because we believe that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life" p #11

Is that "life"?

Or is it "light"?

Just curious.

"no one goes through the Father except through Him."

Yes, as holy scripture explicitly states.

"As such, why would we not want to spread news of His sacrifice and resurrection to the entire world?"

Whatever you wish, within bounds of the law.

BUT !!

Not at government expense.

PS
There's a distinction between simple evangelism,
and stupid schemes like "intelligent design", trying to pervert U.S. "public" (meaning "government") schools to presenting religion as pseudo-science.

Blowback is the risk.
When religionists push, others push back.
It seems to be a wash.

"In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 24 Nov. 1808, to his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph

 

[CrabCake]

BUT !!

Not at government expense.

No one here has proposed that it should be at government expense.

 

[AlbqOwl]

There's a tenacious cultural background trying to get each of us to commit to belief, and if belief, which denomination of belief; and if disbelief, an affirmative confession of it.

Why?

Is it insecurity among believers? That they wish to know what YOU believe, or not, or they're less comfortable even talking with you?

And why the false dichotomy?

There is belief.
There is disbelief.
Why is non-belief the neglected theological stepchild?

Atheists define themselves by that they do not believe.

Agnostics confess their ignorance.

Here's a secret.

Believers don't know any more about it than agnostics do.

The difference is, the agnostics are more candid about it.

Non belief is not a neglected step child in the United States. It is a promoted, protected, and often militant 'religion' that some think should be the normal state of society or at least the only visible 'religion'.

Your statement that believers don't know any more about it than agnostics do is the core belief of the agnostic and/or Atheist 'religion'. But not being a believer, you cannot possibly know what the believer experiences or knows. To state that you do is far less verifiable than the existence of God is to the believer.

 

[Fishking]

The only thing you are correct in there is that sear said it badly. It is not that atheists define themselves by that they do not believe. It is a person who lacks a belief is defined as an atheist. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief. the add-ons about moral compass are nothing more than weak arguments by theists. Morality can be defined by reason and is supported in each individual by the strength of their empathy and altruism. Not by the teachings of a silly book or by some government ruling. This is why we have great variations in how we practice our morality on an individual basis.

And why do you consider empathy and altruism more virtuous than ambition and selfishness?

 

[Fishking]

There's a tenacious cultural background trying to get each of us to commit to belief, and if belief, which denomination of belief; and if disbelief, an affirmative confession of it.

The irony if this statement is not lost on me. As far as my personal experiences have been recently, atheists are more active in things like proselytizing and spreading "their word" than about any group out there.

Why?

Is it insecurity among believers? That they wish to know what YOU believe, or not, or they're less comfortable even talking with you?

Part of some religions is to convert people. It's a moral imperative. For the sake of argument, accept the premise of Christian theology. Would it be moral to sit around and not proselytize and therefor not have more people go to Heaven?

The more interesting question is, why do atheists proselytize? If there's nothing else out there then who cares? It is the atheist that has the less tenable position here.

 

[soylentgreen]

There are actually plenty of arguments, from the philosophical, to the miraculous. You may find them unconvincing, that's a different issue, but to say that there is no evidence nor any good reason is nonsense.

No, it is what you say, unconvincing. The onus of course is always on the theists. Point out some convincing evidence or give a good reason. No one has done so so far.

 

[phattonez]

No, it is what you say, unconvincing. The onus of course is always on the theists. Point out some convincing evidence or give a good reason. No one has done so so far.

And how many books by theists have you read? I'm curious.