Posted on 06/02/2013 1:04:38 PM PDT by annalex
Yes, exactly. Agnosticism is a superstition, in other words.
That statement strikes me as nonsensical. I try to honestly understand your position, I wish you would reciprocate.
"A gentle answer turns away wrath..."
Superstition is faith not based on reason.
I have faith in the events described in the Gospels being historically true because my reason tells me that the Gospels are a valid testimony of honest witnesses. A Muslim, for example, does not share my faith because he finds it possible that in fact Jesus escaped the crucifixion and lived. Both beliefs are reasonable even though only one can be true.
Nearly everyone believes that a heavier that air object, if dropped, falls down. That, too, is reasonable because we observe it happen again and again and we have a lucid theory why.
Some people believe that if they encounter a black cat they will have bad luck. That belief is not based on anything reasonable. This is a superstition.
A belief that since there is the law of gravity, God could not make man walk on water is something the believer does not know. He only knows such an event would contradict the laws of physics. So that belief is a superstitious belief.
Of course, an agnostic is somewhere in between. He faces some observations and takes them on faith and other observations he does not take on faith. We can say it is a selective superstition.
Athiests believe there is no God...yet can’t prove it. Christians believe there is a God...yet can’t prove it. Agnostics don’t know if there is or there isn’t a God because they can’t prove it. How does that possibly make agnosticism a superstition? We apparently define too many words differently to have a rational discussion. But you’ve already implied that I am not rational...so that must be it.
The North European ethnic core is very important. I couldn’t say if that part of the cultural identity is so important because of 1500 years of Christianity (and again, by the time of the founding of America, northern Europe was more distinctly Protestant) that was completely entwined with any other cultural traits or if there was actually an ethnic component that contributed to identity and unity.
I had not thought of the farming/rural part of the identity. That goes along with the whole idea of individual sovereignty, work ethic, each person/family desires to work hard and be self controlled, to create his own small family kingdom on his own plot of land and to stand or fall on his own efforts. I think that value is displayed in modern American suburbs. For most reasonably prosperous Americans, when given a choice, the majority would still prefer to have a plot of land and space, rather than be crowded into a densely populated area.
Again, I understand the point you are making, but I still cannot laud him as a hero. When society reaches a point that blowing ones’ self away in a public place is an act of heroism, we have turned a very dark corner. I am a realist, but I am also an optimistic person. Life is precious. Regardless of my views on gay marriage, and I could not be more opposed to it, I cannot see a reason to descend into that abyss.
Good discussion, though, and a lot to ponder.
The root of the West's decline goes all the way back to the beginning of Nominalism, with Ockham. Contrary to popular belief, I see the Scholastic period as the height of civilization. The intellectual seed of our decline was planted with Ockham. The first act in the decline of the West, and the slide toward radical individualism, was the Protestant Revolution. Since the Church was disestablished, we have steadily declined through Unitarianism, Rationalism, Atheism, Modernism, and now Post-Modernism.
We have proved it. The existence of God is evident. The non-existence of God is an unproven theory. That slogan of yours: "Agnostics don’t know if there is or there isn’t a God" is a superstition: an assertion taken without evidence.
In France, they have. Pray for America.
Of course it was. I am more inclined to place the root of the decline closer to the actual Protestant Reformation than that (Ockham seems to me, was simply one of the many late scholastics with an incidental relevance to us), but I think you trace the trajectory of the decline correctly.
This is why "diverse peoples together" was meaningful in the Middle Ages and became a dangerous platitude today. It is the Church that is holding peoples together as it makes them one body. Abstract ideas about equality and democracy don't. Paper constitutions don't, even less so. Today, to restore freedom, nations must again become not mechanical conglomerations of peoples but an instrument of Christian conversion, which was their original and only possible purpose. Observe that Islam is a false religion and it has no nations, just sects. Let us not become another false religion.
Thank you for agreeing with me. I would add that it is the framer ethic that allowed America to integrate peoples beyond the nordic core, but it only worked insofar as the minority enclaves were visibly Christian like the rural blacks before the Great Society and, of course, Catholic blue collar ethnics. Once the Christian cornerstone stopped being a symbol of national unity, the American identity suffered.
Agreed.
No, it has not been proved. Your insistence that “you” have proved it obviously is a rock solid tenet that resides within the worldly construct of your own mind. As long as that construct makes you happy, great!. Be well.
People who say “it hasn’t been proved” usually mean stuff like “people fly in the sky and see no god there” or “the gospels are all hearsay”. In other words, they stick to their superstition and misunderstand the proof.
:{)
„Man muß das Leben einsetzen“ – Interview mit Dominique Venner
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.