Religious fervour

[trialbyerror]

Hi all
Opinions / debates please

Let me first state my own position on the matter.
I am an agnostic atheist

From Wikapeda
Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. ]
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.
The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or non-existence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2][3]

Also, I do not condemn or particularly applaud those who do have strong religious beliefs.

Right then.
What compels / obligates people who do have strong religious beliefs to enforce / push their beliefs onto other’s?

For example: a huge white cross that is illuminated at night is erected on-top of a hill or some such prominent place at almost every town. All this does is bugger up what should have been an unspoilt skyline

Big sign along-side the road: - “Jesus for Haarties” (Hartbeespoortdam). Then a long way further on “Sin is not the way”

Somewhere else: - a massive sign with words to the effect “His kingdom is coming, you must repent” (this one gets changed from time to time) and so on

Personally, I find this irksome

Any thought’s?

Trial by error

[princealbertofb]

Secular, secular, secular. While France, since the revolution, has been ruled by that principle, it still had to strip the strong Catholic church from its grip on politics, the economy and society in general, all through the 19th and 20th centuries, managing, probably on account of two world wars, to make the church lose its impact on public fervour. Those wars destroyed Europe and its faiths. What has happened it that it has maked people more likely to practise their faith privately.

Schools are trying (and bound) to instill a necessity for secularism and forbid confessional teachings or confessional wear. Those who wish to have their children brought up in a particular faith need to go to private confessional schools. Having a president who is head of state but not head of the church probably also helps this to remain so. But we still have to defend this secularism every day, so that no religion gets the power to push the people about. It's not ideal, because other powers are at play, such as the economy, the European Union etc. Our laws are not religion orientated but more guided, as a far as I can make out, by the need to live together and respect the bill of Human Rights (in so far as it's possible). I think there is a programme on tv for Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike, one day a week. I don't really watch.

[Genersis]

Irksome is about right.

I would be more tolerant of such if it was more than just a sign, say, a work of art also, but meh.
Mainly suggests to me that the people that erected the sign either want to help people find God, but have no idea how to convert people, or just wish to flaunt their religion publicly.

I'm an agnostic atheist also.

[SolemnBoy]

I consider myself an agnostic atheist and I honestly don't see any contradiction.

"Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."

In theory it's impossible to prove that something does not exist. If someone questioned me on the existence of invisible fairies there's no way I could work up any form of evidence to disprove them. In practice, however, it would be absurd to believe in such beings unless some form of evidence was presented. When I call myself an agnostic atheist I'm trying to encompass my theoretical and practical stance on the issue of whether a benevolent deity exists or not. I acknowledge that there's no way I could ever disprove one, out of logical principles, but I don't believe in one because I have no reason to.

[Wade]

I think the use of "agnostic" is redundant and unnecessary. I don't understand the wishy washy-ness of the term "agnostic." People who believe in a God (or Gods) fucking believe there is a God (or Gods) and people who don't... don't. Where's the in-between, people who believe in half a God (just the legs)? If you hold the stance that "maybe there is a God but I don't think there's enough evidence" then that means you don't believe in God... that's an atheist, no?

The existence of the word agnostic just muddles everything up and confuses theists who try to wrap their heads around non-belief.


EDIT:

So considering the term agnostic atheist: The atheist part describes the belief, and the agnostic part describes the reason for the belief. To me that's like a religious person calling themselves a "'Cause Theist." "I'm a theist because cause...." I don't understand the reason for it. Am I being thick?

[artyboy]

I don't really care to tell you the truth, I think you can believe what ever you want, unless it harms others.

I don't believe in god but I can not call my self an atheist as I'm still interested big time into other religions on a historical bases.

[Wade]

I don't really care to tell you the truth, I think you can believe what ever you want, unless it harms others.

I don't believe in god but I can not call my self an atheist as I'm still interested big time into other religions on a historical bases.

I'm dragging you into this whether you want to be a part of it not, Artyboy!!!

You say explicitly that you do not believe in god but you can not call your self an atheist... what?


That's the definition of an atheist, no matter how much interest you have in religion or god, by definition you are an atheist. A - theist, a non theist. Is it the stigma and the baggage that you're avoiding?

[partisan]

Im agnostic, im not athiest. I know nothing is what i know. I thought an agnostic denied everything.

[SolemnBoy]

I think the use of "agnostic" is redundant and unnecessary. I don't understand the wishy washy-ness of the term "agnostic." People who believe in a God (or Gods) fucking believe there is a God (or Gods) and people who don't... don't. Where's the in-between, people who believe in half a God (just the legs)? If you hold the stance that "maybe there is a God but I don't think there's enough evidence" then that means you don't believe in God... that's an atheist, no?

The existence of the word agnostic just muddles everything up and confuses theists who try to wrap their heads around non-belief.

The word agnostic doesn't in and of itself refer to an actual belief or disbelief in God. It's merely a way of saying that you're unwilling to proclaim that God exists or doesn't exist because neither side has been proven. There are many definitions of the word around which is probably the REAL origin of confusion and when I call myself an agnostic atheist I'm basically saying "I think it's impossible to know but I personally don't believe in God". By using the agnostic atheist term and applying it to myself I can easily get the point across that I don't believe in a deity, but that I'm leaving a small room for doubt due to the "God doesn't exist" side being theoretically impossible to prove. It all depends on how you view the nature of evidence.

[Kiid]

I believe in Christianity cos they killed woman u.u just a few million tho.
(Sarcasm, plz note)

I can't see any truth in Christianity. It seems like you can do anything as long as you ask for forgiveness you will go to heaven. Also Christianity used a lot of propaganda. Kinda like Hitler only successfully did what they set out to do. DOMINATE!

Also it says that we are here to DOMINATE in the bible. God gave us earth to dominate over. What a good guy. Obviously Christianity cannot be the right religion. (My point of view)