Ask Your Question today
Is it normal for an atheist to have some common grounds as a Christian? Like no sex before marriage and no cussing and other stuff a Christians supposed to believe in. I do not swear nor anything else and I am an Agnostic Atheist.
Ignore the Troll up there this is very normal. You can come to the same conclusion even if its from a different cause. Heres an example 20 people died all for different reason but they all died. You cant say "Well they must of all died since they were ill". Since they might not all die because they are ill there is many reason you can die.
Just like there is many reasons why you might not want to have sex before marriage. Now the Christian one is often done with religious reasoning which you can say is based on feelings, but you can also sometimes justify these with logical backings. It does not mean you suddenly became Christian since you agree with no sex before marriage. People believing so are idiots.
I tend to be much worse then a Christian and I dont even follow the religion as closely as one. I dont drink, Smoke, and I am a virgin and honestly it has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion, its mostly based on my personality and me attempting to avoid possible issues which might arise from such things.
The only people who probably have the same or the most similar morals to me is probably Mormons. Seems a little odd dont it? Most other Christians are not restricted from Alcohol.
I don't know that any of those things are specifically Christian. Many religions forbid sex before marriage, and the cursing is just manners. No where in the Bible are Christians commanded not to curse. There is also no such thing as an agnostic atheist, those are two different things.
But yes, this is normal. I would't choose it, but there are many reasons someone non religious might choose to abstain. The most obvious is family planning. It could also just be a personal choice that you made based on a personal sense of morals that you developed seperate from religion. Some religious people seem to think this impossible, but it is actually very normal.
What you are saying is no different than saying you are not religious but you still don't think you should go around murdering people anyway. You don't need religion to have a personal sense of right and wrong.
Explain how there is no such thing as an agnostic athiest. I'm pretty sure I exist.
I've had similar arguments before. Some people seem to think they're different while others believe agnosticism is actually a certain type of atheist called negative atheists. I consider myself to be agnostic, but I also think agnosticism and atheism are two different beliefs.
I'm pretty sure what he's saying is this:
Agnosticism is the belief that it's impossible to prove both the existence and the non-existence of a god.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god.
The two concepts are clearly contradictory, therefore there is no such thing as an "agnostic atheist". It's kind of like saying "I eat meaty fruit".
Can you prove that elf don't exist?
Do you believe that elfs exist?
Do your answers to those questions contradict eachother?
That's a fair summary, but Agnosticism goes a touch further. It is about knowledge, coming from the Greek without knowledge. It is based on a lack of knowledge or a belief that such knowledge is impossible to obtain.
If you have knowledge of a god, it is unlikely you would be atheist.
So you could argue all atheist's are agnostic, but it's just redundant to me.
I am sure you exist too. I find it a redundancy. If you have no belief in a god, than it stands to reason you have no knowledge of the existence of a god, or any reason to believe a god exists.
But anyone may classify themselves anyway they choose. There was no intent to offend.
Given that it is possible for both Atheists and Agnostics to be exclusively dogmatic, I don't see how using both can be redundant.
There are Atheists which claim to know that God does not exist. These people could not also claim to be Agnostic.
Conversely, there are Agnostics which claim that what they believe is dependant on what they know. Given that these people are incapable of not believing in God, they can not claim to be Atheists.
I believe I understand where you are coming from. As I mentioned in my response to incomplete just below, Agnosticism is about knowledge, coming from the Greek without knowledge. It is based on a lack of knowledge or a belief that such knowledge is impossible to obtain.
It is reasonable to assume that an Atheist has no knowledge that a god exists. So in this way, one could argue that all Atheists are technically also Agnostic, and to me that is a redundancy. But that would not mean that all Agnostics are also Atheists, because you can lack the knowledge of existence, without ruling out the possibility.
Your correct that many people would not agree with that argument, it is very much a debatable point. It sounds like the argument that you are making is that if an Atheist claims knowledge that a god does not exist, that claimed knowledge disqualifies them from being an Atheist. I think that is also debatable, but a very valid argument. I can understand your wanting to make that distinction that you lack belief, but claim no actual knowledge that gods do not exist. I suspect that some Atheists would argue that makes you just Agnostic, but I would not agree with that. I think it just means you have a willingness to change your position, should new evidence be presented, which is logical.
But it also doesn't matter what I, or anyone else agrees with. How someone chooses to label themselves is completely up to them. As I said above, you are free to choose any label you like, or no label at all, and I never meant to suggest otherwise, or belittle your choice. My apologizes if I offended you.
Most of my relatives are loose christians, and they've been pretty frisky. I think that the values and desires you have don't need to match the stereotype of your beliefs or lack thereof.
I would not call myself a full blown atheist. My dad just said that seems to him on my belief that I am a free thinker. I respectably do not believe in God. You know how atheist do not want for people to hear Christians views. I actually do at least listen to them and not tell people there is no God. I will listen to them and would not shun myself away from Christians. Like atheists do. What religion do you call that you guys? And if I marry a Christian woman I will not dictate her religion. That is how I am and think.
What does that have to do with waiting? It doesn't matter if you're atheist, you can do what you please.
Living life by one's own set of rules, does not mean a good rule (thou shalt not kill, for example), is not acceptable because it is shared by a system you don't respect.
Waiting for sex isn't just a Christian thing. My guess is that social conditioning, in general, gave you this idea.
And your philosophical stance on the existence of god really doesn't have much to do with sex. Nor does it shape the words you use to communicate, those are social teachings.
I'm going to say that it is not normal.
If you'd be so kind, could you explain why you don't want to have sex before marriage?
The no cussing thing is normal. Just as there are thirst that swear, there are atheists that do not.
Because I read a story from a Divorce lawyer. He said more divorces are caused by sex before marriage. He said 85% of his clients had sex before marriage and got married and after the marriage they got divorces.
Then that's irrelevant to religion. Abstinence until marriage is not a "Christian" thing. It's a moral thing, or in your case, it's concerning statistics.
But those stats don't seem completely valid. Most people have sex before marriage, but that doesn't necessarily mean that was the cause of divorce. The proportion of abstinent people to non-abstinent people is skewed, so the proportion of divorce to non-divorce will be too. But maybe I just don't have enough information.
Basically, what you're choosing to do might not be common, but it's not a problem either. It's not applicable to religion.
If 85% of married people wore green socks. Than a large percentage of people wearing green socks would likely untimely divorce. By the logic you are using, one would conclude green socks cause divorce.