CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If you would allow somebody who thinks the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth were great, and who believes that his teachings CAN indeed help us lead better lives, and who even tries to follow them as best they can, to call himself a Christian, that is.
But what if this same person, who admires the teachings of Jesus, and even admires the Man--yes, he believes Jesus was JUST a man--does not believe in a biblical type of God? Who does not believe Jesus was God? Or Divine. But just a great teacher and philosopher. Like the Buddha? Or Lao Tzu? Or the Dalai Lama?
Many (most?) more fundamental and mainstream Christians would not allow that person to be called a Christian, however. This is why most religions lose me.
That person I described above who likes the teachings of Jesus but does not believe in a Biblical God? And who thinks most religions are corrupted?
He is Me.
So...I can go one farther for ya: Can a person who is an ATHEIST like me call himself a Christian if he thinks the teachings of JC were awesome? After all, if somebody in Biology (my field) believes in the theories of Darwin, we call him a "Darwinian" in his school of thought.
And in politics, there are the terms "Jacskonian" and "Jeffersonian" in regards to particular political ideologies.
So why not transfer this usage of the suffix "ian" over to religion and let somebody who agrees with Christ's teachings to be called a "Christian?"
It is only fair.
But I wager the vast majority of fundie Christians would not allow an Atheist like me to say that> And would not EVER call me one.
This is one way in which I believe religion is elitist, oppressive, and skewed beyond what JC meant it to be.
You can call yourself whatever you like, but when it's logically contradicting, don't be offended if you hear people snickering. Your examples of Darwinians, Jeffersonians and Jacksonians all miss the mark. Christ is not a last name, it's a title (i.e. Messiah). It means the anointed One. Anointed by Whom? By God of course. Thus it makes no logical sense for an Atheist to also identify as a follower of the anointed One.
In my opinion, this seems to be a growing trend of atheists to attempt to garner a bit more credibility, by attaching themselves to the "Christian" label. We fundies have special logic-deciphering glasses that allow us to see through all this bs though.
I correctly stated that the "ians" suffix denoted a follower of the person's ethos who was the subject of that suffix.
Thus, it matters not if it was a last name or a title. This is simple grammar and syntax. NOT Theology.
Also, the word messiah comes from the Hebrew "messiach." And then it was converted tot he Greek "christos." Which means anointed, yes.
But who is to say that the anointing was from god? Back then they used the word "anointed" for when somebody was dressed with oil. As a symbolic gesture of worship and adoration. Like Jesus was at the Last Supper. On his feet.
Lastly, us Atheist need not attempt to garner and more credibility. Certainly not form the likes of people who are devoid of scientific knowledge and believe in sky gods and long-dead Jewish carpenters that now sit up in a fictional place called Heaven at the right hand of a make-believe god.
Now THAT'S the kind of atheistic response I'm accustomed to. I knew it wouldn't take long. Look at this classic, petulant atheistic disdain: "sky gods", "long-dead Jewish carpenters", "fictional place called Heaven", "make-believe god". No wonder we fundies have a hard time believing in such a thing as an atheistic Christian.
Are you honestly now positing a secular anointing? If so, then that's a first for me, so I have to give you points for originality.
Now THAT'S the kind of atheistic response I'm accustomed to. I knew it wouldn't take long. Look at this classic, petulant atheistic disdain: "sky gods", "long-dead Jewish carpenters", "fictional place called Heaven", "make-believe god". No wonder we fundies have a hard time believing in such a thing as an atheistic Christian.
So despite the fact that most of your reactions have not been like this, you come across one person who is and suddenly that is the 'typical' response.
Come on Sceathers. That's like atheists on this website pretending SaintNow is representative of Christians.
But do you recognize that your personal experiences are purely anecdotal?
My personal experiences are that Christians tend to be hateful, bigoted and angry. But I recognize those experiences are of what, maybe a bit over a thousand people over the course of my life? A bit more than that online?
A thousand out of over a hundred million people. Your experiences might be similar (but for atheists), and yet your sample size is still minuscule compared to the total population.
To tout those negative experiences as if they are indicative of all atheists is not only misguided, but its also incredibly belittling.
I did initially say that those were the responses I was accustomed to, which is true, I typically get much worse actually, but I have no idea how that translates to the total atheist population. As a former atheist for 30 years I can honestly say I never debated these issues when I was on the other side of the fence. Nowadays though, there's a much more aggressive atheist movement afoot. My personal experiences may not be that far off after all.
"Look at this classic, petulant atheistic disdain"
You really don't see how that comes across?
As for the increased aggression of the atheist movement, I'm not sure why you are surprised. There was no substantial atheist movement thirty years ago. There were atheists, sure, but they had just barely been given the right to hold public office by the Supreme Court. Now that atheism isn't considered a borderline mental condition, atheists are comfortable speaking out within a society that many feel is rather oppressive (note: not repressive or discriminatory) and within which they are overwhelmingly a minority.
How's that? My labeling his response as petulant is what you take issue with, but not his childish response itself? He certainly didn't add much to the debate with that response did he? Now you're playing the pity card because you've allegedly been oppressed as atheists? C'mon this is just getting stupid now. "The struggle is real", right? >: )
How's that? My labeling his response as petulant is what you take issue with, but not his childish response itself?
Oh believe me I take issue with his childishness as well. He doesn't contribute anything beyond insults 99% of the time. You seem more mature than that, so I actually respond to you.
Now you're playing the pity card because you've allegedly been oppressed as atheists? C'mon this is just getting stupid now. "The struggle is real", right? >: )
Right, so because you can't imagine it, that means you can essentially make fun of it. That's pretty lame, sceathers.
No, I am not suggesting secular anointing. There would be no reason for a secular person to engage in such a ritual. (Although the CoS (church of Satan) DOES have a very similar practice).
And although like I said I DO think JC had some pretty damn good things to say, and I as an atheist even read Him once in awhile, I would not call myself a Christian. Although I still do think that I could make a good argument for doing so. As could anybody who follows His teachings but does not believe in the biblical God, and even thinks JC was human. And was merely A good mortal teacher like the Buddha, or Ghandi, or the Lama, or even, say, a philosopher like Aquinas or Augustine or Origen.
What they are saying when they call themselves Christian is that they respect Christian teachings on morals and they are trying to be good people. At least they are not trying to rob us and cut off our heads like Muslims........well, most of them, anyways. Most atheists I have known are decent folks, law abiding citizens....like my neighbors. Kind and generous people with a strong sense of right and wrong.....clean living people who care deeply for their families and friends as they try to make the world a better place.
You lost all credibility when you claimed that the atheists who are espousing support for Christ's teachings (a misguided trend, in my opinion) are doing so "to attempt to garner a bit more credibility".
Care to expand a bit? Why did I lose "all credibility" in your eyes? Or is this just an emotional outburst, where you simply regurgitated one of the last words I used? Why else do you think Atheists would claim to support the anointed One?
It's the classical "assume the worst of others" path.
Instead of going with the most obvious answer (that they actually believe what they are saying), you make it into a borderline conspiracy based on the assumption that atheists feel they need "credibility" in the eyes of theists.
Many non-Christians support many of Jesus' teachings (probably because the ones they are supporting are great ideas that predate Christ). That does not mean they support his claim of divinity, or his claim that anyone who doesn't believe in it will burn in hell.
Edit: Basically, they support Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus Christ. Silly, I know, but not as absurd as you are making it seem.
Actually I used to assume the best when dealing with "agnostic/atheistic Christians" - that is until I started to see them consistently deny just about everything Jesus said. That's when I began to notice this new "wolf in sheep's clothing" trend.
Jesus did claim to be God, so if these agnostic/atheistic Christians don't believe His supernatural claims, then in their minds they must be supporting the teachings of a mad man. And if, like you say, there are others that came up with these "great ideas that predate Christ", then why would Agnostics/Atheists choose Jesus' teachings to "support" over the earlier ones? Sounds very suspect, doesn't it?
Actually I used to assume the best when dealing with "agnostic/atheistic Christians" - that is until I started to see them consistently deny just about everything Jesus said. That's when I began to notice this new "wolf in sheep's clothing" trend.
Do you have any examples?
Jesus did claim to be God, so if these agnostic/atheistic Christians don't believe His supernatural claims, then in their minds they must be supporting the teachings of a mad man.
Nope. Again, assuming the worst of others. There are many non-Christians who believe that Jesus himself didn't claim to be Christ, but that said title was attributed to him by others, and therefore quotes regarding his divinity were attributed to him by others. Again, I find it silly, but that doesn't change the fact that you are ignoring the more plausible explanations in favor of painting people you disagree with in a negative light.
And if, like you say, there are others that came up with these "great ideas that predate Christ", then why would Agnostics/Atheists choose Jesus' teachings to "support" over the earlier ones? Sounds very suspect, doesn't it?
No it doesn't. If you went down the street and asked everyone how many of them had heard of Jesus, everyone would say they had. If you then asked them if they had heard of Hammurabi's Code, most would say they haven't.
Again, assuming the worst in those you disagree with whilst ignoring the obvious explanation.
No, I don't have any examples ready to cite. That's just my personal experience online. I've encountered it everywhere I've debated.
If they feel quotes by Jesus proclaiming His divinity were false, then why think other quotes by Him were true? They're picking and choosing here and that makes them not followers of Christ, but followers of themselves.
I ignore these so-called obvious explanations because they're not logical. It makes no sense to identify with someone who claimed to be God, just because you like some of His other "secular" teachings. Why pick anyone to identify with? Why not just say you believe in the "golden rule", or some other vanilla concept? Why the need to identify with someone who claimed to be God, when they don't believe Jesus is God in the first place. The obvious explanation here is they're simply trying to subvert the argument by becoming "one of us". That would also explain why I've never met them in real life, just online in debates.
Could I be a YEC Darwinian evolutionist? Or would that be inconsistent and illogical?
No, I don't have any examples ready to cite. That's just my personal experience online. I've encountered it everywhere I've debated.
If they feel quotes by Jesus proclaiming His divinity were false, then why think other quotes by Him were true?
It's the difference between theology and philosophy. One can easily say his opinions on helping the poor are admirable without thinking he was the son of God. Honestly I'm really confused as to why that troubles you.
They're picking and choosing here and that makes them not followers of Christ, but followers of themselves.
Why would they be followers of Christ if they aren't Christian? Saying you think Jesus had some good ideas doesn't mean you are his disciple. It also doesn't indicate they are "followers of themselves". That sort of derisive rhetoric seems common amongst Christians towards those who believe in non-religiously based morality, but you seem better than that, so I'm confused as to why you included it.
I ignore these so-called obvious explanations because they're not logical. It makes no sense to identify with someone who claimed to be God, just because you like some of His other "secular" teachings.
I have said this to you already: They do not "identify with" Jesus. I can say that Marx had some good points in his critique on capitalism, but that does not mean I am a Marxist.
Why pick anyone to identify with?
They aren't.
Why not just say you believe in the "golden rule", or some other vanilla concept?
I don't know how to respond to this without repeating myself ad nauseum. Saying you agree with some things Jesus said regarding philosophy does not mean you identify with him theologically.
The obvious explanation here is they're simply trying to subvert the argument by becoming "one of us"
Not only is that not obvious, it is also utterly illogical. Saying they agree with some of what he said doesn't subvert any argument, it doesn't indicate that they are trying to be one of you, it essentially does nothing of what you are saying.
That would also explain why I've never met them in real life, just online in debates.
Only if you believe you personal experience is a true representation of the entire world.
Could I be a YEC Darwinian evolutionist? Or would that be inconsistent and illogical?
It would be inconsistent, illogical, and entirely irrelevant. Being atheist and agreeing with some of what Jesus said on issues other than his divinity are not mutually exclusive. Being a Young Earth Creationist and believing Darwinian evolution aren't.
It seems to me that you want to think the worst about atheists.
Stop moving the goal posts. We're discussing "agnostic Christians" (and/or "atheistic Christians"). You're off-topic when you ask me: "Why would they be followers of Christ if they aren't Christian". You ask that again and again so I'd refer you to the title of this debate and let us get back on track.
"Can agnostics be Christian?"
Now if you still maintain that they're not Christian, then I guess they're just agnostic. That at least makes sense to me.
I'm not the one who moved the goal post, you are. This started by me responding to the quote form you:
"In my opinion, this seems to be a growing trend of atheists to attempt to garner a bit more credibility, by attaching themselves to the "Christian" label. We fundies have special logic-deciphering glasses that allow us to see through all this bs though."
Which was then followed up by: "Jesus did claim to be God, so if these agnostic/atheistic Christians don't believe His supernatural claims, then in their minds they must be supporting the teachings of a mad man. And if, like you say, there are others that came up with these "great ideas that predate Christ", then why would Agnostics/Atheists choose Jesus' teachings to "support" over the earlier ones? Sounds very suspect, doesn't it?"
As well as: "If they feel quotes by Jesus proclaiming His divinity were false, then why think other quotes by Him were true? They're picking and choosing here and that makes them not followers of Christ, but followers of themselves." (and the rest of that post).
That means we are not discussing agnostic or atheist (note: or, not and, as they are two different groups) Christians, we are talking about how someone can be an atheist or agnostic whilst agreeing with parts of what Christ said. That is entirely on topic with the discussion you and I are having.
The fact that you so thoroughly changed the subject from the discussion you and I are having does seem rather suspect however given how it apparently ended.
As for the topic we weren't having regarding the topic of the debate, one can not be an Atheist Christian (a belief in god is clearly a requirement for a religion predicated upon a belief in god), but on can theoretically be an Agnostic Christian. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, and thus an Agnostic Christian would be one who believes in God and the divinity of Christ, but isn't entirely sure it's true. I'd go so far as to say that there are tens of millions of Agnostic Christians out there, we simply don't call them that because agnosticism is acknowledged within Christianity (There's no point in faith if you are gnostic in your beliefs).
Now please take your own advice and stop moving the goal posts and stay on topic.
How old are you? I'm in my 40's and generally don't get that kind of pedantic response from my peers. All of my quotes you cited were criticizing the foolish notion of "agnostic Christians". That's plainly obvious to me even now and it's New Year's eve (if you get my drift).
You're the one who's had to add the following derailment (not I): "how someone can be an atheist or agnostic whilst agreeing with parts of what Christ said"
I was pointing out to you (but it seems to have missed it's target) the folly of that notion. There logically cannot be agnostic/atheistic Christians. It's a logical contradiction. Like a YEC Darwinian evolutionist.
Also you're very mistaken on the definition of the word "agnostic". You seem to think it means someone who's just not sure of the truth. Some synonyms for "agnostic" are "unbeliever", "nonbeliever", "disbeliever". It's a relatively new word which was intended to mean that the existence and nature of God was unknowable. However, we believers in Christ say we know Him. It's a personal relationship with God Himself.
Being a believer and non-believer in Christ is not logical. It violates the law of non-contradiction. This is the point I've been arguing and will continue to argue: the logical fallacy of being an agnostic Christian.
How old are you? I'm in my 40's and generally don't get that kind of pedantic response from my peers. All of my quotes you cited were criticizing the foolish notion of "agnostic Christians". That's plainly obvious to me even now and it's New Year's eve (if you get my drift).
Hmmm 40+ year old man, with a little boy for his account picture... Hmmmmmmmmm........... MOMMY CALL DE COPS!
You're the one who's had to add the following derailment (not I): "how someone can be an atheist or agnostic whilst agreeing with parts of what Christ said"
Sounds like someone likes pointing fingers... Are you sure your 40+?
I was pointing out to you (but it seems to have missed it's target) the folly of that notion. There logically cannot be agnostic/atheistic Christians. It's a logical contradiction. Like a YEC Darwinian evolutionist.
Protestant Evolutionism (unofficial name) is rather uncommon but still a belief, Evolutionism has nothing to say about the existence of God(s) but rather that God(s) or a natural creation (Big Bang, and theories of such) created a universe, that later had some evolving done. Protestant Evolutionism (still unofficial name) is the belief that God created the universe, and evolutionism created the animal life (do you understand it now?).
Also you're very mistaken on the definition of the word "agnostic". You seem to think it means someone who's just not sure of the truth. Some synonyms for "agnostic" are "unbeliever", "nonbeliever", "disbeliever".
Ah, but here is were I find the biggest mistakes with you, TO THE DICTIONARY!
Agnostic=A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known about the existence or nature of God. (Oxford Dictionary Of English)
What you might be thinking of is an Athiest.
Atheist=A person who disbelievers or lacks faith in the existence of God or gods. (Oxford Dictionary Of English)
It's a relatively new word which was intended to mean that the existence and nature of God was unknowable. However, we believers in Christ say we know Him. It's a personal relationship with God Himself.
Contradiction at its finest, sure it makes my last reply irrelevant but still.
Being a believer and non-believer in Christ is not logical. It violates the law of non-contradiction. This is the point I've been arguing and will continue to argue: the logical fallacy of being an agnostic Christian.
Agnostic Christian can simply mean that he believes in God, but believes there never could be proof of God (which is where the whole faith stuff comes to play).
Also, when I mentioned a YEC Darwinian evolutionist, I made the assumption you'd be able to see the irony in that. Pay closer attention to the YE part next time.
Okay, the definition matches to mine, but then there are the synonyms. I don't think you know the meaning of the word since you believe that synonyms mean that they are exactly alike.
No, synonyms mean that they are either exactly or that they are near the same, unbeliever, and non-believer are near the same.
Unbeliever=Someone who has no religious beliefs.
Non-Believer=A person that does not believe in something, especially when it comes to religious faiths
Both of which are exact synonyms to Atheist, but near synonyms to Agnostic. Gotta love the English language.
1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as happy, joyful, elated. A dictionary of synonyms and antonyms (or opposites), such as Thesaurus.com, is called a thesaurus.
2. a word or expression accepted as another name for something, as Arcadia for pastoral simplicity or Wall Street for U.S. financial markets; metonym.
Unbeliever: Someone who has no beliefs, particularly in religion.
What it looks like in reality:
Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known about the existence or nature of God, a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Unbeliever: Someone who has no beliefs, particularly in religion.
"Near synonym"? Are we coining our own phrases now? It sounds more like you just don't agree with the real definitions of these words, so you need to bend and stretch your way to more favorable ones. A type of semantic-Twister.
Synonyms by definition are not always exactly the same, as you have already demonstrated.
Which means the definition you are calling him out on works in his favor, not yours. The phrase he coined referred to those that are close to the same.
As you said, "It sounds more like you just don't agree with the real definitions of these words, so you need to bend and stretch your way to more favorable ones. A type of semantic-Twister" :P
This is indeed a pedantic hell, because you are ignoring what I am saying entirely.
I figure one more repetition is all I have in me: Agnosticism itself does not inherently require "Pragmatic Agnosticism" (not my term), where one believes that God(s) are unknowable. If you focus on that very narrow type of agnosticism (which is a minority of agnostics, by the way), then you are right. If you don't, and you recognize that agnosticism means without knowledge (again, look at the roots), then one can indeed be Agnostic in the nature of their Christianity.
Can you please at least try to respond to that, instead of leading us down the path of continued repetition?
Well your opinion is incorrect because an Agnostic Christian can simply mean a Christian who believes that God and the existence of God or gods is unknowable. I don't know how that's so difficult to understand. I guess maybe it's because you skipped public school.
It's because he is only thinking of the definition of Agnostic within the context of a noun (as in an Agnostic), as opposed to recognizing the difference between an Agnostic and Agnosticism*, which can occur in conjunction with different religious beliefs.
How old are you? I'm in my 40's and generally don't get that kind of pedantic response from my peers.
I love how quoting you is somehow obsessing over minor details. If those were criticizing "agnostic Christians" then you clearly weren't paying attention to anything I was saying and therefore were utterly disconnected from the conversation.
But just for your sake, I'll show you the explicit progression:
You said: "In my opinion, this seems to be a growing trend of atheists to attempt to garner a bit more credibility, by attaching themselves to the "Christian" label. We fundies have special logic-deciphering glasses that allow us to see through all this bs though."
I responded with: "You lost all credibility when you claimed that the atheists who are espousing support for Christ's teachings (a misguided trend, in my opinion) are doing so "to attempt to garner a bit more credibility"."
You responded with: "Care to expand a bit? Why did I lose "all credibility" in your eyes? Or is this just an emotional outburst, where you simply regurgitated one of the last words I used? Why else do you think Atheists would claim to support the anointed One?"
I responded with: "It's the classical "assume the worst of others" path." etc etc etc
I could go on but it should be blatantly obvious.
You're the one who's had to add the following derailment (not I): "how someone can be an atheist or agnostic whilst agreeing with parts of what Christ said"
So responding directly to your initial comment is a derailment? You don't seem to be big on conversations then.
I was pointing out to you (but it seems to have missed it's target) the folly of that notion. There logically cannot be agnostic/atheistic Christians. It's a logical contradiction. Like a YEC Darwinian evolutionist.
Except it isn't, and I argued just that. You didn't even argue against it, you just keep repeating a claim. It is possible as I have demonstrated to be Agnostic and Christian, though I have agreed multiple times that one can not be Atheist and Christian, though they can be Atheist whilst agreeing with parts of what Jesus said (which is what started this conversation thread).
Also you're very mistaken on the definition of the word "agnostic". You seem to think it means someone who's just not sure of the truth.
Gnosis: knowledge of spiritual mysteries. Gnosticism and Agnosticism exist in conjunction with different religions as a characteristic regarding the nature of one's belief. I have already explained all of this to you, so saying "well these words are synonyms" doesn't change that. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, Atheism deals with belief. In that sense one can be an Agnostic Atheist, a Gnostic Atheist, an Agnostic Christian, a Gnostic Christian, etc.
However, we believers in Christ say we know Him. It's a personal relationship with God Himself.
Some say that. Others believe in God and have an uncertain belief regarding the Bible and Jesus. It really is very common.
Being a believer and non-believer in Christ is not logical.
It is also not something that has been discussed. Again, one can agree with some of the things he said without believing in his divinity. It really isn't complicated. You keep making up this idea that if they agree with anything he said, they therefore believe he is divine. That is not logical, not rational, and not founded in reality.
This is the point I've been arguing and will continue to argue: the logical fallacy of being an agnostic Christian.
No you haven't, you've been repeatedly claiming it is a logical fallacy without addressing any of the points I made regarding the nature of Agnosticism within Christianity.
Let's get back on track. If you want to claim I was the one who got us side-tracked, so be it - this is getting to be a bore.
"Can agnostics be Christian? "
I say no, because to be a Christian is to follow the Christ, who identified as God himself. But to be an agnostic is to be an unbeliever, and that the nature and existence of God is unknowable.
Your condensed position appears to be that certain teachings of Jesus can be secularized and one can still claim to be a Christian, without all that "god stuff". Is that it in a nutshell?
I say no, because to be a Christian is to follow the Christ, who identified as God himself. But to be an agnostic is to be an unbeliever, and that the nature and existence of God is unknowable.
My god, I responded to this half a dozen times already. Just because one is an agnostic does not mean one is an unbeliever, as agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief. I see no reason to repeat the exact same thing I have said half a dozen times to which you have yet to actually respond with anything beyond a repetition.
Your condensed position appears to be that certain teachings of Jesus can be secularized and one can still claim to be a Christian, without all that "god stuff". Is that it in a nutshell?
That was dealing with our conversation about non-Christians approving of some things Christ said, not about agnostic Christians.
Yes but you keep responding with the same illogical response. I'm attempting to show the contradictions in your position, but I'm thinking your presuppositions are getting in the way.
Agnosticism doesn't deal with knowledge at all - the opposite actually - it's the lack of knowledge (of God). A Christian doesn't lack knowledge of God at all, thus the contradiction.
Yes but you keep responding with the same illogical response.
You haven't once demonstrated that it is illogical, you just keep declaring it to be so.
I'm attempting to show the contradictions in your position, but I'm thinking your presuppositions are getting in the way.
No, you are showing contradictions in something else entirely.
Agnosticism doesn't deal with knowledge at all - the opposite actually - it's the lack of knowledge (of God).
That...is a very strange sentence. You say it doesn't deal with knowledge, then you say it does deal with knowledge. Gnosticism and Agnosticism lie along the spectrum of knowledge, while atheism and theism lie along the spectrum of belief. One's religious beliefs can combine those.
Christians don't lack belief, but some do lack knowledge in the way I have already said. Since you completely ignored my explanation, I'll repeat it: There are many Christians who have grown up Christian, and would like Christianity to be right, but aren't quite sure. In fact, that uncertainty is an inherent aspect of Christianity, hence "faith". In that sense, a degree of Agnosticism is recognized within the religion itself. That said, I wouldn't say that is sufficient to call them Agnostic. What would be sufficient is the number of Christians who go to church, believe in theism, but aren't entirely sure about the divinity of Jesus or the Bible. You may find them ridiculous, but there are plenty of people like that.
You regard knowledge and the lack of knowledge to be the same? That would explain a lot.
"atheism and theism lie along the spectrum of belief" - do you really believe that? That's interesting because most atheists I deal with don't regard their worldview to be a belief at all.
You say atheism lies along the "spectrum of belief", but is not itself a belief. Most atheists would say atheism lies outside the "spectrum of belief" entirely. You might get your atheist card revoked if you keep this up.
Why wouldn't you instead say that they both lie along the spectrum of non-belief? Why did you choose the word "belief"? Why the positive, instead of the negative?
You say atheism lies along the "spectrum of belief", but is not itself a belief.
Yes. Atheism deals with belief, as does theism. They both lie along the spectrum of belief.
Most atheists would say atheism lies outside the "spectrum of belief" entirely.
Only if they weren't paying attention to what I am saying.
You might get your atheist card revoked if you keep this up.
I'm not an atheist, so I'm fine with that.
Why wouldn't you instead say that they both lie along the spectrum of non-belief?
Because Agnosticism and Gnosticism don't deal with belief, they deal with knowledge, while Atheism and Theism deal with belief. Seriously, I have given you the root meanings of the words that easily demonstrate what I am saying.
When I asked why you didn't instead say that they lie along the spectrum of non-belief, I was referring directly to your earlier claim re: atheism and theism (not agnosticism). So that is still my question to you.
It's rather simple if you look at the definitions:
Theism: Belief in god
A-theism: Without belief in God.
If they had to do with non-belief, Theism would be "Lacking non belief" and atheism would be "having non belief", which not only is just silly, but doesn't fit the roots of the words.
You might want to think again about accusing others of semantic twister, by the way :P
You're a bit jealous that I came up with the phrase "semantic twister", aren't you? You can borrow it all you want, it's free of charge.
A bit off topic, but at this point it probably doesn't matter: Given your definitions of Atheism and Theism, do you suppose there could be an atheistic Theist?
Nothing about it is a contradiction. One need only understand the concept of God to believe that god(s) are unknowable. Your argument is simply a non-sequitur that you use as an excuse to insult those who have beliefs that differ from yours.
The truth is, neither you theists, or atheists, can prove the existence or non-existence of god(s). To some, that is because we simply haven't been able to yet. To others, it is because it is impossible to do so.
But you really don't possess the means to disprove either of those beliefs.
Look at this. Understanding implies knowing. So once again, you are saying you know about God, so you conclude God is unknowable. Lol
Look at this: One can understand a concept without understanding a specific. One can understand the nature of the concept of a deity without knowing a specific God, which means you can conclude based on the concept that the specific is unknowable.
So no, I am not saying I know about God specifically, I am saying that based on my understanding of the concept of a deity, I doubt that we posses the ability to "know".
You might make more progress if you tried responding to what people actually say instead of what you wish they said.
But you are not claiming to know a specific god. You claimed God is unknowable. Lol. You are a major league Moron.
I am claiming that I personally believe that gods, by nature of the concept of a deity, are unknowable. That would also apply to your "God", as well as any other.
Your reliance on insults is funny as always. I wonder what it would look like if you felt more confident in your arguments?
Then that's just your opinion. Keep it like that. Otherwise you commit the Context Imposition Fallacy
Did it really take you this long to realize it's just my opinion?
No shit, that's what it has always been. That's kind of the entire point. Hence the "I personally believe" aspect. It's not as though I could have possibly made it any more clear.
That would make them christ-like not christian not even 'the christ' was christian - but one practicing any belief is considered a believer of that faith no half stepping.
You know I have heard the statement that Christ wasn't Christian, but that isn't actually true. For one to be Christian, they must believe in the divinity of Christ. Clearly, he believed he was divine, which would make him Christian.
1- Allegedly jesus was god incarnate so of course he thought himself divine.
Although i would have to argue that throughout the text he adamantly expressed that it was through his father from which his divinity came. As explanation for the miracles he performed and as explanation when charged with blasphemy.
That said you cant be a part of a movement that didn't exist at the time, not to mention he lived, ate, and prayed as a Jew.
The issue is that you are looking at it as a movement, I am looking at it simply as an affiliation (difference between "Christian" as it meant then and "Christian" as it means now).
As for his divinity, his belief that his divinity game from god does not change the fact that he believed in his own divinity, and thus from a literal standpoint would be "Christian" as we now use it.
No matter the context, the definition is going to have to be 'religious', unless you change what the general definition of christianity is. Christianity is a religious.
What i get from you is that at this moment, i practice let's say the christian faith. Now i disagree with how the government treats us. I then start a revolution simultaneously introducing a new way of life which promises peace and serenity, let's call it atheism. Although im christian by nature this new movement is radical to our oppressors and even my fellow christians. My belief in this new way is so strong i set out to prove it can be done if one really wanted to do it. At the end of day its decided ive committed treason by doing so.(keep in mind although i named the movement atheism i have no knowledge of this at the time) After I'm executed, i set in motion a chain of events that lead people to create this atheism. Am i then an atheist even if i never proclaimed to be.
The key is the way to unlocking the box - the key is not the contents inside of the box - although we can call it that if we choose to.
No matter the context, the definition is going to have to be 'religious', unless you change what the general definition of christianity is. Christianity is a religious.
It is a religion of many, many sects. The single constant is the belief in the existence of god and the divinity of Jesus.
What i get from you is that at this moment, i practice let's say the christian faith. Now i disagree with how the government treats us. I then start a revolution simultaneously introducing a new way of life which promises peace and serenity, let's call it atheism. Although im christian by nature this new movement is radical to our oppressors and even my fellow christians. My belief in this new way is so strong i set out to prove it can be done if one really wanted to do it. At the end of day its decided ive committed treason by doing so.(keep in mind although i named the movement atheism i have no knowledge of this at the time) After I'm executed, i set in motion a chain of events that lead people to create this atheism. Am i then an atheist even if i never proclaimed to be.
If you personally adhered to the core beliefs then yes. Obviously you wouldn't consider yourself one, the same way Jesus didn't consider himself to be Christian, but you would still be one.
The key is the way to unlocking the box - the key is not the contents inside of the box - although we can call it that if we choose to.
The key(jesus) is the way of unlocking the box(the box being his mission) the key can umlock the box but it can't be the contents within the box(christianity)unless we choose to name it so.
Your not a christian just because you believe in jesus there are steps a way of life you must follow that werent present during the time jesus allegedly lived. him dying set the religion we now know into motion through paul. If it weren't for paul we wouldn't know of christianity. jesus never referred to his dessciples as christians.
Chris·tian
ˈkrisCHən/
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
"the Christian Church"
noun
1.
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
The key(jesus) is the way of unlocking the box(the box being his mission) the key can umlock the box but it can't be the contents within the box(christianity)unless we choose to name it so.
But within the theology we are referring to, the box would be heaven, and the key would be belief in the divinity of Christ, would it not?
Your not a christian just because you believe in jesus there are steps a way of life you must follow that werent present during the time jesus allegedly lived.
That seems to require one to believe that the disciples of Jesus weren't Christian, which I find a little on the absurd side. As for the "steps", Christian sects disagree on this, which seems to me to lead down a "No True Scotsman" path, hence why I went with the the fundamental belief all Christian sects share as the "essence" of Christianity. Otherwise you have to start deciding which Christians are actually Christians, and that just gets messy and subjective.
him dying set the religion we now know into motion through paul. If it weren't for paul we wouldn't know of christianity. jesus never referred to his dessciples as christians.
Why would reference or identity be relevant, though?
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
That doesn't undermine what I am saying at all. If I am saying that Christianity at its core is the belief in the divinity of Christ, then professing that belief would indeed make you Christian. The next part is "or", not "and".
1 You can't interpret my interpretations to fit your argument.
2 Evidence would be something factual not your opinions.
As i wrote under a previous post - the only way i will agree to this is if the christ we are discussing is the jesus of the quran
since he is just a prophet according to their text.
I responded with my own examples in addition to evidence and facts. Did you?
Thats my point, we can go back and forth based on your opinions but facts win debates. Arguments based on your opinions do not. I'm not conceding I'm asking for either, factual evidence to back your claims or an agreement to disagree and end the debate as a draw.
This is a debate based entirely upon opinion, not facts.
Saying "give me facts" makes no sense within a subjective conversation.
If you want facts, you need to state specifically what facts you are looking for. Otherwise it just seems like you have completely ignored the responses I have given you in a way that seems like a concession.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
synonyms: skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, cynic; More
profess belief in christianity Chris·tian
ˈkrisCHən/
adjective
1.
of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
"the Christian Church"
noun
1.
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
This is what i mean by facts. Opinions can lead to open ended arguments. Basing your argument strictly on opinion proves what? By definition and the context of the post. No. Someone cannot be agnostic and claim to be christian. Although there are some who identify themselves as such, it doesn't alter the general definition. We both would agree with one another if we were to change the meaning of those two words. However, since the op has not specified the conditions we are to assume that he posed the question based on the general definitions. Therefore my argument stands.
Do you throw away all rules of engagement when it comes to debates or just the ones you feel are absurd?
Your remark has no bearings, save for your panoramic insight on the chaotic yet destined collection of elements and entities. Although i respect your thoughts for they are your own. However this makes it difficult to attempt to debate with you in this manner.
Agnosticism is a claim of ignorance feigning to be intelligence........ no knowledge claiming you can't know yet still can consider yourself to be intelligent.....( to illustrate this brand of intelligence, I'm making a circle around my ear with my index finger)
This depends on your definition of agnostic. Technically this is question about knowledge, not in the existence of a god or gods. But the more common usage of the term is someone who is on the fence about the god question. In practice, people who say that they are agnostic typically don't think enough about religion to care one way or the other.
So to answer the question: Yes, an Agnostic Christian can exist. They would be someone who follows the Christian faith but does not know for sure if it's true.
If you were to search up the adjective of agnostic, you should see synonyms that not only have doubting, but unbelieving, disbelieving, faithless etc.
If you are talking about the word doubting, then this makes sense because you can always have a Christian that sometimes doubts the existence of God. For example, maybe someone you loved dearly dies and they were very young; you might then doubt the existence of God because you're asking him "If you are there, then why aren't you answering my prayers?"
However in reference to the adjective's synonym unbeliever, this is very different. Instead of having a small doubt of God or being unsure about Him. By having disbelief you are willingly putting yourself against God by saying that "Jesus is NOT the Son Of God." If this is the case, then you are not a Christian, because to be a Christian you need to believe in Jesus.
Well, if some of the "Christians" I've met can be Christian, I guess ANYBODY can. I'm not a Christian but I believe in most of the "teachings", and I TRY follow them more closely than many of my "Christian" friends. I don't need a "god" to do it, just what I believe is common sense.
Take Trump, for instance. Is carpet bombing thousands of innocents to "get the bad guys"....Christian? Isn't what Obama is doing, trying to protect as many innocents as possible while working to solve the problems with a minimum of bloodshed, MORE Christian?? Isn't getting healthcare for those who can't afford it (many because greedy Christians traded their jobs for money), more "Christian" Isn't trying to protect "Gods creation" from greedy capitalists that would pollute the world if not regulated, More Christian? I remember a story about a guy that went against the "money" and tried to help the people. HE was crucified. Kind of what many "Christians" would like to do to Obama. The more things change, the more they stay the same!
I'm an Atheist, but, I feel I could be a Christian easier than many who say they are, if I could believe.
Sinclair Lewis said: "When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag, and carrying a cross." Sounds like todays conservatism to me!
From what I have seen, agnostic views typically lead to the person bailing on their religion and remaining - for the most part - a non-believer of God. (Of course, this isn't the case 100% of the time, but major skepticism can follow this route plainly.) However, is this to say that an agnostic person is not Christian? No. One can celebrate and hold faith in Christianity, yet - from time to time - wonder whether or not there IS such thing as God. I mean, we never will know for sure; I wager that millions of Christians have, at some point, sat and wondered the same thing. Now, do I believe that an atheist can be Christian? No. In fact, I find it rather irritating that some people will sit through church and celebrate Christmas without the intentions of showing faith in God. If you don't believe in God, you should NOT classify yourself as a Christian. Your cultural backgrounds may be those of Christianity, but you are not a Christian. Returning to agnostic ones, I would say that their final decision upon things rests their case. They can contemplate it forever, but one can never refrain from leaning towards one side even the slightest bit more than on the other. During the process, however, I would not cease to call such a person 'Christian,' but I would still be wary of the fact that they have not fully come to terms with their final mental decision. Now, this is not to say that they cannot appreciate the cultural qualities of Christianity (or any religion for that matter) if in fact they decided to not believe in the religion; after all, I know of people (such as an English teacher of mine) who appreciates biblical passages as fine literature, yet - from what I know - is not a person of Christian faith. That is fine by me if a non-religious or non-Christian person appreciates the cultural values of Christianity, but they are also not to be called Christians - in the same way that a once-agnostic-and-now-non-religious person is no longer a Christian. Again, that final decision not to believe in God is the breaking of the water. (BTW, I am Christian, just in case any of you were wondering. Note that I am not saying that it's bad to not believe in God, but I still stand by my religion.)
A person can hold Christian beliefs yet recognize that what they believe might be wrong. That would be an agnostic theist. Compare this with an agnostic atheist - one who is not convinced there is a god but is willing to consider evidence (should it arrive).
We also have the extremes (the gnostics). The gnostic Atheist is 100% convinced there is no god. The gnostic theist is 100% convinced his/her god exists.
I submit that the gnostics are the minority (the extremes) and that most people are either agnostic atheists or agnostic theists. Many Christians fall into the latter IMO.
I'd say no - at least not at the same time. To say you're a Christian is to say you follow and believe in Jesus (who claimed to be God). To say you're agnostic is to claim you don't know (about God). To me, the two are at odds.
Have a look at the synonyms for agnostic and then replace your religious identification with any of them and see if it makes any sense to you. Here are some examples: "disbeliever Christian", "nonbeliever Christian", "unbeliever Christian", "secularist Christian", "heretic Christian", "skeptic Christian" etc..
The common theme here of course is a complete lack of faith. Do you have faith and believe that Jesus Christ is God? If so, then you're not agnostic. If not so, then you're not Christian. The two are not compatible.
Epistemically, that is incorrect. Gnosticism and Agnosticism pertain to knowledge, Atheism and Theism pertain to belief. Belief is a subset of knowledge defined as, "Justified true belief." When considering the Philosophical nature of of the content the label refers to, I find it necessary to indulge in semantics, and occasionally pedantry, to maintain clarity and cohesion.
It is logically possible to be an Agnostic Theist, or a Gnostic Theist, or an Agnostic Atheist, or a Gnostic Atheist. These variations constitute the proverbial smorgasbord of belief systems today, as everyone falls into one of these categories.
Epistemically, that is incorrect. Gnosticism and Agnosticism pertain to knowledge, Atheism and Theism pertain to belief. Knowledge is a subset of belief defined as, "Justified true belief." When considering the Philosophical nature of of the content the label refers to, I find it necessary to indulge in semantics, and occasionally pedantry, to maintain clarity and cohesion.
It is logically possible to be an Agnostic Theist, or a Gnostic Theist, or an Agnostic Atheist, or a Gnostic Atheist. These variations constitute the proverbial smorgasbord of belief systems today, as everyone falls into one of these categories.
Only place logical contradictions can exist is in the human mind. In that case, you can call yourself whatever you want I suppose. I just disagree, that's all.
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
There is no reason for a Christian to be an agnostic. God wants us to know for sure that our sins are forgiven and we are going to heaven, and now have eternal life. Jesus endured suffering knowing the joy that was ahead of Him, and we can know His joy now as we go through suffering.
Get you a good old King James Bible and read it more, soak it in.....lots of New Testament reading will do you good.
You're a nutso yutso. The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everybody in the world. God offers peace through faith in the blood of His cross for all sinners who will repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
To be fair, for a Christian who has sinned sufficiently (your guess is as good as mine on that one) to get into heaven, they must truly repent for their sins.
I don't think anyone actually believes Hitler or McVeigh legitimately, honestly regretted what they did in their lives.
You misunderstand. By "truly repent" I simply meant "repent", as the Bible calls for in Acts 3:19. However, as I'm sure you can agree, lip service is not actual repentance, though some atheists try to argue that Christianity allows for "lip service repentance".
Jesus said that life is eternal, and life is knowing God, and this life is in His Son. Jesus claimed to be God in human form, the Son of God sent by the Father, the Word of God who is God. If you are an agnostic, you believe you can't really know God and therefore you reject Jesus Christ and cannot be a Christian, no mater how "good and moral" of a person you may be. You have to be born again, born of God's Spirit, a new life conceived in you from God who is Jesus Christ, you have to receive Jesus Christ to be saved, to be a Christian, to be like Him. Claiming to follow a set of morals or a code of conduct which you call Christian does not make you a Christian even if you claim to be following Jesus's teachings of ethics and morals. A true Christian cannot be an agnostic, which is only a twisted definition of atheist which pretends to me more intellectual that straight up atheistic denial of God.
Are you asking permission or are you asking if it is possible be agnostic and Christian without contradiction? The answer to the former question is: I won't stop you. The answer to the latter is that there is a contradiction lying within the definition of the terms Christian and Agnostic. An agnostic neither denies nor affirms the existence of God. Furthermore, an agnostic believes that nothing is or can be known about God. A Christian, on the other hand, does affirm the existence of God. Perhaps the label you are looking for is Omnisn, belief in all religions.
No if you're agnostic that means you don't claim to know, ie you are an atheist, if you are a Christian you claim to know that there is a god. This presents a contradiction if you are agnostic. Sorry if you identify as an agnostic-Christian, but that's not actually a thing. Agnostic-anythings are atheist.
If you think about this closely, you will be able to see that it doesn't make sense at all for someone to be a Christian and yet agnostic at the same time.
To be a Christian doesn't mean that you go to Church every Sunday, was born into a Christian family, follow the rules of the Ten Commandments...
To be a Christian means that you believe in Jesus Christ with all your heart, mind, strength and soul. However if you are agnostic, which evidently means that you are a non-believer, faithless, doubting, then you can't be a Christian. That's basically somebody saying "I believe in God, but I don't believe in God..."
If you think about this closely, you will be able to see that it doesn't make sense at all for someone to be a Christian and yet agnostic at the same time.
"If you were to search up the adjective of agnostic, you should see synonyms that not only have doubting, but unbelieving, disbelieving, faithless etc.
If you are talking about the word doubting, then this makes sense because you can always have a Christian that sometimes doubts the existence of God. For example, maybe someone you loved dearly dies and they were very young; you might then doubt the existence of God because you're asking him "If you are there, then why aren't you answering my prayers?""
However in reference to the adjective's synonym unbeliever, this is very different. Instead of having a small doubt of God or being unsure about Him. By having disbelief you are willingly putting yourself against God by saying that "Jesus is NOT the Son Of God." If this is the case, then you are not a Christian, because to be a Christian you need to believe in Jesus.
-Me
I was agreeing with you but then showing you how if you were an unbeliever this means you can't be a Christian.
But that's the point: Only some synonyms fit that, and those synonyms don't accurately portray what agnosticism (without knowledge) means.
Additionally, you make a very mistaken claim when you say " By having disbelief you are willingly putting yourself against God by saying that "Jesus is NOT the Son Of God."
That requires a lack of belief to be a conscious choice, which it really isn't. One does not choose to suddenly not believe in God.
Just like one chooses to believe in whether or not 1 + 1 is 2, one also chooses to believe that God is reAl and that God is not.
Evidence is given for both. The Bible and the basics of maths teachings; however we get to choose if we really think the evidence is right. So it's your choice to believe in God, and it's your choice not to believe in God.
Just like one chooses to believe in whether or not 1 + 1 is 2, one also chooses to believe that God is reAl and that God is not.
That may sound right to someone like you who actually believes, but I assure you that isn't true. I don't "choose" to believe that 1+1 =2, I simply know it is via the observable world. I can not "know" that God exists via the observable world, and I can not "choose" to believe in God.
And telling people what they are capable of choosing to believe in is not going to lead to people responding to you civilly, in future reference. It comes across rather arrogantly.
AN agnostic believes that they don't know or even can't know if there is a God. A Christian by definition believes in God, the God of the Bible. Those are two views that are incompatible.
Technically it could be about Islam. Since they take away the divinity of Christ downgrading him to a mere prophet. Which by default would allow one to follow his teachings without being associated with the faith. As in Buddhism. Which leads us to question whether an agnostic be 'spiritual', in which case I would agree, yes one could.
