This is likely contentious, but it needs to be asked. As this is a site "...promoting universal truths and peaceful life without religion" how do you feel about people of faith joining here?
I'm no shrinking violet and I don't need the sort of safe space that so many people believe they do now, but I also don't want to have to engage with people who have been inculcated into some form of unscientific, simple-minded view of the natural world.
I joined in the belief (cough) that this was an exclusive club where I could escape from these folk - but now I find they are joining - with a view to what, I don't know although my hackles are raised.
Not only is this sort of thing wasteful of resources, but if they are here to try to convert or preach at us, that's likely to result in a dissemination to all-out flame wars in a post or two.
I didn't think this was a site to convert people from one way of thinking to another (that sort of thing is nigh-on impossible by the time we're in our 20s anyway.)
I ask because I'm interested what my fellow angostic/athiests think.
I've noted that "theists" tend to butt in to these conversations with their ignorance and that's what I came here to avoid.
I'm getting too old to argue.
Conceptually, I'm in favour of permitting people of Faith into a place like this, if for no other reason than because I've found very little galvanises beliefs like respectful confrontation. While I do believe that at it core, skepticism, etc. is the way to live my life, I also recognise that many of the statements commonly touted by non-believers are poorly thought-out, poorly structured, or outright irrelevant. Respectful discourse can be one of the best tools for weeding out weak or ill-conceived arguments and beliefs, and as such, I welcome it wherever it might be.
I am also concerned by the common trend I've seen online for any area that is created for a collective who are joined by one common belief (or is co-opted by such a group) to become an echo-chamber where disagreement is met with open hostility or outright banning. I do not want this to become such a place, as, while I personally am of the belief that Faith is broadly counter-productive or even outright harmful to society, I am far more strongly opposed to divisive tribalism.
I just joined today. I am concerned about the actions of "religious" people more and more.I live in a predominantly Catholic area and in the past have lived in the Deep South. I would like to be able to share my thoughts and get responses without the fear of attempts at conversion.
I feel that they should be able to join (maybe seeing reason in great quantities will change their outlook?). However, like an Atheist taking the pulpit in a church, they should be respectful and shouldn't try to incite a riot. Just let them be. If they start proselytizing or causing issues, toss the bastards out.
If they're theists, why would they want to come here other than to lead us out of the dark? There are plenty of xian boards out there, if they need to show off their superstitions.
I agree with you, why would they come here. It would be like a celestial navigator wanting to join the 'Flat Earth Society'
Depends why they are here. I just read a comment by a "christian member" who has some great reasons to learn why the rest of us are here.
Well if they are joining to argue and start shit it just shows they have no life and is very aggravating however I encourage the ones who have questions and are curious as to how we've come to our current conclusions on the lack of a god
I find it interesting that you say "conclusions on the lack of a god". I am agnostic; and by agnostic I mean that I still believe and pray at times but I do not "know" that there is a God or many gods. I do not know there is a god like I know 2+2=4. I'm wondering if you or others would find that the word "atheist" would be more likely fitting to someone who has "concluded" that there is no god and that an "agnostic" would be more likely to not claim to know one way or the other.
I feel that this isn't a place that is created to function as a debate center, or a recruitment center. What other reason would a "true believer" have to join an "agnostic" group?
In other words, no, no, and hell no.
I find I can agree with anyone about 95 present of things we discuss upon. That 5 percent of disagreements is a bitch. When the Religious come you, like this site. You have a big advantage to educate them of your way of thinking. If you don't like bebates, just say no, if you don't want to.
Above, I mean, don't like debates
I agree with CatByrd 100%
But I am a "true believer"- I believe in reality- so obviously that negates religion! LOL
@Diogenes, i, on the other hand, do not have to believe in reality (or anything else, for that matter); i experience it sensually every single moment of this life. i feel for you.
@walklightly You "don't have to believe in reality"- and I "feel" for you!
I agree. Why would they want to be here. Unless to troll, or possibly they believe but are still conflicted in some way. Doesnāt agnostic actually mean that you arenāt sure? Atheism is more adamant that there is no god.
It seems like I may have written about this before, but I see no problem with refuting and putting up a good argument for our non-belief. Something I do find strange is that part of the profile choices are "open to meeting men/women". That seems to make this website a dating or place to hook up site. When anyone mentions something "dating" related, there is plenty of replies. I'd much rather read a thoughtful debate that defends atheism.
@SACatWalker Who's Hell, Which Hell, Where the hell is that Hell?
@SACatWalker ROTF!
Ah but, the good thing that comes from exposure to people who have opposing opinions/beliefs to your own, is that it provides an opportunity for growth and a re-examination of your own belief system, and knowing why you believe what you do.
What did you mean by "hell"?
The term "agnostic" absolutely does not mean you necessarily believe in some of the history or stories in the bible. I've literally never heard it used that way, until now. In general use, it does usually refer to someone who isn't sure whether or not a god exists, whereas "atheist" tends to be used to refer to someone who is more sure of themselves. Those are bad definitions though, I think.
I strongly prefer the following definitions: (A)gnostic -- with/out knowledge (of god/s). A(theist) -- with/out (belief in) god/s. They're not mutually exclusive. Personally, I'd call myself an agnostic atheist most of the time; I don't hold a belief in god/s, but I'm not sure that none exist. A gnostic atheist would claim to know that no gods exist. An agnostic theist would claim a belief in god/s, but not knowledge, and a gnostic theist would claim to know that god/s exist. Yes, I think I've got that right.
Great way to turn the site toxic.
If you want to engage with believers there are plenty of other sites you can do that on.
I find myself sympathizing with your desire not to have to engage with clumsy attempts to lure you back to the ranks of the believers, but I'm not comfortable either with the notion of this as an "exclusive club". If a mainstream believer of any denomination wishes to engage in a respectful dialogue with me, I'd like to think I would be open to it. While people are often praised for having "the courage of their convictions", it can also be a useful exercise to challenge one's own convictions on occasion, and hearing the argument from "the other side" can do that. Some comments or arguments from particularly unsophisticated believers are obviously not going to be worth responding to, and that is the tactic that should be employed in response. There is no need to sink to the level of name-calling or "flame-out wars", as you said.
I'd like to know how other agnostics feel about my participation on this site. I think I believe a bit at times but I do not "know". Another user posted about the difference between believing 2+2=4 and believing that Jesus turned water into wine. I resonate with that.
I think if religious people were allowed, it would let people join with the intent to convert us to their religion. I get enough of that from my family.
Not.... they can use Christian mingle or Muslim mingle or Hindi hookup out Buddha dates or zorasters xing.... the kinky exceptions van be wicca and Satanists, because they won't argue with people that aren't going to change their minds anytime soon....
I don't really care as long as their arguments aren't vague. I grew up in a Pentecostal environment and it was always " Well, the bible says this" . Yes the bible that was written several thousand years ago, retranslated many times over by kings who wanted their own version, and left out books because they showed support for feminist views. To me if there was an all knowing God, he did an awful job delivering the message of salvation. Lots of versions and translations. Would a God that loved us so unconditionally, leave it so vague that wr would all burn in hell?