Agnosticism = Gateway Drug to Self-Righteousness

[Leumas]

It hasn't been proved to my satisfaction that there is no "god". I am however, extremely skeptical that there is one. I guess I'm just a totally self-righteous bastard

Do you subscribe to secular-theism?

advocated a nuanced approach to scripture, as opposed to Biblical literalism, informed by scholarship and compassion which he argues can be consistent with both Christian tradition and a contemporary understanding of the universe. Secular theology holds that theism has lost credibility as a valid conception of God's nature. It rejects the concept of a personal God and embraces the status of Jesus Christ, Christology and Christian eschatology as Christian mythology without basis in historical events

 

[Foster Zygote]

If there's one thing I've learned from this forum, it's that atheism is not a cure for self-righteousness, no matter how the condition was originally contracted.

Have you considered that being the sort of person to passive-aggressively refer to atheism as something that is "contracted" might motivate people to respond to you negatively, and that you interpret their criticisms of your posts as self-righteousness, rather than addressing their arguments? Maybe if you didn't engage in blanket bigotry, such as stating that atheist have no interest in bettering themselves or others, you might find that the majority of atheists here are capable of getting along with a theist quite well.

 

[Leumas]

If there's one thing I've learned from this forum, it's that atheism is not a cure for self-righteousness, no matter how the condition was originally contracted.

You are confusing self-righteousness with righteousness... look up the words again.

Hint: one is clueless and obliviously wrong (i.e. secular-theists, agnostics, theists)... hence self-righteous.... the other is demonstrably right (i.e. atheists)... hence righteous.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It hasn't been proved to my satisfaction that there is no "god". I am however, extremely skeptical that there is one. I guess I'm just a totally self-righteous bastard

I think some assume that "agnostic" means "neutral", or "undecided". But to me it means that a claim is not falsifiable, and to my mind that's actually worse for theism than mere lack of evidence. It means that unfalsifiable claims about gods, like YHWH, don't even rise to the level of scientific hypothesis. It's not that I'm granting them the provision that they could exist - that's what I do regarding, for example, extraterrestrial civilizations. There is no evidence for the existence of alien civilizations other than our own existence, and what we know of organic chemistry. But it is a falsifiable hypothesis. Gods, on the other hand, are in a category that can be summed up by the Pauli quote, "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!".

 

[Leumas]

Could you post some pictures? Your posts just aren't the same without the pictures. They're like the sui generis punctuation... It's what makes you you.

Here is one... can you guess who is the Secular-theist in the image?

 

[Thermal]

I think you are confusing irrational self-righteousness with rational righteousness...

Secular-theism is a self-contradictory, self-rationalizing irrationality held as a stance to alleviate one's Cognitive Dissonance while carrying on with one's self-righteousness.

Anti-theists are righteously combating the immorality and irrationality and its consequent mayhem caused by the self-righteous Cognitive Dissonance alleviating secular-theists.

You are framing your OP as if one follows the other, and that the former leads invariably to the latter. This is untrue. Take your gateway drug analogy. You know that the idea of, for instance, pot being a gateway drug to heroin use is roundly ridiculed, right? The whole concept of gateway drugs is zealous hysterics.

Agnosticism is its own gig. Not only Sagan, but others such as Darwin and Einstein subscribed to it. It's not a stepping stone or justification; it's just being honest with yourself (assuming you came to that conclusion. If you didn't, it wouldn't apply, obviously). Most agnostics are what most would call atheists who are willing to keep an open mind. That's all. Nothing more. The fights come from anti-theists who say there is no truth but their own words. It's an eye-roller for agnostics.

 

[lobosrul5]

You are framing your OP as if one follows the other, and that the former leads invariably to the latter. This is untrue. Take your gateway drug analogy. You know that the idea of, for instance, pot being a gateway drug to heroin use is roundly ridiculed, right? The whole concept of gateway drugs is zealous hysterics.

Agnosticism is its own gig. Not only Sagan, but others such as Darwin and Einstein subscribed to it. It's not a stepping stone or justification; it's just being honest with yourself (assuming you came to that conclusion. If you didn't, it wouldn't apply, obviously). Most agnostics are what most would call atheists who are willing to keep an open mind. That's all. Nothing more. The fights come from anti-theists who say there is no truth but their own words. It's an eye-roller for agnostics.

I just kind of consider myself a neutral observer. If there is a god that wanted me to believe in him, without solid evidence that is, then wouldn't he make me believe in him? If he gives me free-will to not believe in him then uh why would he be angry at me for exercising my free will that he granted me?? That about sums up the total amount of though I've given to religion.

 

[lobosrul5]

Do you subscribe to secular-theism?

I don't really understand all that. Its above my head. But lets say someone doesn't really believe in god but chooses to go about their life still holding on to traditions and attending church/synagogue for social purposes. Whatever, I won't hold it against them. As long as they don't try and make me go too or punish me in some way for not.

 

[theprestige]

Have you considered that being the sort of person to passive-aggressively refer to atheism as something that is "contracted" might motivate people to respond to you negatively, and that you interpret their criticisms of your posts as self-righteousness, rather than addressing their arguments? Maybe if you didn't engage in blanket bigotry, such as stating that atheist have no interest in bettering themselves or others, you might find that the majority of atheists here are capable of getting along with a theist quite well.

I was saying that self-righteousness is contracted, but not necessarily from agnosticism, and that however it is contracted, atheism doesn't seem to cure it. At all.

 

[Leumas]

... It's an eye-roller for agnostics.

What makes for the self-righteousness of the agnostics is the SPECIAL PLEADING and double standards they deploy for the gods of their inculcation and acculturation.

The very same self-proclaimed agnostics would not hesitate a second in being full out atheists in regards to Unkulunkulu or Altjira or Quetzalcoatl... but yet hypocritically proclaim open mindedness for the god of their childhood brainwashing....

Hence the irrational hypocritical self-righteousness.

And if they continue on to full out oblivious secular-theism then they have fully gone through the gateway to the fully stupefying self-righteousness drug.

It's an eye-roller for sane rational educated functioning intellectuals living in 2023.



.

 

[Thermal]

I just kind of consider myself a neutral observer. If there is a god that wanted me to believe in him, without solid evidence that is, then wouldn't he make me believe in him? If he gives me free-will to not believe in him then uh why would he be angry at me for exercising my free will that he granted me?? That about sums up the total amount of though I've given to religion.

Yeah, I hear that. I take more of an interest because I've been around religious people all my life. My grandfather was a progressive Protestant pastor, my wife and one kid are RCC CCD teachers, and I work a little with church charities. I'm interested in what they are experiencing, even the new agey/witchy types like my SIL and an aunt. It's not like sitting at the window, waiting for a proof of God. It's more of an "Imma leave this door ajar to watch this without being closed-minded".

 

[Leumas]

I don't really understand all that. Its above my head. But lets say someone doesn't really believe in god but chooses to go about their life still holding on to traditions and attending church/synagogue for social purposes. Whatever, I won't hold it against them. As long as they don't try and make me go too or punish me in some way for not.

What if they tell you that your house belongs to them and you have to vacate it because God said so???

There are three ways one can do harm

• Directly by doing an action that harms
• Indirectly
  • Actively - By aiding of facilitating another person to do harm
  • Passively – By standing by and doing nothing to stop a harm

I call A & B the Petri Dish Effect.

 

[lobosrul5]

What if they tell you that your house belongs to them and you have to vacate it because God said so???

There are three ways one can do harm

• Directly by doing an action that harms
• Indirectly
  • Actively - By aiding of facilitating another person to do harm
  • Passively – By standing by and doing nothing to stop a harm

I call A & B the Petri Dish Effect.

Well then I'd have a problem with that... as I said if they punish me for not believing/attending church.

 

[Leumas]

Well then I'd have a problem with that... as I said if they punish me for not believing/attending church.

They tell you that God gave your house to them but at the same time they say there is no god (i.e. they are secular-theists)... what do you think of that???

 

[Thermal]

What makes for the self-righteousness of the agnostics is the SPECIAL PLEADING and double standards they deploy for the gods of their inculcation and acculturation.

The very same self-proclaimed agnostics would not hesitate a second in being full out atheists in regards to Unkulunkulu or Altjira or Quetzalcoatl... but yet hypocritically proclaim open mindedness for the god of their childhood brainwashing....

Hence the irrational hypocritical self-righteousness.

And that's where you are stunningly wrong. Agnostics generally disbelieve in a god or supernatural thingy that people claim to have credible knowledge about. That's why comparisons to Jehovah or Thor or leprechauns fall flat, and are dishonest.

And if they continue on to full out oblivious secular-theism then they have fully gone through the gateway to the fully stupefying self-righteousness drug.

Again, you beg the question of this mythical secular-theism that no one here is subscribing to. It's in your imagination, brah. No one in this discussion claims this odd endgame you claim.

I smoked quite a bit of pot when I was younger. It was not a gateway drug to heroin, as you treat as inevitable here. Just don't happen.

It's an eye-roller for sane rational educated functioning intellectuals living in 2023.

You are free to believe that. You are not free to zealously preach that only your views are correct. I mean you are free to do so, but they will be ridiculed on the same grounds that you ridicule others on: you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I only call myself agnostic because I don't want to have the same argument over and over again. If I tell a believer that I am atheist, the inevitable retort is "You can't be atheist! You can't KNOW that there is no God! Gotcha!"

Fine. You got me. I can't "know" for certain that there are no Gods, leprechauns, faeries, etc. Since I don't want to spend hours debating the existence of any of these things, can I just call myself an agnostic now and call it a day? Please?

 

[Leumas]

Well then I'd have a problem with that... as I said if they punish me for not believing/attending church.

Or while proclaiming their secular-theism they also pay money for this to happen.

 

[theprestige]

You are confusing self-righteousness with righteousness... look up the words again.

Hint: one is clueless and obliviously wrong (i.e. secular-theists, agnostics, theists)... hence self-righteous.... the other is demonstrably right (i.e. atheists)... hence righteous.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5128262c7c23c53b52.jpg[/qimg]​

Yeah, that's not how self-righteousness works. It's endemic, and people can develop the condition at any time. Atheists are not immune.

 

[Leumas]

...It's more of an "Imma leave this door ajar to watch this without being closed-minded".

[imgw=300]https://i.imgflip.com/10b217.jpg[/imgw]​

 

[Leumas]

...
Again, you beg the question of this mythical secular-theism that no one here is subscribing to. It's in your imagination, brah. No one in this discussion claims this odd endgame you claim.
...
You are free to believe that. You are not free to zealously preach that only your views are correct. I mean you are free to do so, but they will be ridiculed on the same grounds that you ridicule others on: you don't know what you are talking about.

And the above is exactly what I mean by

...
In 2023, no sane rational educated functioning human can conscientiously maintain belief in the biblical turpitude.

So what can one do other than chuck in the garbage the entirety of the irrefragably immoral and antithetical to reality codswallop that is their faith?

.... agnosticism and secular-theism can still allow one to keep the bottle while patrolling forums, relentlessly and indefatigably hawking claptrap to prevent any further proofs that might shatter the bottle too.