"No such thing as atheists."
My problem with declaring ignosticism is that I view it as lazy, it's like you're not trying hard enough. It's like trying to vote on an issue and perpetually putting it off to deal with it later. It feels like saying "well, there could be a God, but I'm not going to bother figuring out all these properties that God is supposed to have apart from the name God".
And don't get me started on the version of agnosticism that outright states that "we can never know" - what the fuck sort of belief system is that?
Whole rich and vibrant parts of the greek religion and greek Christian gnosticism were based on "we don't know, and can't know."
I don't worry about the view of "i think there's something, but don't know", cause it's followed by "and don't care". Kinda the way I feel about lots of things. That's not really lazy it me, as much as it is relavence. Is it lazy to not care about calculus when you'll never use it?
I really don't take issue with the "and I don't care" part. If more people did that, the world would be better. It's the "we can't be sure there's a God, and there's no way for Science to prove it either way, but He definitely doesn't want gay people to marry" thought-process that really needs a good hard slap.
OHHHH, those idiots. ;-) I have not done much reading on gnosticism, but i knew it was more complex than something dismissible. But yeah, modern "we cannot know and it's an insult to God to put him to the test" piss me off. Cause they never follow with "and i don't care". they greatly care.
I also find it funny when people say "but you can prove he exists. I have a liver. That's scientific proof" for the very same reason. it's not just bad science, it's actually bad religion. I don't think a god that made man "in his image" would want people to NOT think about said god, or contemplate its morals, or wonder at its nature. I would think, following their logic, that if we were "given" brains, god would be more pissed that we trusted hucksters instead of what we could see and test with our own eyes.
If there was a God, however you want to describe it, I think it would be painfully obvious. So, if anything, only really "Spinoza's God" is anywhere near real.
But there is the whole fideism thing, about faith being superior to everything else at all (as if the universe is one big lucid dream that gives a crap what we think). But my issue with that is that it's indistinguishable from the equally probable and equally valid approach of "making shit up".
Pretty much. I'd like to say it's new; something that was a reaction to a few hundred years of science challenging religion. But Jesus himself chastizes ummm.. thomas? for doubting him, and asking for proof.
I'd like to think humans are moving more and more towards spinoza (if they must have something). But every time I say it, i think "nah... people will always turn to a parental god, or a dogmatic religion based on something else, cause it's too hard to think for yourself"