quote:

---

The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll
Dresden Memorial Edition (IV, 5-67)
HTML, Editing by Cliff Walker

Why I Am an Agnostic.
1896

I

For the most part we inherit our opinions. We are the heirs of habits and mental customs. Our beliefs, like the fashion of our garments, depend on where we were born. We are molded and fashioned by our surroundings.

Environment is a sculptor -- a painter.

If we had been born in Constantinople, the most of us would have said: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." If our parents had lived on the banks of the Ganges, we would have been worshipers of Siva, longing for the heaven of Nirvana.

As a rule, children love their parents, believe what they teach, and take great pride in saying that the religion of mother is good enough for them.

Most people love peace. They do not like to differ with their neighbors. They like company. They are social. They enjoy traveling on the highway with the multitude. They hate to walk alone.

The Scotch are Calvinists because their fathers were. The Irish are Catholics because their fathers were. The English are Episcopalians because their fathers were, and the Americans are divided in a hundred sects because their fathers were. This is the general rule, to which there are many exceptions. Children sometimes are superior to their parents, modify their ideas, change their customs, and arrive at different conclusions. But this is generally so gradual that the departure is scarcely noticed, and those who change usually insist that they are still following the fathers.

It is claimed by Christian historians that the religion of a nation was sometimes suddenly changed, and that millions of Pagans were made into Christians by the command of a king. Philosophers do not agree with these historians. Names have been changed, altars have been overthrown, but opinions, customs and beliefs remained the same. A Pagan, beneath the drawn sword of a Christian, would probably change his religious views, and a Christian, with a scimitar above his head, might suddenly become a Mohammedan, but as a matter of fact both would remain exactly as they were before -- except in speech.

Belief is not subject to the will. Men think as they must. Children do not, and cannot, believe exactly as they were taught. They are not exactly like their parents. They differ in temperament, in experience, in capacity, in surroundings. And so there is a continual, though almost imperceptible change. There is development, conscious and unconscious growth, and by comparing long periods of time we find that the old has been almost abandoned, almost lost in the new. Men cannot remain stationary. The mind cannot be securely anchored. If we do not advance, we go backward. If we do not grow, we decay. If we do not develop, we shrink and shrivel.

Like the most of you, I was raised among people who knew -- who were certain. They did not reason or investigate. They had no doubts. They knew that they had the truth. In their creed there was no guess -- no perhaps. They had a revelation from God. They knew the beginning of things. They knew that God commenced to create one Monday morning, four thousand and four years before Christ. They knew that in the eternity -- back of that morning, he had done nothing. They knew that it took him six days to make the earth -- all plants, all animals, all life, and all the globes that wheel in space. They knew exactly what he did each day and when he rested. They knew the origin, the cause of evil, of all crime, of all disease and death.

They not only knew the beginning, but they knew the end. They knew that life had one path and one road. They knew that the path, grass-grown and narrow, filled with thorns and nettles, infested with vipers, wet with tears, stained by bleeding feet, led to heaven, and that the road, broad and smooth, bordered with fruits and flowers, filled with laughter and song and all the happiness of human love, led straight to hell. They knew that God was doing his best to make you take the path and that the Devil used every art to keep you in the road.

They knew that there was a perpetual battle waged between the great Powers of good and evil for the possession of human souls. They knew that many centuries ago God had left his throne and had been born a babe into this poor world -- that he had suffered death for the sake of man -- for the sake of saving a few. They also knew that the human heart was utterly depraved, so that man by nature was in love with wrong and hated God with all his might.

At the same time they knew that God created man in his own image and was perfectly satisfied with his work. They also knew that he had been thwarted by the Devil, who with wiles and lies had deceived the first of human kind. They knew that in consequence of that, God cursed the man and woman; the man with toil, the woman with slavery and pain, and both with death; and that he cursed the earth itself with briers and thorns, brambles and thistles. All these blessed things they knew. They knew too all that God had done to purify and elevate the race. They knew all about the Flood -- knew that God, with the exception of eight, drowned all his children -- the old and young -- the bowed patriarch and the dimpled babe -- the young man and the merry maiden -- the loving mother and the laughing child -- because his mercy endureth forever. They knew too, that he drowned the beasts and birds -- everything that walked or crawled or flew -- because his loving kindness is over all his works. They knew that God, for the purpose of civilizing his children, had devoured some with earthquakes, destroyed some with storms of fire, killed some with his lightnings, millions with famine, with pestilence, and sacrificed countless thousands upon the fields of war. They knew that it was necessary to believe these things and to love God. They knew that there could be no salvation except by faith, and through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.

All who doubted or denied would be lost. To live a moral and honest life -- to keep your contracts, to take care of wife and child -- to make a happy home -- to be a good citizen, a patriot, a just and thoughtful man, was simply a respectable way of going to hell.

God did not reward men for being honest, generous and brave, but for the act of faith. Without faith, all the so-called virtues were sins, and the men who practiced these virtues, without faith, deserved to suffer eternal pain.

All of these comforting and reasonable things were taught by the ministers in their pulpits -- by teachers in Sunday schools and by parents at home. The children were victims. They were assaulted in the cradle -- in their mother's arms. Then, the schoolmaster carried on the war against their natural sense, and all the books they read were filled with the same impossible truths. The poor children were helpless. The atmosphere they breathed was filled with lies -- lies that mingled with their blood.

In those days ministers depended on revivals to save souls and reform the world.

In the winter, navigation having closed, business was mostly suspended. There were no railways and the only means of communication were wagons and boats. Generally the roads were so bad that the wagons were laid up with the boats. There were no operas, no theaters, no amusement except parties and balls. The parties were regarded as worldly and the balls as wicked. For real and virtuous enjoyment the good people depended on revivals.

The sermons were mostly about the pains and agonies of hell, the joys and ecstasies of heaven, salvation by faith, and the efficacy of the atonement. The little churches, in which the services were held, were generally small, badly ventilated, and exceedingly warm. The emotional sermons, the sad singing, the hysterical amens, the hope of heaven, the fear of hell, caused many to lose the little sense they had. They became substantially insane. In this condition they flocked to the "mourner's bench" -- asked for the prayers of the faithful -- had strange feelings, prayed and wept and thought they had been "born again." Then they would tell their experience -- how wicked they had been -- how evil had been their thoughts, their desires, and how good they had suddenly become.

They used to tell the story of an old woman who, in telling her experience, said: -- "Before I was converted, before I gave my heart to God, I used to lie and steal, but now, thanks to the grace and blood of Jesus Christ, I have quit 'em both, in a great measure."

Of course all the people were not exactly of one mind. There were some scoffers, and now and then some man had sense enough to laugh at the threats of priests and make a jest of hell. Some would tell of unbelievers who had lived and died in peace.

When I was a boy I heard them tell of an old farmer in Vermont. He was dying. The minister was at his bed-side -- asked him if he was a Christian -- if he was prepared to die. The old man answered that he had made no preparation, that he was not a Christian -- that he had never done anything but work. The preacher said that he could give him no hope unless he had faith in Christ, and that if he had no faith his soul would certainly be lost.

The old man was not frightened. He was perfectly calm. In a weak and broken voice he said: "Mr. Preacher, I suppose you noticed my farm. My wife and I came here more than fifty years ago. We were just married. It was a forest then and the land was covered with stones. I cut down the trees, burned the logs, picked up the stones and laid the walls. My wife spun and wove and worked every moment. We raised and educated our children -- denied ourselves. During all these years my wife never had a good dress, or a decent bonnet. I never had a good suit of clothes. We lived on the plainest food. Our hands, our bodies are deformed by toil. We never had a vacation. We loved each other and the children. That is the only luxury we ever had. Now I am about to die and you ask me if I am prepared. Mr. Preacher, I have no fear of the future, no terror of any other world. There may be such a place as hell -- but if there is, you never can make me believe that it's any worse than old Vermont."

So, they told of a man who compared himself with his dog. "My dog," he said, "just barks and plays -- has all he wants to eat. He never works -- has no trouble about business. In a little while he dies, and that is all. I work with all my strength. I have no time to play. I have trouble every day. In a little while I will die, and then I go to hell. I wish that I had been a dog."

Well, while the cold weather lasted, while the snows fell, the revival went on, but when the winter was over, when the steamboat's whistle was heard, when business started again, most of the converts "backslid" and fell again into their old ways. But the next winter they were on hand, ready to be "born again." They formed a kind of stock company, playing the same parts every winter and backsliding every spring.

The ministers, who preached at these revivals, were in earnest. They were zealous and sincere. They were not philosophers. To them science was the name of a vague dread -- a dangerous enemy. They did not know much, but they believed a great deal. To them hell was a burning reality -- they could see the smoke and flames. The Devil was no myth. He was an actual person, a rival of God, an enemy of mankind. They thought that the important business of this life was to save your soul -- that all should resist and scorn the pleasures of sense, and keep their eyes steadily fixed on the golden gate of the New Jerusalem. They were unbalanced, emotional, hysterical, bigoted, hateful, loving, and insane. They really believed the Bible to be the actual word of God -- a book without mistake or contradiction. They called its cruelties, justice -- its absurdities, mysteries -- its miracles, facts, and the idiotic passages were regarded as profoundly spiritual. They dwelt on the pangs, the regrets, the infinite agonies of the lost, and showed how easily they could be avoided, and how cheaply heaven could be obtained. They told their hearers to believe, to have faith, to give their hearts to God, their sins to Christ, who would bear their burdens and make their souls as white as snow.

All this the ministers really believed. They were absolutely certain. In their minds the Devil had tried in vain to sow the seeds of doubt.

I heard hundreds of these evangelical sermons -- heard hundreds of the most fearful and vivid descriptions of the tortures inflicted in hell, of the horrible state of the lost. I supposed that what I heard was true and yet I did not believe it. I said: "It is," and then I thought: "It cannot be."

These sermons made but faint impressions on my mind. I was not convinced.

I had no desire to be "converted," did not want a "new heart" and had no wish to be "born again."

But I heard one sermon that touched my heart, that left its mark, like a scar, on my brain.

One Sunday I went with my brother to hear a Free Will Baptist preacher. He was a large man, dressed like a farmer, but he was an orator. He could paint a picture with words.

He took for his text the parable of "the rich man and Lazarus." He described Dives, the rich man -- his manner of life, the excesses in which he indulged, his extravagance, his riotous nights, his purple and fine linen, his feasts, his wines, and his beautiful women.

Then he described Lazarus, his poverty, his rags and wretchedness, his poor body eaten by disease, the crusts and crumbs he devoured, the dogs that pitied him. He pictured his lonely life, his friendless death.

Then, changing his tone of pity to one of triumph -- leaping from tears to the heights of exultation -- from defeat to victory -- he described the glorious company of angels, who with white and outspread wings carried the soul of the despised pauper to Paradise -- to the bosom of Abraham.

Then, changing his voice to one of scorn and loathing, he told of the rich man's death. He was in his palace, on his costly couch, the air heavy with perfume, the room filled with servants and physicians. His gold was worthless then. He could not buy another breath. He died, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment.

Then, assuming a dramatic attitude, putting his right hand to his ear, he whispered, "Hark! I hear the rich man's voice. What does he say? Hark! 'Father Abraham! Father Abraham! I pray thee send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my parched tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.'"

"Oh, my hearers, he has been making that request for more than eighteen hundred years. And millions of ages hence that wail will cross the gulf that lies between the saved and lost and still will be heard the cry: 'Father Abraham! Father Abraham! I pray thee send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my parched tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.'"

For the first time I understood the dogma of eternal pain -- appreciated "the glad tidings of great joy." For the first time my imagination grasped the height and depth of the Christian horror. Then I said: "It is a lie, and I hate your religion. If it is true, I hate your God."

From that day I have had no fear, no doubt. For me, on that day, the flames of hell were quenched. From that day I have passionately hated every orthodox creed. That Sermon did some good.

II

From my childhood I had heard read, and read the Bible myself. Morning and evening the sacred volume was opened and prayers were said. The Bible was my first history, the Jews were the first people, and the events narrated by Moses and the other inspired writers, and those predicted by prophets were the all important things. In other books were found the thoughts and dreams of men, but in the Bible were the sacred truths of God.

Yet in spite of my surroundings, of my education, I had no love for God. He was so saving of mercy, so extravagant in murder, so anxious to kill, so ready to assassinate, that I hated him with all my heart. At his command, babes were butchered, women violated, and the white hair of trembling age stained with blood. This God visited the people with pestilence -- filled the houses and covered the streets with the dying and the dead -- saw babes starving on the empty breasts of pallid mothers, heard the sobs, saw the tears, the sunken cheeks, the sightless eyes, the new made graves, and remained as pitiless as the pestilence.

This God withheld the rain -- caused the famine -- saw the fierce eyes of hunger -- the wasted forms, the white lips, saw mothers eating babes, and remained ferocious as famine.

It seems to me impossible for a civilized man to love or worship, or respect the God of the Old Testament. A really civilized man, a really civilized woman, must hold such a God in abhorrence and contempt.

But in the old days the good people justified Jehovah in his treatment of the heathen. The wretches who were murdered were idolaters and therefore unfit to live.

According to the Bible, God had never revealed himself to these people and he knew that without a revelation they could not know that he was the true God. Whose fault was it then that they were heathen?

The Christians said that God had the right to destroy them because he created them. What did he create them for? He knew when he made them that they would be food for the sword. He knew that he would have the pleasure of seeing them murdered.

As a last answer, as a final excuse, the worshipers of Jehovah said that all these horrible things happened under the "old dispensation" of unyielding law, and absolute justice, but that now under the "new dispensation," all had been changed -- the sword of justice had been sheathed and love enthroned. In the Old Testament, they said, God is the judge -- but in the New, Christ is the merciful. As a matter of fact, the New Testament is infinitely worse than the Old. In the Old there is no threat of eternal pain. Jehovah had no eternal prison -- no everlasting fire. His hatred ended at the grave. His revenge was satisfied when his enemy was dead.

In the New Testament, death is not the end, but the beginning of punishment that has no end. In the New Testament the malice of God is infinite and the hunger of his revenge eternal.

The orthodox God, when clothed in human flesh, told his disciples not to resist evil, to love their enemies, and when smitten on one cheek to turn the other, and yet we are told that this same God, with the same loving lips, uttered these heartless, these fiendish words: "Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

These are the words of "eternal love."

No human being has imagination enough to conceive of this infinite horror.

All that the human race has suffered in war and want, in pestilence and famine, in fire and flood, -- all the pangs and pains of every disease and every death -- all this is as nothing compared with the agonies to be endured by one lost soul.

This is the consolation of the Christian religion. This is the justice of God -- the mercy of Christ.

This frightful dogma, this infinite lie, made me the implacable enemy of Christianity. The truth is that this belief in eternal pain has been the real persecutor. It founded the Inquisition, forged the chains, and furnished the fagots. It has darkened the lives of many millions. It made the cradle as terrible as the coffin. It enslaved nations and shed the blood of countless thousands. It sacrificed the wisest, the bravest and the best. It subverted the idea of justice, drove mercy from the heart, changed men to fiends and banished reason from the brain.

Like a venomous serpent it crawls and coils and hisses in every orthodox creed.

It makes man an eternal victim and God an eternal fiend. It is the one infinite horror. Every church in which it is taught is a public curse. Every preacher who teaches it is an enemy of mankind. Below this Christian dogma, savagery cannot go. It is the infinite of malice, hatred, and revenge.

Nothing could add to the horror of hell, except the presence of its creator, God.

While I have life, as long as I draw breath, I shall deny with all my strength, and hate with every drop of my blood, this infinite lie.

Nothing gives me greater joy than to know that this belief in eternal pain is growing weaker every day -- that thousands of ministers are ashamed of it. It gives me joy to know that Christians are becoming merciful, so merciful that the fires of hell are burning low -- flickering, choked with ashes, destined in a few years to die out forever.

For centuries Christendom was a madhouse. Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, monks and heretics were all insane.

Only a few -- four or five in a century were sound in heart and brain. Only a few, in spite of the roar and din, in spite of the savage cries, heard reason's voice. Only a few in the wild rage of ignorance, fear and zeal preserved the perfect calm that wisdom gives.

We have advanced. In a few years the Christians will become -- let us hope -- humane and sensible enough to deny the dogma that fills the endless years with pain. They ought to know now that this dogma is utterly inconsistent with the wisdom, the justice, the goodness of their God. They ought to know that their belief in hell, gives to the Holy Ghost -- the Dove -- the beak of a vulture, and fills the mouth of the Lamb of God with the fangs of a viper.

III

In my youth I read religious books -- books about God, about the atonement -- about salvation by faith, and about the other worlds. I became familiar with the commentators -- with Adam Clark, who thought that the serpent seduced our mother Eve, and was in fact the father of Cain. He also believed that the animals, while in the ark, had their natures' changed to that degree that they devoured straw together and enjoyed each other's society -- thus prefiguring the blessed millennium. I read Scott, who was such a natural theologian that he really thought the story of Phaeton -- of the wild steeds dashing across the sky -- corroborated the story of Joshua having stopped the sun and moon. So, I read Henry and MacKnight and found that God so loved the world that he made up his mind to damn a large majority of the human race. I read Cruden, who made the great Concordance, and made the miracles as small and probable as he could.

I remember that he explained the miracle of feeding the wandering Jews with quails, by saying that even at this day immense numbers of quails crossed the Red Sea, and that sometimes when tired, they settled on ships that sank beneath their weight. The fact that the explanation was as hard to believe as the miracle made no difference to the devout Cruden.

To while away the time I read Calvin's Institutes, a book calculated to produce, in any natural mind, considerable respect for the Devil.

I read Paley's Evidences and found that the evidence of ingenuity in producing the evil, in contriving the hurtful, was at least equal to the evidence tending to show the use of intelligence in the creation of what we call good.

You know the watch argument was Paley's greatest effort. A man finds a watch and it is so wonderful that he concludes that it must have had a maker. He finds the maker and he is so much more wonderful than the watch that he says he must have had a maker. Then he finds God, the maker of the man, and he is so much more wonderful than the man that he could not have had a maker. This is what the lawyers call a departure in pleading.

According to Paley there can be no design without a designer -- but there can be a designer without a design. The wonder of the watch suggested the watchmaker, and the wonder of the watchmaker, suggested the creator, and the wonder of the creator demonstrated that he was not created -- but was uncaused and eternal.

We had Edwards on The Will, in which the reverend author shows that necessity has no effect on accountability -- and that when God creates a human being, and at the same time determines and decrees exactly what that being shall do and be, the human being is responsible, and God in his justice and mercy has the right to torture the soul of that human being forever. Yet Edwards said that he loved God.

The fact is that if you believe in an infinite God, and also in eternal punishment, then you must admit that Edwards and Calvin were absolutely right. There is no escape from their conclusions if you admit their premises. They were infinitely cruel, their premises infinitely absurd, their God infinitely fiendish, and their logic perfect.

And yet I have kindness and candor enough to say that Calvin and Edwards were both insane.

We had plenty of theological literature. There was Jenkyn on the Atonement, who demonstrated the wisdom of God in devising a way in which the sufferings of innocence could justify the guilty. He tried to show that children could justly be punished for the sins of their ancestors, and that men could, if they had faith, be justly credited with the virtues of others. Nothing could be more devout, orthodox, and idiotic. But all of our theology was not in prose. We had Milton with his celestial militia -- with his great and blundering God, his proud and cunning Devil -- his wars between immortals, and all the sublime absurdities that religion wrought within the blind man's brain.

The theology taught by Milton was dear to the Puritan heart. It was accepted by New England, and it poisoned the souls and ruined the lives of thousands. The genius of Shakespeare could not make the theology of Milton poetic. In the literature of the world there is nothing, outside of the "sacred books," more perfectly absurd.

We had Young's Night Thoughts, and I supposed that the author was an exceedingly devout and loving follower of the Lord. Yet Young had a great desire to be a bishop, and to accomplish that end he electioneered with the king's mistress. In other words, he was a fine old hypocrite. In the "Night Thoughts" there is scarcely a genuinely honest, natural line. It is pretence from beginning to end. He did not write what he felt, but what he thought he ought to feel.

We had Pollok's Course of Time, with its worm that never dies, its quenchless flames, its endless pangs, its leering devils, and its gloating God. This frightful poem should have been written in a madhouse. In it you find all the cries and groans and shrieks of maniacs, when they tear and rend each other's flesh. It is as heartless, as hideous, as hellish as the thirty-second chapter of Deuteronomy.

We all know the beautiful hymn commencing with the cheerful line: "Hark from the tombs, a doleful sound." Nothing could have been more appropriate for children. It is well to put a coffin where it can be seen from the cradle. When a mother nurses her child, an open grave should be at her feet. This would tend to make the babe serious, reflective, religious and miserable.

God hates laughter and despises mirth. To feel free, untrammeled, irresponsible, joyous, -- to forget care and death -- to be flooded with sunshine without a fear of night -- to forget the past, to have no thought of the future, no dream of God, or heaven, or hell -- to be intoxicated with the present -- to be conscious only of the clasp and kiss of the one you love -- this is the sin against the Holy Ghost.

But we had Cowper's poems. Cowper was sincere. He was the opposite of Young. He had an observing eye, a gentle heart and a sense of the artistic. He sympathized with all who suffered -- with the imprisoned, the enslaved, the outcasts. He loved the beautiful. No wonder that the belief in eternal punishment made this loving soul insane. No wonder that the "tidings of great joy" quenched Hope's great star and left his broken heart in the darkness of despair.

We had many volumes of orthodox sermons, filled with wrath and the terrors of the judgment to come -- sermons that had been delivered by savage saints.

We had the Book of Martyrs, showing that Christians had for many centuries imitated the God they worshiped.

We had the history of the Waldenses -- of the reformation of the Church. We had Pilgrim's Progress, Baxter's Call and Butler's Analogy.

To use a Western phrase or saying, I found that Bishop Butler dug up more snakes than he killed -- suggested more difficulties than he explained -- more doubts than he dispelled.

IV

Among such books my youth was passed. All the seeds of Christianity -- of superstition, were sown in my mind and cultivated with great diligence and care.

All that time I knew nothing of any science -- nothing about the other side -- nothing of the objections that had been urged against the blessed Scriptures, or against the perfect Congregational creed. Of course I had heard the ministers speak of blasphemers, of infidel wretches, of scoffers who laughed at holy things. They did not answer their arguments, but they tore their characters into shreds and demonstrated by the fury of assertion that they had done the Devil's work. And yet in spite of all I heard -- of all I read, I could not quite believe. My brain and heart said No.

For a time I left the dreams, the insanities, the illusions and delusions, the nightmares of theology. I studied astronomy, just a little -- I examined maps of the heavens -- learned the names of some of the constellations -- of some of the stars -- found something of their size and the velocity with which they wheeled in their orbits -- obtained a faint conception of astronomical spaces -- found that some of the known stars were so far away in the depths of space that their light, traveling at the rate of nearly two hundred thousand miles a second, required many years to reach this little world -- found that, compared with the great stars, our earth was but a grain of sand -- an atom -- found that the old belief that all the hosts of heaven had been created for the benefit of man, was infinitely absurd.

I compared what was really known about the stars with the account of creation as told in Genesis. I found that the writer of the inspired book had no knowledge of astronomy -- that he was as ignorant as a Choctaw chief -- as an Eskimo driver of dogs. Does any one imagine that the author of Genesis knew anything about the sun -- its size? that he was acquainted with Sirius, the North Star, with Capella, or that he knew anything of the clusters of stars so far away that their light, now visiting our eyes, has been traveling for two million years?

If he had known these facts would he have said that Jehovah worked nearly six days to make this world, and only a part of the afternoon of the fourth day to make the sun and moon and all the stars?

Yet millions of people insist that the writer of Genesis was inspired by the Creator of all worlds.

Now, intelligent men, who are not frightened, whose brains have not been paralyzed by fear, know that the sacred story of creation was written by an ignorant savage. The story is inconsistent with all known facts, and every star shining in the heavens testifies that its author was an uninspired barbarian.

I admit that this unknown writer was sincere, that he wrote what he believed to be true -- that he did the best he could. He did not claim to be inspired -- did not pretend that the story had been told to him by Jehovah. He simply stated the "facts" as he understood them.

After I had learned a little about the stars I concluded that this writer, this "inspired" scribe, had been misled by myth and legend, and that he knew no more about creation than the average theologian of my day. In other words, that he knew absolutely nothing.

And here, allow me to say that the ministers who are answering me are turning their guns in thewrong direction. These reverend gentlemen should attack the astronomers. They should malign and vilify Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Herschel and Laplace. These men were the real destroyers of the sacred story. Then, after having disposed of them, they can wage a war against the stars, and against Jehovah himself for having furnished evidence against the truthfulness of his book.

Then I studied geology -- not much, just a little -- Just enough to find in a general way the principal facts that had been discovered, and some of the conclusions that had been reached. I learned something of the action of fire -- of water -- of the formation of islands and continents -- of the sedimentary and igneous rocks -- of the coal measures -- of the chalk cliffs, something about coral reefs -- about the deposits made by rivers, the effect of volcanoes, of glaciers, and of the all surrounding sea -- just enough to know that the Laurentian rocks were millions of years older than the grass beneath my feet -- just enough to feel certain that this world had been pursuing its flight about the sun, wheeling in light and shade, for hundreds of millions of years -- just enough to know that the "inspired" writer knew nothing of the history of the earth -- nothing of the great forces of nature -- of wind and wave and fire -- forces that have destroyed and built, wrecked and wrought through all the countless years.

And let me tell the ministers again that they should not waste their time in answering me. They should attack the geologists. They should deny the facts that have been discovered. They should launch their curses at the blaspheming seas, and dash their heads against the infidel rocks.

Then I studied biology -- not much -- just enough to know something of animal forms, enough to know that life existed when the Laurentian rocks were made -- just enough to know that implements of stone, implements that had been formed by human hands, had been found mingled with the bones of extinct animals, bones that had been split with these implements, and that these animals had ceased to exist hundreds of thousands of years before the manufacture of Adam and Eve.

Then I felt sure that the "inspired" record was false -- that many millions of people had been deceived and that all I had been taught about the origin of worlds and men was utterly untrue. I felt that I knew that the Old Testament was the work of ignorant men -- that it was a mingling of truth and mistake, of wisdom and foolishness, of cruelty and kindness, of philosophy and absurdity -- that it contained some elevated thoughts, some poetry, -- a good deal of the solemn and commonplace, -- some hysterical, some tender, some wicked prayers, some insane predictions, some delusions, and some chaotic dreams.

Of course the theologians fought the facts found by the geologists, the scientists, and sought to sustain the sacred Scriptures. They mistook the bones of the mastodon for those of human beings, and by them proudly proved that "there were giants in those days." They accounted for the fossils by saying that God had made them to try our faith, or that the Devil had imitated the works of the Creator.

They answered the geologists by saying that the "days" in Genesis were long periods of time, and that after all the flood might have been local. They told the astronomers that the sun and moon were not actually, but only apparently, stopped. And that the appearance was produced by the reflection and refraction of light.

They excused the slavery and polygamy, the robbery and murder upheld in the Old Testament by saying that the people were so degraded that Jehovah was compelled to pander to their ignorance and prejudice.

In every way the clergy sought to evade the facts, to dodge the truth, to preserve the creed.

At first they flatly denied the facts -- then they belittled them -- then they harmonized them -- then they denied that they had denied them. Then they changed the meaning of the "inspired" book to fit the facts.

At first they said that if the facts, as claimed, were true, the Bible was false and Christianity itself a superstition. Afterward they said the facts, as claimed, were true and that they established beyond all doubt the inspiration of the Bible and the divine origin of orthodox religion.

Anything they could not dodge, they swallowed, and anything they could not swallow, they dodged.

I gave up the Old Testament on account of its mistakes, its absurdities, its ignorance and its cruelty. I gave up the New because it vouched for the truth of the Old. I gave it up on account of its miracles, its contradictions, because Christ and his disciples believe in the existence of devils -- talked and made bargains with them, expelled them from people and animals.

This, of itself, is enough. We know, if we know anything, that devils do not exist -- that Christ never cast them out, and that if he pretended to, he was either ignorant, dishonest or insane. These stories about devils demonstrate the human, the ignorant origin of the New Testament. I gave up the New Testament because it rewards credulity, and curses brave and honest men, and because it teaches the infinite horror of eternal pain.

V

Having spent my youth in reading books about religion -- about the "new birth" -- the disobedience of our first parents, the atonement, salvation by faith, the wickedness of pleasure, the degrading consequences of love, and the impossibility of getting to heaven by being honest and generous, and having become somewhat weary of the frayed and raveled thoughts, you can imagine my surprise, my delight when I read the poems of Robert Burns.

I was familiar with the writings of the devout and insincere, the pious and petrified, the pure and heartless. Here was a natural honest man. I knew the works of those who regarded all nature as depraved, and looked upon love as the legacy and perpetual witness of original sin. Here was a man who plucked joy from the mire, made goddesses of peasant girls, and enthroned the honest man. One whose sympathy, with loving arms, embraced all forms of suffering life, who hated slavery of every kind, who was as natural as heaven's blue, with humor kindly as an autumn day, with wit as sharp as Ithuriel's spear, and scorn that blasted like the simoon's breath. A man who loved this world, this life, the things of every day, and placed above all else the thrilling ecstasies of human love.

I read and read again with rapture, tears and smiles, feeling that a great heart was throbbing in the lines.

The religious, the lugubrious, the artificial, the spiritual poets were forgotten or remained only as the fragments, the half remembered horrors of monstrous and distorted dreams.

I had found at last a natural man, one who despised his country's cruel creed, and was brave and sensible enough to say: "All religions are auld wives' fables, but an honest man has nothing to fear, either in this world or the world to come."

One who had the genius to write Holy Willie's Prayer -- a poem that crucified Calvinism and through its bloodless heart thrust the spear of common sense -- a poem that made every orthodox creed the food of scorn -- of inextinguishable laughter.

Burns had his faults, his frailties. He was intensely human. Still, I would rather appear at the "Judgment Seat" drunk, and be able to say that I was the author of "A man's a man for 'a that," than to be perfectly sober and admit that I had lived and died a Scotch Presbyterian.

I read Byron -- read his Cain, in which, as in Paradise Lost, the Devil seems to be the better god -- read his beautiful, sublime and bitter lines -- read his Prisoner of Chillon -- his best -- a poem that filled my heart with tenderness, with pity, and with an eternal hatred of tyranny.

I read Shelley's Queen Mab -- a poem filled with beauty, courage, thought, sympathy, tears and scorn, in which a brave soul tears down the prison walls and floods the cells with light. I read his Skylark -- a winged flame -- passionate as blood -- tender as tears -- pure as light.

I read Keats, "whose name was writ in water" -- read St. Agnes Eve, a story told with such an artless art that this poor common world is changed to fairy land -- the Grecian Urn, that fills the soul with ever eager love, with all the rapture of imagined song -- the Nightingale -- a melody in which there is the memory of morn -- a melody that dies away in dusk and tears, paining the senses with its perfectness.

And then I read Shakespeare, the plays, the sonnets, the poems -- read all. I beheld a new heaven and a new earth; Shakespeare, who knew the brain and heart of man -- the hopes and fears, the loves and hatreds, the vices and the virtues of the human race; whose imagination read the tear-blurred records, the blood-stained pages of all the past, and saw falling athwart the outspread scroll the light of hope and love; Shakespeare, who sounded every depth -- while on the loftiest peak there fell the shadow of his wings.

I compared the Plays with the "inspired" books -- Romeo and Juliet with the Song of Solomon, Lear with Job, and the Sonnets with the Psalms, and I found that Jehovah did not understand the art of speech. I compared Shakespeare's women -- his perfect women -- with the women of the Bible. I found that Jehovah was not a sculptor, not a painter -- not an artist -- that he lacked the power that changes clay to flesh -- the art, the plastic touch, that molds the perfect form -- the breath that gives it free and joyous life -- the genius that creates the faultless.

The sacred books of all the world are worthless dross and common stones compared with Shakespeare's glittering gold and gleaming gems.

VI

Up to this time I had read nothing against our blessed religion except what I had found in Burns, Byron and Shelley. By some accident I read Volney, who shows that all religions are, and have been, established in the same way -- that all had their Christs, their apostles, miracles and sacred books, and then asked how it is possible to decide which is the true one. A question that is still waiting for an answer.

I read Gibbon, the greatest of historians, who marshaled his facts as skillfully as Cæsar did his legions, and I learned that Christianity is only a name for Paganism -- for the old religion, shorn of its beauty -- that some absurdities had been exchanged for others -- that some gods had been killed -- a vast multitude of devils created, and that hell had been enlarged.

And then I read the Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine. Let me tell you something about this sublime and slandered man. He came to this country just before the Revolution. He brought a letter of introduction from Benjamin Franklin, at that time the greatest American.

In Philadelphia, Paine was employed to write for the Pennsylvania Magazine. We know that he wrote at least five articles. The first was against slavery, the second against duelling, the third on the treatment of prisoners -- showing that the object should be to reform, not to punish and degrade -- the fourth on the rights of woman, and the fifth in favor of forming societies for the prevention of cruelty to children and animals.

From this you see that he suggested the great reforms of our century.

The truth is that he labored all his life for the good of his fellow-men, and did as much to found the Great Republic as any man who ever stood beneath our flag.

He gave his thoughts about religion -- bout the blessed Scriptures, about the superstitions of his time. He was perfectly sincere and what he said was kind and fair.

The Age of Reason filled with hatred the hearts of those who loved their enemies, and the occupant of every orthodox pulpit became, and still is, a passionate malinger of Thomas Paine.

No one has answered -- no one will answer, his argument against the dogma of inspiration -- his objections to the Bible.

He did not rise above all the superstitions of his day. While he hated Jehovah, he praised the God of Nature, the creator and preserver of all. In this he was wrong, because, as Watson said in his Reply to Paine, the God of Nature is as heartless, as cruel as the God of the Bible.

But Paine was one of the pioneers -- one of the Titans, one of the heroes, who gladly gave his life, his every thought and act, to free and civilize mankind.

I read Voltaire -- Voltaire, the greatest man of his century, and who did more for liberty of thought and speech than any other being, human or "divine." Voltaire, who tore the mask from hypocrisy and found behind the painted smile the fangs of hate. Voltaire, who attacked the savagery of the law, the cruel decisions of venal courts, and rescued victims from the wheel and rack. Voltaire, who waged war against the tyranny of thrones, the greed and heartlessness of power. Voltaire, who filled the flesh of priests with the barbed and poisoned arrows of his wit and made the pious jugglers, who cursed him in public, laugh at themselves in private. Voltaire, who sided with the oppressed, rescued the unfortunate, championed the obscure and weak, civilized judges, repealed laws and abolished torture in his native land.

In every direction this tireless man fought the absurd, the miraculous, the supernatural, the idiotic, the unjust. He had no reverence for the ancient. He was not awed by pageantry and pomp, by crowned Crime or mitered Pretence. Beneath the crown he saw the criminal, under the miter, the hypocrite.

To the bar of his conscience, his reason, he summoned the barbarism and the barbarians of his time. He pronounced judgment against them all, and that judgment has been affirmed by the intelligent world. Voltaire lighted a torch and gave to others the sacred flame. The light still shines and will as long as man loves liberty and seeks for truth.

I read Zeno, the man who said, centuries before our Christ was born, that man could not own his fellow-man.

"No matter whether you claim a slave by purchase or capture, the title is bad. They who claim to own their fellow-men, look down into the pit and forget the justice that should rule the world."

I became acquainted with Epicurus, who taught the religion of usefulness, of temperance, of courage and wisdom, and who said: "Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which cannot exist when I do?"

I read about Socrates, who when on trial for his life, said, among other things, to his judges, these wondrous words: "I have not sought during my life to amass wealth and to adorn my body, but I have sought to adorn my soul with the jewels of wisdom, patience, and above all with a love of liberty."

So, I read about Diogenes, the philosopher who hated the superfluous -- the enemy of waste and greed, and who one day entered the temple, reverently approached the altar, crushed a louse between the nails of his thumbs, and solemnly said: "The sacrifice of Diogenes to all the gods." This parodied the worship of the world -- satirized all creeds, and in one act put the essence of religion.

Diogenes must have know of this "inspired" passage -- "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins."

I compared Zeno, Epicures and Socrates, three heathen wretches who had never heard of the Old Testament or the Ten Commandments, with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, three favorites of Jehovah, and I was depraved enough to think that the Pagans were superior to the Patriarchs -- and to Jehovah himself.

VII

My attention was turned to other religions, to the sacred books, the creeds and ceremonies of other lands -- of India, Egypt, Assyria, Persia, of the dead and dying nations.

I concluded that all religions had the same foundation -- a belief in the supernatural -- a power above nature that man could influence by worship -- by sacrifice and prayer.

I found that all religions rested on a mistaken conception of nature -- that the religion of a people was the science of that people, that is to say, their explanation of the world -- of life and death -- of origin and destiny.

I concluded that all religions had substantially the same origin, and that in fact there has never been but one religion in the world. The twigs and leaves may differ, but the trunk is the same.

The poor African that pours out his heart to his deity of stone is on an exact religious level with the robed priest who supplicates his God. The same mistake, the same superstition, bends the knees and shuts the eyes of both. Both ask for supernatural aid, and neither has the slightest thought of the absolute uniformity of nature.

It seems probable to me that the first organized ceremonial religion was the worship of the sun. The sun was the "Sky Father," the "All Seeing," the source of life -- the fireside of the world. The sun was regarded as a god who fought the darkness, the power of evil, the enemy of man.

There have been many sun-gods, and they seem to have been the chief deities in the ancient religions. They have been worshiped in many lands -- by many nations that have passed to death and dust.

Apollo was a sun-god and he fought and conquered the serpent of night. Baldur was a sun-god. He was in love with the Dawn -- a maiden. Chrishna was a sun-god. At his birth the Ganges was thrilled from its source to the sea, and all the trees, the dead as well as the living, burst into leaf and bud and flower. Hercules was a sun-god and so was Samson, whose strength was in his hair -- that is to say, in his beams. He was shorn of his strength by Delilah, the shadow -- the darkness. Osiris, Bacchus, and Mithra, Hermes, Buddha, and Quetzalcoatl, Prometheus, Zoroaster, and Perseus, Cadom, Lao-tsze, Fo-hi, Horus and Rameses, were all sun-gods.

All of these gods had gods for fathers and their mothers were virgins. The births of nearly all were announced by stars, celebrated by celestial music, and voices declared that a blessing had come to the poor world. All of these gods were born in humble places -- in caves, under trees, in common inns, and tyrants sought to kill them all when they were babes. All of these sun-gods were born at the winter solstice -- on Christmas. Nearly all were worshiped by "wise men." All of them fasted for forty days -- all of them taught in parables -- all of them wrought miracles -- all met with a violent death, and all rose from the dead.

The history of these gods is the exact history of our Christ.

This is not a coincidence -- an accident. Christ was a sun-god. Christ was a new name for an old biography -- a survival -- the last of the sun-gods. Christ was not a man, but a myth -- not a life, but a legend.

I found that we had not only borrowed our Christ -- but that all our sacraments, symbols and ceremonies were legacies that we received from the buried past. There is nothing original in Christianity.

The cross was a symbol thousands of years before our era. It was a symbol of life, of immortality -- of the god Agni, and it was chiseled upon tombs many ages before a line of our Bible was written.

Baptism is far older than Christianity -- than Judaism. The Hindus, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans had Holy Water long before a Catholic lived. The eucharist was borrowed from the Pagans. Ceres was the goddess of the fields -- Bacchus of the vine. At the harvest festival they made cakes of wheat and said: "This is the flesh of the goddess." They drank wine and cried: "This is the blood of our god."

The Egyptians had a Trinity. They worshiped Osiris, Isis and Horus, thousands of years before the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were known.

The Tree of Life grew in India, in China, and among the Aztecs, long before the Garden of Eden was planted.

Long before our Bible was known, other nations had their sacred books.

The dogmas of the Fall of Man, the Atonement and Salvation by Faith, are far older than our religion.

In our blessed gospel, -- in our "divine scheme," -- there is nothing new -- nothing original. All old -- all borrowed, pieced and patched.

Then I concluded that all religions had been naturally produced, and that all were variation, modifications of one, -- then I felt that I knew that all were the work of man.

VIII

The theologians had always insisted that their God was the creator of all living things -- that the forms, parts, functions, colors and varieties of animals were the expressions of his fancy, taste and wisdom -- that he made them all precisely as they are to-day -- that he invented fins and legs and wings -- that he furnished them with the weapons of attack, the shields of defence -- that he formed them with reference to food and climate, taking into consideration all facts affecting life.

They insisted that man was a special creation, not related in any way to the animals below him. They also asserted that all the forms of vegetation, from mosses to forests, were just the same to-day as the moment they were made.

Men of genius, who were for the most part free from religious prejudice, were examining these things -- were looking for facts. They were examining the fossils of animals and plants -- studying the forms of animals -- their bones and muscles -- the effect of climate and food -- the strange modifications through which they had passed.

Humboldt had published his lectures -- filled with great thoughts -- with splendid generalizations -- with suggestions that stimulated the spirit of investigation, and with conclusions that satisfied the mind. He demonstrated the uniformity of Nature -- the kinship of all thatlives and grows -- that breathes and thinks.

Darwin, with his Origin of Species, his theories about Natural Selection, the Survival of the Fittest, and the influence of environment, shed a flood of light upon the great problems of plant and animal life.

These things had been guessed, prophesied, asserted, hinted by many others, but Darwin, with infinite patience, with perfect care and candor, found the facts, fulfilled the prophecies, and demonstrated the truth of the guesses, hints and assertions. He was, in my judgment, the keenest observer, the best judge of the meaning and value of a fact, the greatest Naturalist the world has produced.

The theological view began to look small and mean.

Spencer gave his theory of evolution and sustained it by countless facts. He stood at a great height, and with the eyes of a philosopher, a profound thinker, surveyed the world. He has influenced the thought of the wisest.

Theology looked more absurd than ever.

Huxley entered the lists for Darwin. No man ever had a sharper sword -- a better shield. He challenged the world. The great theologians and the small scientists -- those who had more courage than sense, accepted the challenge. Their poor bodies were carried away by their friends.

Huxley had intelligence, industry, genius, and the courage to express his thought. He was absolutely loyal to what he thought was truth. Without prejudice and without fear, he followed the footsteps of life front the lowest to the highest forms.

Theology looked smaller still.

Haeckel began at the simplest cell, went from change to change -- from form to form -- followed the line of development, the path of life, until he reached the human race. It was all natural. There had been no interference from without.

I read the works of these great men -- of many others -- and became convinced that they were right, and that all the theologians -- all the believers in "special creation" were absolutely wrong.

The Garden of Eden faded away, Adam and Eve fell back to dust, the snake crawled into the grass, and Jehovah became a miserable myth.

IX

I took another step. What is matter -- substance? Can it be destroyed -- annihilated? Is it possible to conceive of the destruction of the smallest atom of substance? It can be ground to powder -- changed from a solid to a liquid -- from a liquid to a gas -- but it all remains. Nothing is lost -- nothing destroyed.

Let an infinite God, if there be one, attack a grain of sand -- attack it with infinite power. It cannot be destroyed. It cannot surrender. It defies all force. Substance cannot be destroyed.

Then I took another step.

If matter cannot be destroyed, cannot be annihilated, it could not have been created.

The indestructible must be uncreateable.

And then I asked myself: What is force?

We cannot conceive of the creation of force, or of its destruction. Force may be changed from one form to another -- from motion to heat -- but it cannot be destroyed -- annihilated.

If force cannot be destroyed it could not have been created. It is eternal.

Another thing -- matter cannot exist apart from force. Force cannot exist apart from matter. Matter could not have existed before force. Force could not have existed before matter. Matter and force can only be conceived of together. This has been shown by several scientists, but most clearly, most forcibly by Buchner.

Thought is a form of force, consequently it could not have caused or created matter. Intelligence is a form of force and could not have existed without or apart from matter. Without substance there could have been no mind, no will, no force in any form, and there could have been no substance without force.

Matter and force were not created. They have existed from eternity. They cannot be destroyed.

There was, there is, no creator. Then came the question: Is there a God? Is there a being of infinite intelligence, power and goodness, who governs the world?

There can be goodness without much intelligence -- but it seems to me that perfect intelligence and perfect goodness must go together.

In nature I see, or seem to see, good and evil --"intelligence and ignorance -- goodness and cruelty -- care and carelessness -- economy and waste. I see means that do not accomplish the ends -- designs that seem to fail.

To me it seems infinitely cruel for life to feed on life -- to create animals that devour others.

The teeth and beaks, the claws and fangs, that tear and rend, fill me with horror. What can be more frightful than a world at war? Every leaf a battle-field -- every flower a Golgotha -- in every drop of water pursuit, capture and death. Under every piece of bark, life lying in wait for life. On every blade of grass, something that kills, -- something that suffers. Everywhere the strong living on the weak -- the superior on the inferior. Everywhere the weak, the insignificant, living on the strong -- the inferior on the superior -- the highest food for the lowest -- man sacrificed for the sake of microbes. Murder universal. Everywhere pain, disease and death -- death that does not wait for bent forms and gray hairs, but clutches babes and happy youths. Death that takes the mother from her helpless, dimpled child -- death that fills the world with grief and tears.

How can the orthodox Christian explain these things?

I know that life is good. I remember the sunshine and rain. Then I think of the earthquake and flood. I do not forget health and harvest, home and love -- but what of pestilence and famine? I cannot harmonize all these contradictions -- these blessings and agonies -- with the existence of an infinitely good, wise and powerful God.

The theologian says that what we call evil is for our benefit -- that we are placed in this world of sin and sorrow to develop character. If this is true I ask why the infant dies? Millions and millions draw a few breaths and fade away in the arms of their mothers. They are not allowed to develop character.

The theologian says that serpents were given fangs to protect themselves from their enemies. Why did the God who made them, make enemies? Why is it that many species of serpents have no fangs?

The theologian says that God armored the hippopotamus, covered his body, except the under part, with scales and plates, that other animals could not pierce with tooth or tusk. But the same God made the rhinoceros and supplied him with a horn on his nose, with which he disembowels the hippopotamus.

The same God made the eagle, the vulture, the hawk, and their helpless prey.

On every hand there seems to be design to defeat design.

If God created man -- if he is the father of us all, why did he make the criminals, the insane, the deformed and idiotic?

Should the inferior man thank God? Should the mother, who clasps to her breast an idiot child, thank God? Should the slave thank God?

The theologian says that God governs the wind, the rain, the lightning. How then can we account for the cyclone, the flood, the drought, the glittering bolt that kills?

Suppose we had a man in this country who could control the wind, the rain and lightning, and suppose we elected him to govern these things, and suppose that he allowed whole States to dry and wither, and at the same time wasted the rain in the sea. Suppose that he allowed the winds to destroy cities and to crush to shapelessness thousands of men and women, and allowed the lightnings to strike the life out of mothers and babes. What would we say? What would we think of such a savage?

And yet, according to the theologians, this is exactly the course pursued by God.

What do we think of a man, who will not, when he has the power, protect his friends? Yet the Christian's God allowed his enemies to torture and burn his friends, his worshipers.

Who has ingenuity enough to explain this?

What good man, having the power to prevent it, would allow the innocent to be imprisoned, chained in dungeons, and sigh against the dripping walls their weary lives away?

If God governs the world, why is innocence not a perfect shield? Why does injustice triumph?

Who can answer these questions?

In answer, the intelligent, honest man must say: I do not know.

X

This God must be, if he exists, a person -- a conscious being. Who can imagine an infinite personality? This God must have force, and we cannot conceive of force apart from matter. This God must be material. He must have the means by which he changes force to what we call thought. When he thinks he uses force, force that must be replaced. Yet we are told that he is infinitely wise. If he is, he does not think. Thought is a ladder -- a process by which we reach a conclusion. He who knows all conclusions cannot think. He cannot hope or fear. When knowledge is perfect there can be no passion, no emotion. If God is infinite he does not want. He has all. He who does not want does not act. The infinite must dwell in eternal calm.

It is as impossible to conceive of such a being as to imagine a square triangle, or to think of a circle without a diameter.

Yet we are told that it is our duty to love this God. Can we love the unknown, the inconceivable? Can it be our duty to love anybody? It is our duty to act justly, honestly, but it cannot be our duty to love. We cannot be under obligation to admire a painting -- to be charmed with a poem -- or thrilled with music. Admiration cannot be controlled. Taste and love are not the servants of the will. Love is, and must be free. It rises from the heart like perfume from a flower.

For thousands of ages men and women have been trying to love the gods -- trying to soften their hearts -- trying to get their aid.

I see them all. The panorama passes before me. I see them with outstretched hands -- with reverently closed eyes -- worshiping the sun. I see them bowing, in their fear and need, to meteoric stones -- imploring serpents, beasts and sacred trees -- praying to idols wrought of wood and stone. I see them building altars to the unseen powers, staining them with blood of child and beast. I see the countless priests and hear their solemn chants. I see the dying victims, the smoking altars, the swinging censers, and the rising clouds. I see the half-god men -- the mournful Christs, in many lands. I see the common things of life change to miracles as they speed from mouth to mouth. I see the insane prophets reading the secret book of fate by signs and dreams. I see them all -- the Assyrians chanting the praises of Asshur and Ishtar -- the Hindus worshiping Brahma, Vishnu and Draupadi, the white-armed -- the Chaldeans sacrificing to Bel and Hea -- the Egyptians bowing to Ptah and Ra, Osiris and Isis -- the Medes placating the storm, worshiping the fire -- the Babylonians supplicating Bel and Murodach -- I see them all by the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Ganges and the Nile. I see the Greeks building temples for Zeus, Neptune and Venus. I see the Romans kneeling to a hundred gods. I see others spurning idols and pouring out their hopes and fears to a vague image in the mind. I see the multitudes, with open mouths, receive as truths the myths and fables of the vanished years. I see them give their toil, their wealth to robe the priests, to build the vaulted roofs, the spacious aisles, the glittering domes. I see them clad in rags, huddled in dens and huts, devouring crusts and scraps, that they may give the more to ghosts and gods. I see them make their cruel creeds and fill the world with hatred, war, and death. I see them with their faces in the dust in the dark days of plague and sudden death, when cheeks are wan and lips are white for lack of bread. I hear their prayers, their sighs, their sobs. I see them kiss the unconscious lips as their hot tears fall on the pallid faces of the dead. I see the nations as they fade and fail. I see them captured and enslaved. I see their altars mingle with the common earth, their temples crumble slowly back to dust. I see their gods grow old and weak, infirm and faint. I see them fall from vague and misty thrones, helpless and dead. The worshipers receive no help. Injustice triumphs. Toilers are paid with the lash, -- babes are sold, -- the innocent stand on scaffolds, and the heroic perish in flames. I see the earthquakes devour, the volcanoes overwhelm, the cyclones wreck, the floods destroy, and the lightnings kill.

The nations perished. The gods died. The toil and wealth were lost. The temples were built in vain, and all the prayers died unanswered in the heedless air.

Then I asked myself the question: Is there a supernatural power -- an arbitrary mind -- an enthroned God -- a supreme will that sways the tides and currents of the world -- to which all causes bow?

I do not deny. I do not know -- but I do not believe. I believe that the natural is supreme -- that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken -- that there is no supernatural power that can answer prayer -- no power that worship can persuade or change -- no power that cares for man.

I believe that with infinite arms Nature embraces the all -- that there is no interference -- no chance -- that behind every event are the necessary and countless causes, and that beyond every event will be and must be the necessary and countless effects.

Man must protect himself. He cannot depend upon the supernatural -- upon an imaginary father in the skies. He must protect himself by finding the facts in Nature, by developing his brain, to the end that he may overcome the obstructions and take advantage of the forces of Nature.

Is there a God?

I do not know.

Is man immortal?

I do not know.

One thing I do know, and that is, that neither hope, nor fear, belief, nor denial, can change the fact. It is as it is, and it will be as it must be.

We wait and hope.

XI

When I became convinced that the Universe is natural -- that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world -- not even in infinite space. I was free -- free to think, to express my thoughts -- free to live to my own ideal -- free to live for myself and those I loved -- free to use all my faculties, all my senses -- free to spread imagination's wings -- free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope -- free to judge and determine for myself -- free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past -- free from popes and priests -- free from all the "called" and "set apart" -- free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies -- free from the fear of eternal pain -- free from the winged monsters of the night -- free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought -- no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings -- no chains for my limbs -- no lashes for my back -- no fires for my flesh -- no master's frown or threat -- no following another's steps -- no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.

And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain -- for the freedom of labor and thought -- to those who fell on the fierce fields of war, to those who died in dungeons bound with chains -- to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs -- to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn -- to those by fire consumed -- to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still.

Let us be true to ourselves -- true to the facts we know, and let us, above all things, preserve the veracity of our souls.

If there be gods we cannot help them, but we can assist our fellow-men. We cannot love the inconceivable, but we can love wife and child and friend.

We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know. We can tell the truth, and we can enjoy the blessed freedom that the brave have won. We can destroy the monsters of superstition, the hissing snakes of ignorance and fear. We can drive from our minds the frightful things that tear and wound with beak and fang. We can civilize our fellow-men. We can fill our lives with generous deeds, with loving words, with art and song, and all the ecstasies of love. We can flood our years with sunshine -- with the divine climate of kindness, and we can drain to the last drop the golden cup of joy.

---

quote:

---

They knew that God commenced to create one Monday morning, four thousand and four years before Christ. They knew that in the eternity -- back of that morning, he had done nothing. They knew that it took him six days to make the earth -- all plants, all animals, all life, and all the globes that wheel in space. They knew exactly what he did each day and when he rested. They knew the origin, the cause of evil, of all crime, of all disease and death.

---

Technically He started on a Sunday morning, the First day of the week. No wonder he's an agnostic now, his relatives couldn't even read their Bibles correctly and get the facts right.

/end nitpick/

AJ
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

We know, if we know anything, that devils do not exist -- that Christ never cast them out, and that if he pretended to, he was either ignorant, dishonest or insane.

---

quote:

---

Sunday was the first day of the week according to the Jewish method of reckoning, but for Christians it began to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath in Apostolic times as the day set apart for the public and solemn worship of God. The practice of meeting together on the first day of the week for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is indicated in Acts, xx 7; I Cor., xvi, 2; in Apoc., i, 10, it is called the Lord's day. In the Didache (xiv) the injunction is given: "On the Lord's Day come together and break bread. And give thanks (offer the Eucharist), after confessing your sins that your sacrifice may be pure". St. Ignatius (Ep. ad Magnes. ix) speaks of Christians as "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also Our Life rose again". In the Epistle of Barnabas (xv) we read: "Wherefore, also, we keep the eight day (i. e. the first of the week) with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead".

---

quote:

---

It seems to me impossible for a civilized man to love or worship, or respect the God of the Old Testament. A really civilized man, a really civilized woman, must hold such a God in abhorrence and contempt.

---

quote:

---

Belief is not subject to the will. Men think as they must. Children do not, and cannot, believe exactly as they were taught.

---

quote:

---

Like the most of you, I was raised among people who knew -- who were certain. They did not reason or investigate. They had no doubts.

---

quote:

---

It seems to me impossible for a civilized man to love or worship, or respect the God of the Old Testament. A really civilized man, a really civilized woman, must hold such a God in abhorrence and contempt.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the most of you, I was raised among people who knew -- who were certain. They did not reason or investigate. They had no doubts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

quote:

---

I didn't post anything on that subject because I see no way to bridge the gap between the two positions. Each rely on differing foundational premises on the nature of good and evil, of humanity's ability to discern the truth, and the possible limitations of human knowledge concerning both.

---

Well, the only way I can see for a person to cross that divide is through a leap of faith. The trouble is that the people who believe -- as I do -- that we have to attempt to make value judgments as though there is no higher authority have absolutely no reason to make such a leap. Facetiously, given that I don't know if god exists, there isn't anyone else around who is qualified to make value judgments about what he is reported to have done in the Old Testament
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

That above quote is one of the reasons I will always, always love Orson Scott Card.

---

quote:

---

Well, the only way I can see for a person to cross that divide is through a leap of faith. The trouble is that the people who believe -- as I do -- that we have to attempt to make value judgments as though there is no higher authority have absolutely no reason to make such a leap.

---

quote:

---

because all of the non-straightness in the grain is within an overall framework (the plank) that is fundamentally straight.

---

quote:

---

JNSB, the thing *I* found most impressive about it is that it was written 108 years ago.

---

quote:

---

But the leap of faith is required to get to either side of the divide.

---

quote:

---

I think that's the point, especially with respect to the topic of this thread.

---

quote:

---

No leap of faith is required to be an agnostic or a "weak" atheist. It certainly takes no faith to say "I don't know whether god exists."

---

quote:

---

Also, Johnny, he does say that there are many exceptions, but that generally,(to paraphrase) people follow their family customs and that change is usually very gradual. I happen to agree with this.

So, yes, people can force themselves to change their beliefs, belief can be subject to the will, but I think very, very few people make a major shift in belief unless they have a rather pressing reason to do so.

---

quote:

---

Read Kant and Coleridge. These guys are impressive and did not have the logical failings that Ingersoll had. Even Descartes who also just rattled along in his own skull, was far more impressive and lived 350 years ago. Just because this kind of thing was written a long time ago does not make it impressive, to me anyway. It just means we haven't progressed much.

---

quote:

---

But that's not the topic the leap of faith was introduced in reference to. The topic is whether God, as described in the Old Testament, acted in a morally good manner.

---

quote:

---

But this doesn't invalidate the point; people who believe that Old Testament god acted in a morally good manner are going to be mostly people who believe in the Old Testament, whereas people who do not believe this are going to be almost exclusively people who do not believe in god at all. It's pretty much the same divide.

---

quote:

---

I am about to invoke Godwin's Law. How is "slaughter all the people in that city because Jehovah says so" morally different from "gas all those Jews because Hitler says so"? We have the same amount of information about Hitler's reasoning, as about Jehovah's reasoning : To wit, they have both stated in their books that "those people are evil, and I dislike them." So if we cannot judge Jehovah, how can we judge Hitler?

---

quote:

---

free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds

---

I just want to point out the plural use of the word creeds here

Interesting essay. I didn't look at the date so I was quite surprised when I read it had been written in 1896.

The other option is to say if there is a God and he did orchestrate all these nasty things (I'm not saying at all that this is what I believe because it's not) then is it alright for the average human to say "Sorry God, I'm not going to do what you say anymore." You know, social contract, pitchfork rebellion etc.


 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Yes, Dagonee. Hitler also had access to information we don't. And, indeed, claimed to be all-knowing and infallible.

---

quote:

---

And, incidentally, so what if he created the Universe? Does a great athlete or scientist have a better moral right than a dullard to kill indiscriminately? If not, why should a great creator?

---

quote:

---

So he says, yes. Your argument appears to come down to "I believe this book (the Bible) but not that book (Mein Kampf)."

---

quote:

---

If "Mein Kampf" were true and accurate in every particular, is it not then moral to kill Jews?

---

quote:

---

If the Bible is false in every particular, is it not then immoral to kill Canaanites, etc?

---

quote:

---

If the Bible is true in every particular, is it not still immoral for the Jews to kill the Canaanites? After all, they have only the word of their god that there is additional information.

---

quote:

---

If Jehovah had done it himself, that might be different. Nonetheless, if, in a court of law, the accused admitted to murder, pleaded extenuating circumstances, but refused to say what the circumstances were, would you acquit?

---

I wouldn't acquit. But I don't pretend that the criminal law perfectly reflects the moral law. If God told me in a manner I accepted as valid that I should acquit, I would.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
King of Men: As a non-member of God's Chosen People, it ain't good news for you!

After the crucifixion I don't necessarily believe it was worse, since he basically opened the doors to allow anybody to become one of the "chosen people." Still, I don't know enough about the B.C. perceptions of the afterlife. What happened, for example to the souls of the Canaanites? I'm not convinced that damnation was a new innovation with the death of Christ.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

The problem with all these generalizations is that they are based on feeling, assumption and a person's limited experience. There is no evidence brought to bear here that is not tainted by Bacon's "Idols of the mind". There are no experiments, no data, no empirical evidence, no testimonials here, just one person's belief. How is that more convincing than listening to just some average guy on the street?

I understand the allure of saying "...I think very, very few people..." but it's a trap because your whole argument becomes incredibly subjective and it just hopes that your feelings are correct.

---

quote:

---

All of these comforting and reasonable things were taught by the ministers in their pulpits -- by teachers in Sunday schools and by parents at home. The children were victims. They were assaulted in the cradle -- in their mother's arms. Then, the schoolmaster carried on the war against their natural sense, and all the books they read were filled with the same impossible truths. The poor children were helpless. The atmosphere they breathed was filled with lies -- lies that mingled with their blood.

---

quote:

---

His argument is that we should believe based on experience

---

quote:

---

Religion is not rational, King of Men. Religion is based on faith, which is, by definition, the opposite of reason.

---

quote:

---

Not all religions are based on faith. Some are definitely based on reason. In some ways, you can thank people like Ingersoll for that.

---

If the religion makes moral "ought" statements ("people ought to do X"), then that religion is based on faith, meaning at least one premise not suitable to obective proof.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
Of which religions do you speak when you say they are based on reason? I still think that even those religions that have reason as a large component must have, at their core, assertions that cannot be proven empirically. Otherwise it isn't religion, it's science.
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
Dag, this is amazing! We're arguing substantially the same side, for once!
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Praise the postwhoring gods, I don't have to load the ten-jillion-kilobyte first page every time I wish to view this thread anymore!

(On a related note, I despise dial-up internet access.)
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

But they had a direct line to God at that point, and had made covenants to obey him. He was accepted as a source of reliable information.

---

quote:

---

But the reliability of that information is precisely the point at issue! You cannot argue that God is good because he says so, and then argue that he is truthful because he is good.

---

quote:

---

First, experience includes the stories we are told by others. Most experience, in fact.

---

quote:

---

Second, it's rather large hubris to believe that we can experience enough in our own lifetimes, interacting with a small percentage of people on a tiny portion of the earth (not to mention the Universe), to draw meaningful conclusions about life. It is necessary to draw on the experiences of others to do so.

---

quote:

---

Is there a God?

I do not know.

Is man immortal?

I do not know.

One thing I do know, and that is, that neither hope, nor fear, belief, nor denial, can change the fact. It is as it is, and it will be as it must be.

We wait and hope.

XI

When I became convinced that the Universe is natural -- that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom.

---

quote:

---

The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world -- not even in infinite space. I was free -- free to think, to express my thoughts -- free to live to my own ideal -- free to live for myself and those I loved -- free to use all my faculties, all my senses -- free to spread imagination's wings -- free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope -- free to judge and determine for myself -- free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past -- free from popes and priests -- free from all the "called" and "set apart" -- free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies -- free from the fear of eternal pain -- free from the winged monsters of the night -- free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought -- no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings -- no chains for my limbs -- no lashes for my back -- no fires for my flesh -- no master's frown or threat -- no following another's steps -- no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.

And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain -- for the freedom of labor and thought -- to those who fell on the fierce fields of war, to those who died in dungeons bound with chains -- to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs -- to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn -- to those by fire consumed -- to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still.

Let us be true to ourselves -- true to the facts we know, and let us, above all things, preserve the veracity of our souls.

If there be gods we cannot help them, but we can assist our fellow-men. We cannot love the inconceivable, but we can love wife and child and friend.

We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know. We can tell the truth, and we can enjoy the blessed freedom that the brave have won. We can destroy the monsters of superstition, the hissing snakes of ignorance and fear. We can drive from our minds the frightful things that tear and wound with beak and fang. We can civilize our fellow-men. We can fill our lives with generous deeds, with loving words, with art and song, and all the ecstasies of love. We can flood our years with sunshine -- with the divine climate of kindness, and we can drain to the last drop the golden cup of joy.

---

quote:

---

I agree. But I also think ambivalence or failure to commit can cause evil just as great.

---

Fanatical devotion to a doctrine of wishy-washiness, yes.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I have to go and won't be able to post until tomorrow evening. Night, all. Thanks for the many posts in this thread.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Idemo, that is a very good example. I agree that faith is a trait of everyday life rather than just a religious issue. And yes, that woman returning to an abusive spouse has ill-placed her faith.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, I've co-opted the definition of faith from the bible, because I think it's a really good one, but in my reasoning you can have "faith" in anything, whether it be an ideology, a religion, or a person. Putting faith in the wrong thing leads to trouble. Just look at any woman who keeps going back to an abusive spouse because he's "good at heart, and he promised he'd change." She is absolutely certain of what she hopes for, and sure that the change she does not see will come to pass. Textbook example of faith in precisely the wrong thing.

---

That's even broader. Great.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

To get back to your point about "devils", should I behave as if there are devils when there is no evidence for them, or should I behave on what has been "shown" to exist and, if devils are shown to exist, then act on that knowledge?

---

quote:

---

But you cannot argue he is bad if the nature of morality itself requires knowledge of God to discern.

---

quote:

---

If the religion makes moral "ought" statements ("people ought to do X"), then that religion is based on faith, meaning at least one premise not suitable to obective proof.

---

quote:

---

Plainly, many atheists are good and moral people by either your standards or mine.

---

quote:

---

Therefore, morality does not require knowledge of God, and is indeed compatible with outright rejection of God.

---

quote:

---

No, if a religion says people ought to do "X" because "Y" will happen on earth, then that religion (that statement) is based on reason.

---

quote:

---

If a religion says "people ought to do X" because God says so and leave it at that, then that religion, that statement, is based on faith.

---

You've just jumped to the first principle premise, while leaving it out of the "because Y will happen" premise.

Dagonee

[ November 30, 2004, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Might I suggest that the occurrance of "possession" may not be a part of our everyday experience because we don't interact with people who regularly open themselves to demon possession?

While I don't have any first-hand accounts, I do have accounts from trusted sources. An example: there is a certain sort of "magic" practiced in Brazil that is rather disturbing. Therefore it is more common for LDS missionaries (the source of my personal knowledge on the matter) in that part of the world to see the influence of of devils and demons than here in the US in their everyday lives.

Might people in Jesus' culture and time more frequently invited such influences? I don't know. I have also heard it suggested that some of the cases of possession may have simply been certain kinds of sickness that was not well understood. Certainly not all the cases, though, since the accounts describe Christ carrying on conversations with the demons involved.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I'm pretty sure he means sitting idly while bad things happen.

Kind of like the United Nations and Sudan.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Idemo, I was actually responding to your post.

Also, I am not typing particularly fast this evening because I have family members distracting me.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Dag, I wonder if you could clarify how ambivelance can cause as great an evil. If you mean a person failing to prevent an evil they could have.... I don't know. I'm having trouble with this one. Perhaps I should have said that people with misplaced faith have caused a great deal of evil. I really can't think of any great evils that have been caused by mad crusades of the ambivalent.

---

quote:

---

Not if morality includes duty owed to God.

---

quote:

---

Suppose you were presented with incontrovertible evidence that God exists, and is evil. However, he'll let you off Hell if you bow down and worship him with all your heart. Would you bend the knee?

---

quote:

---

Suppose you were presented with incontrovertible evidence that God exists, and is evil. However, he'll let you off Hell if you bow down and worship him with all your heart. Would you bend the knee?

---

quote:

---

If there are any Jews reading this, though, comrade beverly raises a good point. How can you believe in such a murderous god?

---

I don't. Read the entire Tanakh -- in Hebrew, to understand the actual words, with all their nuance -- and preferably a good commentary, because the Written Torah was never meant to be understood without the Oral Torah. Then I'll be happy to explain, case by case, why I don't believe God to be "murderous."
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Twinky: I certainly don't think meditation is a bad thing.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Kind to animals, gives generously to the poor, cares for his parents. He's just going to torture you if you don't do as he says

---

quote:

---

And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.

---

If you have any oral traditions explaining how this is not murderous, I'd be greatly pleased to hear them.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
KoM, you misrepresent my beliefs. Let me explain them to you.

I don't believe in a God that tortures anyone. I do believe in a God that follows natural laws, and in some sense is limited by them. Therefore, I believe, quite fiercely, that Hell is a natural consequence of sin rather than the arbitrary infliction of a God who likes to exercise power over helpless prey. God is telling us like it is, telling us what we need to do in order to avoid certain natural consequences, to the point of making great sacrifice in order to even make it possible. Does that help?

[ November 30, 2004, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
KoM, I think rivka was pretty clear that you don't possess the necessary knowledge to understand her explanation, and that she doesn't have the ability, time, or inclination to provide all the necessary background material in a post here.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
King of Men, the example with finding out God is evil, but will still grant salvation after capitulation is self-contradiction by definition because of the christian definition of morality(iction).

The scale of morality goes like so:
Good - Follows the Commandments of God
Evil - Does not follow the Commandments of God.

Thus, the proposition that God is evil simply does not work using that definition of morality. Now, one could conclude that god is eil under other moralities, such as

Good - Kind to all individuals
Evil - Cruel (or indefferent) to all individuals

but that would be to deny the basic tenets of Christianity. In other words, if you have faith in God, and believe the bible is true, then God cannot be evil even if he is cruel, vengeful, and vindictive, because good and evil are defined by God. Period. Now, it's also an article of faith that God is Love, God is Righteous. God is God is god is... but in the strictest sense, he is by definition good no matter what he does. If that makes no sense to you, its because you have no faith. Join the club
 

---

Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
 

quote:

---

Duty, like respect, is a line that travels two ways. Even a feudal lord had duties to his vassals, including that of rendering fair judgment. If there is no reciprocity, then 'duty' is no more than a synonym for extortion.

---

fortunately, there is reciprocity. any one who believes in god will testify to all the blessings he gives us. even the blessings he gives to non-believers. you should bow down and praise god for what he gives you, not because he asks you to. it is quite immature to think that because you have the jaded impression that the god of the old testament is not a good being that he doesn't provide for his creation.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Thanks, Dags.

Dagonee is exactly right. In that single verse, I see multiple translation issues. Moreover, you have chosen an event where not only was the killing NOT ordered by God, the culprits were chastised repeatedly. Their descendants for all time were affected!
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

Twinky: I certainly don't think meditation is a bad thing.

---

But do you think that because it's relaxing, refreshing, and healthy... or because it's a few steps away from prayer?

I don't do it very often, and for me it's more like karate than music in that I don't acheive a transcendant state (i.e. when meditating or doing karate forms my mind is clear, but when lost in music my mind is outright gone).
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

In other words, if you have faith in God, and believe the bible is true, then God cannot be evil even if he is cruel, vengeful, and vindictive, because good and evil are defined by God. Period. Now, it's also an article of faith that God is Love, God is Righteous. God is God is god is... but in the strictest sense, he is by definition good no matter what he does.

---

I agree %100 that the Bible does not profess that God is cruel, vengeful, and vindictive. In order for the Bible to be true, then God's actions in the Bible must *not* be cruel, vengeful, and vindictive in reality even if it seems so to us mortals with the understanding we have.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Twinky, I think it is good for all of those reasons. I think that meditation can help us know ourselves, ponder on the meanings of things, and even find God. IMO, that would be a very good thing.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Rivka, I just saw your first post. I would be very interested in what you have to say on the matter. Email would be fine if you don't want to discuss it here.

quote:

---

And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.

---

KoM, this was a very poorly chosen example to try and prove your point. There are so many cases you could have chosen, and this is one that was so obviously NOT condoned by God! Unless you believe that God makes people do all the horrible, evil things they do and we have no free will at all. But who believes that?

[ November 30, 2004, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Beverly, as a theist, is it still good if an atheist converts to a theistic religion other than your own? Let's say that I converted to, say, Islam. We would believe in the same god, but our observances would be relatively different. Would that make me any less not saved, so to speak?

I mean, I realize that you're either "saved" or "not saved," and that for many denominations you are not saved so long as you are not of that particular denomination, but are theists "better" than atheists in this regard?

(That sounds really weird, but I think you understand what I mean.)
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*grin* How's your Hebrew, beverly?

Seriously -- email would be fine. However, I do not currently have time for detailed scholarship. So anything that requires detail will likely have to wait a couple weeks. (The only reason I'm not grading papers right now is that I am On a Mental-Health BREAK!)
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm going to take a page from rivka's book. If you want to discuss Christian doctrine, I'll be happy to (although not now, I'm going to bed). If you want to discuss caricatures of Christians doctrine, you can find lots of people to do that with you on the atheist/agnostic boards.

---

quote:

---

1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

2:21-23 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

4:9-11 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

14:9-11 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

---

Is it, or is it not, the true Word of God? Does it, or does it not, describe great torments for those who refuse to worship Yahweh? Does it, or does it not, state the the Lord is worthy of worship?
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
You don't get to judge god by the same yardstick as everybody else. For the faithful, god is the yardstick. God gets to do things that would be evil for people to do (but believers assume that he does them for good reasons because goodness is a part of god's nature).

I'm an atheist, and even I accept that. My problem with the Old Testament is that god acts awfully tribal for the creator of the universe.
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
Man, seriously, you are picking the worst scriptures to prove your point. The prophecies in revelation are so incredibly cryptic that there is great debate whether some of it is metaphorical, all of it is metaphorical, whether it's a dream, the result of some bad brie, whatever. Anybody who tells you they know what it means is deluding themselves, and probably got it from a cheesy sci-fi series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B Jenkins. If you are going to talk about the so called crimes of God, find some that aren't easy to explain away.
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
Check 1 Samuel

1 Samuel 15:2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.
1 Samuel 15:3 'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "

There. You are still judging God by your own secular morality, though. If you cannot understand that Christians do not do that, you aren't going to understand their belief. I grow weary. I have to go to bed soon.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Actually, yeah. That's another thing that's been bothering me. Lots of atheists and agnostics decry wholly literal interpretations of the Bible as foolish, but then use these same literal readings to attack people who use metaphor in their interpretations.

Anyway. That's enough of that. I'm just interested in answers to my earlier question ("as a theist, would you rather an atheist become a theist even if the atheist did not convert to your own denomination?).
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Twinky, how much do you know about LDS theology? The question of "saved" or "damned" is somewhat complex. I would say that, to my understanding, according to the doctrine of the LDS church, being Islam isn't much more helpful to salvation that being non-theistic. But being a good, moral person is helpful.

We believe that certain ordinances are required for salvation, that they must be performed by one holding authority from God. But at the same time, we don't believe that receiving those ordinances guaruntees anything. We believe it is dependant upon the person "enduring to the end", prooving themselves, living up to their covenants with God. These ordinances are offered to all people, living and dead--eventually. They are not judged until after they have had opportunity to exercise faith, repent, and enter into these ordinances. As to what constitutes an "opportunity", well that is between God and that person.

Rivka, aiee! I don't know much, if any Hebrew. But if you were willing to translate a bit for me, I honestly would be very interested on insight to the events in the Old Testament, since I do not understand much of what I read there.

KoM, how can I respond to your quotes unless I can reference their context? How can I do that without knowing which book they are found in? I can only see having problem with the one about the adulteress, personally.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Do I really want to get into this again?

"At least it acknowledges the necessary dichotomy, too often ignored by those who like Christ as a moral teacher and reject all the "God stuff" in the Gospels, that Christ was either exactly what he said, insane, or a fiend (figuratively or literally)."

Nope. The problem with Lewis' argument is that other possibilities exist: Christ could easily have been misquoted or the history distorted by fallible men; Christ could have knowingly lied about the afterlife with noble intentions (even though Lewis quite lamely insists that this is impossible); and so on....
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Gah, this thread is going too fast for me to keep up.

The whole point at issue is whether or not I can judge a god as I would judge a human. Plenty of humans have said 'this court has no jurisdiction over me', from James II (I think) onwards. Heads still got chopped, in many cases justly. Until it has been explained to my satisfaction why a god should be treated differently, I'll treat them the same.

To say that I do not have the necessary background to understand doctrine is frankly a cheap cop-out. I could just as well say that you have all been brainwashed to believe in God. Or that because none of you are trained in quantum mechanics, your beliefs are invalid.

Having read the whole chapter, I see that my Genesis reference was ill-chosen; I just picked the first verse that turned up in a search on 'sword'. Let's try Deuteronomy, 13:9-11, on what one should do if one of the people turns to idolatry. As far as I can tell, this is the word of the Lord, commanding his people how to behave.

quote:

---

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

---

Is that a command to kill? Or am I misunderstanding totally because I do not have the right dialectical training?
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
As a former theist, I would say no, twinky. When I was a christian, a muslim was not better than an atheist. Both were damned if they didn't convert to Christianity (though I would never have put it so indelicately.) I believe the distinction is between a heathen, who has no religion, and a pagan, who worships false Gods. I may be wrong on that, and paganism might refer to a specific set of religions, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. BTW, from the perspectives of Christians, Allah is not the same as the LORD. They both trace back to the same man, Abraham, but the two have vastly different perceptions. Islam probably has more in common with Judaism than it does with Christianity, and you need only look at the relations between Islamic cultures and Israel to see that the common parentage of the religions doesn't neccesarily make them equivalent in the eyes of the followers.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Actually, beverly, I may cheat a bit and suggest some links.
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
King if Men, if you are judging God by a secular morality, you very well may find him a ruthless killer. That's fine. You are welcome to. Just understand that the reason other's don't come to the same conclusion is that they are not judging God based on a secular morality.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I'll take links. Links are just fine.
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
And please don't ask people to try to convince you not to judge God bt a secular morality. That's your choice. Faith is their choice. That's it. There's your answer. This is going nowhere.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
KoM, I do not dispute the fact that God "punishes" man in mortality. But I believe it is for the same reasons why a parent punishes a child or why a criminal is punished. Two main reasons I see. One to encourage correct behavior, the other to keep the "evil" from spreading and hurting others.

What I do *not* believe is that God continues to punish someone when all hope has been lost of them being redeemed. I believe the punishment there is a natural consequence. Why do I believe this? Because I believe in a God who does not delight in hurting others. He only does it for the greater good. There is no greater good in hurting the damned--unless their is a chance for redemption. And that leads into the LDS beliefs about the afterlife... and perhaps the Catholic belief also.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Beverly,

quote:

---

Twinky, how much do you know about LDS theology? The question of "saved" or "damned" is somewhat complex. I would say that, to my understanding, according to the doctrine of the LDS church, being Islam isn't much more helpful to salvation that being non-theistic. But being a good, moral person is helpful.

---

I'd characterize my knowledge as "limited." When I wrote off the Big Three, all of their associated denominations went as well, in one swell foop.

quote:

---

We believe that certain ordinances are required for salvation, that they must be performed by one holding authority from God. But at the same time, we don't believe that receiving those ordinances guaruntees anything. We believe it is dependant upon the person "enduring to the end", prooving themselves, living up to their covenants with God. These ordinances are offered to all people, living and dead--eventually. They are not judged until after they have had opportunity to exercise faith, repent, and enter into these ordinances. As to what constitutes an "opportunity", well that is between God and that person.

---

It's nice to hear that there may yet be hope for me even if I die an atheist

Seriously, though, thanks for answering my question.

|demosthenes|,

quote:

---

As a former theist, I would say no, twinky. When I was a christian, a muslim was not better than an atheist. Both were damned if they didn't convert to Christianity (though I would never have put it so indelicately.) I believe the distinction is between a heathen, who has no religion, and a pagan, who worships false Gods. I may be wrong on that, and paganism might refer to a specific set of religions, but I'm pretty sure I'm right.

---

Okay. This also makes sense. Obviously I didn't expect all theists (former or current) to answer the same way, which is part of why I asked the question.

quote:

---

BTW, from the perspectives of Christians, Allah is not the same as the LORD. They both trace back to the same man, Abraham, but the two have vastly different perceptions. Islam probably has more in common with Judaism than it does with Christianity, and you need only look at the relations between Islamic cultures and Israel to see that the common parentage of the religions doesn't neccesarily make them equivalent in the eyes of the followers

---

quote:

---

The prophecies in revelation are so incredibly cryptic that there is great debate whether some of it is metaphorical, all of it is metaphorical, whether it's a dream, the result of some bad brie, whatever.

---

quote:

---

In other words, if you have faith in God, and believe the bible is true, then God cannot be evil even if he is cruel, vengeful, and vindictive, because good and evil are defined by God. Period.

---

quote:

---

Therefore, I believe, quite fiercely, that Hell is a natural consequence of sin rather than the arbitrary infliction of a God who likes to exercise power over helpless prey.

---

That makes a certain amount of sense, given the premise. Which is kind of like saying that in Orwell's 1984, it makes sense to keep your head down and not criticise Big Brother. I prefer not to believe in such a universe, and don't see why anyone would choose to. Also, why then is it a sin not to worship God? Surely that's not a natural law that he has no power over.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Twinky, yup, we believe there is hope for anyone who dies an atheist. But I must add that we also believe that a person is far better off accepting the gospel in this life than in the next.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

And please don't ask people to try to convince you not to judge God bt a secular morality. That's your choice. Faith is their choice. That's it. There's your answer. This is going nowhere.

---

quote:

---

If it doesn't say what it professes to say, how can you put faith in any of it?

---

quote:

---

in one sell fwoop

---

NONONONONO! Get it right. It's "one swell foop"!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Also, why then is it a sin not to worship God? Surely that's not a natural law that he has no power over.

---

quote:

---

I can define my own morality, too. The question is, if you don't agree with it, would you worship me? Would you make excuses for me, saying you were sure I had good reason for it?

---

quote:

---

Well, look, either it's true or it's not true. Now, I don't mind the occasional parable, clearly marked as such. But a book which is intended to stand for the ages ought not to rely on interpretation by a caste of shamans. Also, Revelations was taken as literal truth for many centuries; why should I accept your interpretation?

---

quote:

---

So, wait. Because YOU think that it "ought not to rely on interpretation," it's wholly invalid for people other than you to interpret a text that lots of people think is quite open to multiple interpretations?

---

quote:

---

That still doesn't make sense. OK, assume for the moment that you cannot be happy without worship, though I feel I'm doing a pretty good job.

---

quote:

---

Assume also that actual sin will get you into Hell through no fault of God's. But lack of worship gets you the same Hell!

---

Who's Hell? You may find that my faith's doctrine about Hell is rather unlike the conventional version you are most familiar with.

quote:

---

Why not create a Limbo for non-worshipping but otherwise blameless souls? In fact, even for the sinful souls, surely it would be possible to destroy them rather than torture them? Eternal oblivion is surely preferable to eternal pain.

---

It is actually a specific part of our doctrine and scripture that the soul cannot be destroyed. It is impossible. Yes, we believe that there are some things God cannot do. But we also believe that no one can do those things. No one has *more* power than God.

As for a Limbo for non-worshipping souls, we believe very strongly that there is missionary work done amongst the dead in the afterlife--that the gospel is being preached to them even now and many of them are accepting it and receiving salvation. While it seems reasonable from LDS doctrine and scripture that all is *not* revealed immediately upon death, the fact that your soul is still existing while your mortal shell decomposes might make some of the previous agnostics/atheists more inclined to heed a heavenly message.

[ November 30, 2004, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

If I were shown a really good reason for Hell, its actual existence proved, and then given a promise of Heaven? Indeed I would worship, do I look stupid? In fact, the threat of Hell, as described in Revelations, Dante, and other places, is sufficient in itself, or would be if I believed it. I'm principled, but not that principled.

---

quote:

---

But it sounds like you are far more motivated by fear. I was more curious if you might be motivated by love, beauty, and understanding to worship God. Worshiping out of fear is an ugly thing, IMO.

---

quote:

---

I can believe that you can be reasonably happy in this life without worshipping God. I also believe that you can be reasonably happy in this life without experiencing marriage or parenthood. But I also believe that life with all of those things can be richer and more joyous.

---

quote:

---

If someone is exhibitng convulsions, involuntary behavior, or other symptoms associated with possession, and someone comes up to that person, says "I cast you out, foul demon" and the symptoms stop, why would you accept a "scientific" explanation that it was psychosomatic over the explanation that there was a demon?

---

Because I have experience with words and beliefs. I've seen the power they have to make people see things that aren't there. The placebo effect is well documented in scientific literature. Biofeedback is well documented.

To my knowledge, no 'demon' has ever been shown to 'exist' outside of the imagination. (But believe me, I find evidence for metaphysical stuff tremendously interesting! If you want to give me evidence that they exist, please share. )

quote:

---

In other words, if devils do exist, isn't it potentially very bad to act as if they don't?

---

Maybe. Though, I would say that the consequences of saying they do exist, and they don't, and ignoring the large evidence for material causes of, for example, those things you mentioned, that medicine and psychology have given us, are much more worse.

[ December 01, 2004, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
KoM, Idemo has a very good point. Looking at the failings of those who profess faith in Christ can be very discouraging. But I suspect you are earnest when you say your problem is with the doctrine rather than the practice of individuals.

Namely, you are disturbed by Hell. You think about it because the idea bothers you. But then you say that you are only talking about a certain concept of Hell. Well, what if that concept is wrong? Better yet, what if you are misunderstanding what Hell actually is? Would that make a difference?
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Thinking about my last post reminds me of the alchemists. It's really fascinating how they tried to base science off of how they percieved the bible, or various metaphysical 'principles'.

[ December 01, 2004, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I look at the Bible. It says, and I quote, 'lake of fire'. But the exact nature of the punishment is not relevant; the way I see it, any threat to gain worship is immoral.

In any case, we were not discussing my faith, or lack thereof. We were discussing the faith of people who do believe in hellfire, literal hellfire that burns, and still maintain that the Lord their God is a loving and just God. That just doesn't make sense to me. Your doctrine, that God is not in fact omnipotent, is a possible solution, though there are still problems with it, as I noted above. But it seems to me that that is a slightly unusual doctrine within Christianity.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
The big problem with agnosticism is that agnostics consistently misunderstand what differentiates them from non-agnostics. Agnostics typically believe the difference between them and others are that others are "certain" of their beliefs, whereas agnostics admit they don't really know. Or, as this essay says:

quote:

---

Like the most of you, I was raised among people who knew -- who were certain. They did not reason or investigate. They had no doubts. They knew that they had the truth. In their creed there was no guess -- no perhaps. They had a revelation from God. They knew the beginning of things. They knew that God commenced to create one Monday morning, four thousand and four years before Christ. They knew that in the eternity -- back of that morning, he had done nothing. They knew that it took him six days to make the earth -- all plants, all animals, all life, and all the globes that wheel in space. They knew exactly what he did each day and when he rested. They knew the origin, the cause of evil, of all crime, of all disease and death.

---

quote:

---

But the exact nature of the punishment is not relevant; the way I see it, any threat to gain worship is immoral.

---

quote:

---

However, a true atheist believes that there is no God, but more importantly, they believe that it can be known there is no God.

---

quote:

---

Christians (for example) believe not only that there is a God, but that it can be known there is a God.

---

quote:

---

Faith is a choice to believe in something without any evidence, to believe without knowing, and thus to choose to know.

---

I would say faith is a choice to believe based on evidence even though you don't know for sure.

quote:

---

However, a true atheist believes that there is no God, but more importantly, they believe that it can be known there is no God. Christians (for example) believe not only that there is a God, but that it can be known there is a God. I, as an agnostic, may believe there is no god, but I readily concede that I may be wrong, because more important than whether I lean toward theism or atheism, I believe it cannot be known whether there is a God or not.

---

I am not sure how much I agree with this. I used to think that atheists were people who felt certain that there is no God. Then it was pointed out to me that there are "strong" and "weak" atheists. Most are "weak". Some would say they are agnostics, then. I don't know what I think about that. And as for believers, I think many of them freely admit that they *believe* rather than *know* (depending on your criteria for something to be considered knowledge). As for believing that it can be known that there is no God, I don't get that. Believing that it can be known that there is a God makes so much more sense. All you need is sufficient evidence. How do you get sufficient evidence to KNOW that there is no God?

And I thought an agnostic was someone who does not know. Is it someone who believes you cannot know? That it is impossible? That is odd. How can you know anything then? What if you were to receive convincing evidence?

So I guess both the "I believe you can KNOW there is no God" and the "I believe it is impossible to know if there is a God" both don't make sense to me. I have no problem with someone saying "I don't know" or "it is my belief that there is no God" or "it is my belief that there is a God" or "I know there is a God". All of those make sense to me.

[ December 01, 2004, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
But faith basically requires that there be no evidence.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

To me, that verse basically confirms what I had already leaned toward, that faith is a choice.

As for the certainty issue, I may be wrong on this one, then. I will still call myself an agnostic, because I honestly do not believe that MY beliefs can be proven sufficiently for me to try to convince others of them. Atheism, to me, conjures images of those people like Madeline Murray O'Hare who are actively anti-religion. That may be a misconception on my part, but with the level of respect I maintain for people who do have real faith, I would rather not associate myself with those who militantly scorn faith.

Look, one of your problems with agnosticism is that agnostics don't defend and advocate for their beliefs. I can only speak for myself, but I have seen the attempts to advocate for God, like Anselm's Ontological proof, etc. I have seen attempts to advocate for atheism (usually vitriolic bil-spewing at religions). I'm honestly not convinced either way. I can see both sides.

And beverly, it's perfectly possible that a typical agnostic simply doesn't know. I, however, believe it impossible to know.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
I see very little difference between the terms "agnostic" and "atheist". Maybe an agnostic is one who believes that there's exactly a 50% chance of there being a god.

I label myself an atheist because I live my life as if there is no ("a") god ("theos"). It's the way I've been my entire life, and I've never seen or experienced anything that even makes me remotely believe that there is a god.

But I don't believe that it can be proven that there isn't, nor do I discount the possibility that we will someday find out that there is a god. (Hopefully more impressive than the ones so far )

I think a lot of people have misconceptions of atheists, though, as opposed to agnostics. Most likely because, like any group of people, the stupidest ones are the loudest.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
And I liked the article, Storm. Aside from the strange logic in places, he voices a lot of the reasons I, too, have for being an Atheist. And he does it in layman's terms.
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
Well, I believe only that I have no (a) knowledge (gnosis) of a god, so I'm an agnostic . I readily concede, though, that atheists have been mischaracterized by agnostics as haing a certainty they do not neccesarily claim. The nice thing about agnostics is that they tend not to be very loud at all. I, of course, am just a general loudmouth about everything, so I am an exception. The guy who wrot the piece that started this thread, however, I would definitely characterize as hostile to religion, which I usually associate with atheism.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, if a religion says people ought to do "X" because "Y" will happen on earth, then that religion (that statement) is based on reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. Because it requires an unspoken premise that "Y is desirable." If this unspoken premise is objectively proveable, then it relies on some other premise, and so on until a first, unprovable (in the scientific or "rational" sense) is arrived at.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a religion says "people ought to do X" because God says so and leave it at that, then that religion, that statement, is based on faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've just jumped to the first principle premise, while leaving it out of the "because Y will happen" premise.

---

Are you defining 'first principle' as something based solely in the mind without reference to external reality?
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
How did I miss this thread?

Great job guys. Super good read.

Salute!

Long live the agnostics!
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"In practicality, agnostics are believers who want to avoid admitting and advocating their beliefs, for one reason or another."

This is yet another case of Xap attempting to redefine a term in a way that immediately excludes the people who actually apply the term to themselves in daily life.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Correctly so, too. And this is another case of Tom avoiding the issue without giving any reasons.

The difference between agnostics and atheists is not that one thinks they have knowledge and the other does not, as shown pretty clearly by all the atheists who don't claim any specific knowledge of God's nonexistence. If this is not the difference, what IS the difference?

Is there no difference? I think there is, but it is not a difference in what they believe aboug God (both agnostics and atheists normally believe the same thing, with exceptions on various extremes) - rather, it is a difference in what they will say about their beliefs. If this is not the difference, I'm open to suggestions, provided they are actually things that are necessarily different between agnostics and atheists/theists.

[ December 01, 2004, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Heb. 11: 1

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

---

Here is the quote from the King James version of the Bible. You can see why I would include the word "evidence" in my definition of faith.

quote:

---

I will still call myself an agnostic, because I honestly do not believe that MY beliefs can be proven sufficiently for me to try to convince others of them.

---

OK, I think understand what you believe here. You can't imagine feeling strongly enough one way or the other to wish to proselyte. But do you also believe that it is impossible to be convinced enough to believe, yourself?

[ December 01, 2004, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Xap, Tom is nothing if not consistent with himself. Anyone who knows him well on this board knows that he is very outspoken about his agnosticism and even self-identifies as a proselyting agnostic.

Granted, we don't see many proselyting agnostics in the world, but Tom feels fervently on this issue that it is the right, good, and healthy way to view things. He wishes to convert "strong" atheists (I assume) and believers a like to his way of thinking. Thus, his own life goes against your definition. Is he the exception to the rule? I don't know.

So what is the meaningful difference between atheist and agnostic? Gee willikers. I dunno. It certainly seems to be a very subjective thing.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Agnostics are often outspoken about their agnosticism. It is their belief in God's nonexistence (or existence) that they tend to not want to be outspoken about - they typically claim they don't believe one way or another, or something to that effect.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"The difference between agnostics and atheists is not that one thinks they have knowledge and the other does not, as shown pretty clearly by all the atheists who don't claim any specific knowledge of God's nonexistence."

While the true definition of "agnostic" is "one who does not believe that the existence of God can ever be known," in practice it tends to be "people who think it's possible that God exists, but do not think that current evidence supports that theory to the extent necessary to justify active belief." Whereas most self-identifying atheists, in my experience, are "people who believe that the lack of evidence of a higher power, coupled with the ample and obvious flaws in most established religions, constitute enough negative proof to posit the non-existence of God."

At the fringes, the distinction blurs; I've heard agnostics of the first stripe called "weak atheists," which is possibly a better description but for the fact that it then fails to suitably distinguish atheists of the "there is no God" school from atheists of the "there is no evidence of God" school.

In my case, I am fairly certain that no God as depicted by the Christian faith exists, which makes me seem more atheist to Christians. On the other hand, I'm completely open to the possibility that some deity of some kind does exist, although I'll freely admit to not understanding why this wouldn't be made more obvious or make more of a difference to our daily lives.

[ December 01, 2004, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

While the true definition of "agnostic" is "one who does not believe that the existence of God can ever be known,"

---

quote:

---

in practice it tends to be "people who think it's possible that God exists, but do not think that current evidence supports that theory to the extent necessary to justify active belief." Whereas most self-identifying atheists, in my experience, are "people who believe that the lack of evidence of a higher power, coupled with the ample and obvious flaws in most established religions, constitute enough negative proof to posit the non-existence of God."

---

I agree with this explanation of the difference, but therein lies what I think are the big problems with agnosticism.

For one thing, I think people from both categories DO typically hold active beliefs in the nonexistence of God. Their actions illustrate it - they act in just the same way as atheists do, when it comes to religious choices they have to make. And thus, their belief that they don't have an active belief is normally mistaken.

And secondly, they should have an active belief on anything that is sufficiently important, unless there is absolutely no evidence one way or another. Even the slightest bit of evidence is reason to sway one way or another, because you want to be able to make correct decisions, and having a belief is always preferable to the random decision-making entailed by no beliefs whatsoever. In the case of religion, if there truly were no other evidence, even something like "mommy said so" should be enough to sway you one way or another. But really with religion there is lots of evidence - including authoritative sources, personal experience, philosophical arguments, and so on, point in different directions.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"This definition would include most Christians and most atheists, so I don't think it could be true to anyone's actual concept of agnostic...."

Which is why the working definition is more useful. While I personally think that there is a point to the original definition of agnostic, I agree that it's not all that meaningful nowadays.

However, I'd also like to point out to you that many Christians do in fact believe that they "know" God exists, having experienced Him in their lives first-hand.

-----

"Their actions illustrate it - they act in just the same way as atheists do, when it comes to religious choices they have to make."

Let's say you have three people planning a trip. There are two potential ways to get there, which run roughly parallel but have different views and stops along the way. One person planning the trip has heard from a construction crew that a bridge has washed out along one of the roads; ergo, he takes the other road. Another person has heard rumors that a bridge has washed out, but isn't really sure -- so he drives down the road until he sees the bridge for himself. And the third person, having heard nothing of the kind, takes the road that may or may not still work.

Get my point? Atheists and agnostics are likely to make very similar moral (and lifestyle) choices precisely because they lack belief in something that would legitimize the other choices, at least until faced with proof of the consequences of those behaviors.

[ December 01, 2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Yes, but look more closely at the choices agnostics make.... If you though maybe praying would give you eternal life and maybe it would not, and were exactly 50-50 neutral between the two, wouldn't the reasonable thing be to pray on the chance that it would work?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I'm just going to assume Xap's used some sort of mind-wipe ray to eliminate all the problems with Pascal's Wager from his mind.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Pascal's wager is about how to decide what to believe, not how to act in the absence of belief.

[ December 01, 2004, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Except that many of the problems with it apply, modified, to your proposed example. Critical thinking, Xap.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
There is an interesting question, though, which is this: why, when faced with two possible ways to live their life, do self-identified agnostics not resolve to take the easier route, the one that does not risk eternal consequences?

Personally, I think the vast majority of people who call themselves religious in this country -- and this may be Tres' point, although he's obscured it with semantics again -- are in fact making exactly this "easy" choice; they're agnostics who've decided that dignity isn't worth the risk. They aren't even slightly confident that there's a God out there, but they'll act as if there is on the slim chance that there's a benefit to doing so. And once you make this choice, a number of societal factors help reinforce this decision; it's much, much easier to call yourself a believer in our society, and there are immediate rewards for doing so.

You can also probably lump all those people out there who choose to believe in a higher power because they think it would be unbearable to live in a world with no purpose, but haven't been able to pick a religion because they don't think any religion has it entirely right, into this category: agnostics who lack self-respect.

But the thing is, such people would never call themselves agnostics unless pressed, even though the original use of the word "agnostic" more closely matched their philosophy, precisely because essential to Pascal's Wager is effective self-indoctrination. This leaves the term to those of us who, not knowing whether there's a God or not, believe that it is NOT better to run the numbers.

[ December 01, 2004, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I'm the only one allowed to be snarky in this thread. *thwap*
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Fugu, the problems with Pascal's Wager derive from the trouble with believing something for the sake of convenience. In contrast, there is no problem with acting for the sake of convenience - people do that all the time.

[ December 01, 2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"In contrast, there is no problem with acting for the sake of convenience - people do that all the time."

In Pascal's Wager, however, the morality of doing so breaks down immediately unless you posit God as the exclusive arbiter of morality. And since it's even possible to imagine a situation in which He is not, He clearly is not -- meaning that it's only necessary to decide whether the term "good" has any meaning independent of God's will and desire. If you do not assume that it does, free will is a complete illusion; the entire universe may as well not exist, since God is not only the puppeteer but the stage and the audience. If "good" has its own meaning, the question then becomes whether opposition to an omnipotent being, even if doomed to fail, is morally worthwhile.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
*sigh*

Here's the helping hand you apparently need:

In Pascal's wager, it assumes that believing in a God is better than not (absent any proof of existence of one God or another), because one is always better off with the former rather than the latter. This is not true. Some Gods, if they existed, would be quite pissed off did someone believe in another God, and less pissed off if someone didn't believe in a God at all.

In your proposed system, you assume that worshipping a particular God absent a belief in that God is better than not worshipping (absent any proof of the existence of one God or another), because one is always better off with the former rather than the latter. This is not true. Some Gods, if they existed, would be quite pissed off did someone worship another God, and less pissed off if someone didn't worship at all.

[ December 01, 2004, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Here is my question to you, Xap. In the face of not knowing whether God exists, you believe it is better to hedge your bets and pray to God. Substitute the word 'etetcsdasr' or '456fwerw345' or '365vet345' for 'God'. Would it make as much sense, would my prayer be as effective, if I prayed to '365vet345'?

[ December 01, 2004, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
That's why I mentioned earlier that someone who truly had no religious beliefs one way or another would be confused an unable to decide. Tom posited the bridge example, which only has two options, and thus is similar to choosing either God or no God. The trouble is, choosing not to pray is essentially more like risking the broken bridge for the sake of convenience, in that case.

However, this sort of comparison is inaccurate, because in reality there are an infinite options, until one uses beliefs to whittle them down, which makes belieflessness a problem that is not adequately covered by the bridge example. But having many Gods to choose from does not make choosing no God any better of an option. It just makes all the options equally bad, thus making it impossible to choose.

So, depending on how you look at it, agnostics should either be praying (if they simplify their choices down to a few) or totally confused (if they consider all the infinite possibilities.) But in no case is choosing no prayer at all going to stand out as a better option, unless you find something morally wrong with it, like Tom suggested - or if you truly believe God probably doesn't exist.

The thing is, I think very few agnostics consider God to be evil, if he were to exist.

[ December 01, 2004, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Any God which requires prayer and worship is at least a third of the way towards my definition of evil.

[ December 01, 2004, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

The thing is, I think very few agnostics consider God to be evil, if he were to exist.

---

quote:

---

So, depending on how you look at it, agnostics should either be praying (if they simplify their choices down to a few) or totally confused (if they consider all the infinite possibilities.) But in no case is choosing no prayer at all going to stand out as a better option

---

But that's not the case, is it? The case isn't just the metaphysical one of confusion versus doing nothing. It's a case of going with what is known to 'work'. That is, I'm guessing it's not that agnostics aren't averse to prayer so much as there are other things they could be doing which would be more 'productive', that would address the reason for their prayer, neh?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Tom, you have suggested that many "believers" are actually agnostics who lack integrity. I wonder if this might in part explain the lack of Christian behavior among Christians? Of course, there is also a fairly large group who try to use religion to excuse their own faults and then inflict those faults on others with impunity.

But I would like to point out that there are agnostic believers who believe because they find the teachings of the religion to be beautiful, harmonious, symmetrical, and ring true. I do not find such agnostic believers to have any problem with integrity. Obviously, atheists and self-proclaimed agnostics do *not* feel that way about the religions of the world, particularly "the big 3". (I like that phrase, twinky. It is useful.)
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"But I would like to point out that there are agnostic believers who believe because they find the teachings of the religion to be beautiful, harmonious, symmetrical, and ring true. I do not find such agnostic believers to have any problem with integrity."

It depends on why they're believing, at that point. If they respect a religion and choose to belong to it merely because they find its teachings beautiful and harmonious, but lack belief in the supernatural elements of the teachings themselves, then they do indeed lack integrity; they should be seeking a way to incorporate that beauty and harmony into a lifestyle which does not also demand superstition. However, if they have come to believe in the supernatural elements of the faith precisely because they find the teachings beautiful and harmonious, and have difficulty imagining that teachings of such beauty and/or harmony could have arisen without supernatural assistance of the sort documented by the religion, then I would say they are in fact believers who might simply not agree with all doctrines.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I was thinking more of the second. But you are referring to people who lack any confident in the existence of the divine, whereas I am thinking of people who believe but recognize that they don't *know*.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
This argument and others like it is precisely why I stopped identifying as an agnostic.

My working definitions, which I'm guessing Xaposert will scoff at, are these:
Theist: One who believes in the existence of a god or gods.
Atheist: One who does not believe in the existence of god or gods.
Agnostic: One who does not believe in either the existence of a specific god or gods or in the certain nonexistence of a god or gods.

If you can't agree with any specific faith in any particular but you think that negative evidence is insufficient to prove the nonexistence of a higher power, what would you be called?

However, discussions such as this which touch on moral choices and Pascal's Wager and how, exactly, to define everything have turned me off such things. Instead I've collected my beliefs and then looked for a term to describe me.

I don't believe in a god. I don't believe that there is no god. I have no evidence or personal knowledge either way and see no point in choosing one over the other. I don't care.

Religious belief plays no part in my life, save for its absence. I have no problem making decisions, but I base them on personal ethics developed by observing which actions fit my personal mores. Any concerns with the afterlife are dealt with by my modified version of Pascal's Wager, which is that I'll strive to be as good a man as I can and after I die, if there's anything there, we'll see if the god(s) in question really required fealty. Any god I could respect would not.

I'm an apatheist. It's much more relaxing.

I should also point out that hostility towards religion should not be assumed a standard tenet of agnosticism. I have a great deal of respect for most theists, precisely because for all I know they're right.

beverly: Those of religious faith trust in the experiences they have had with God. I understand that agnostics think that is a bunch of huey, but the religious count it amongst their everyday experiences.

I don't think it's a bunch of huery. I just can't base any personal belief on someone else's personal knowledge of God.

[ December 01, 2004, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I figure I'll just get one of the Mormons here to pray for me. If I'm dead and not spirit, it won't matter. If I'm dead and spirit, then I'm square.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Oh, crap. I just brought Mormon theology into my thread.

Mormons! Please ignore what I just said! Do not nitpick it to death! It's a joke!
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I borrowed that "apatheist" term for a bit of socially subversive behaviour earlier this year. Hope you don't mind.

Every term I was at university, evangelical Christian groups would put up signs advertising themselves and their religion. One sign that always went up said:

"Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God!"

After four years I got pretty sick of seeing this sort of condescending garbage on the walls of my institution, so one night I went back to campus, posters in hand, and stapled up two different posters. One read:

"Do you not know? Have you not heard? God does not exist!"

And the other:

"Sick of evangelists? Sick of school politics? Then join AWE!"

At the bottom of both posters was an un-disclaimer (Edit: which was really the point of the whole poster exercise, the "kicker"):

"Don't care? Great -- neither do we!"

And then, "A message from Apatheists of Waterloo Engineering (AWE)."

[ December 01, 2004, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Apathy is probably the biggest cause of religious ignorance in the world today. It has two sources, coming from opposite sides of the spectrum.

The first cause is the fanatic view that one's beliefs are certainly true, and that there is no need to question them. This is not often viewed as a source of apathy, but it really is, insofar as it eliminates the desire among the religiously extreme to better their beliefs. If you already know the answers for sure, there is no need to care about learning more. Rather than doing so, you'd be better off trying to make other people accept your beliefs - which is what happens under this philosophy. You become apathetic towards bettering your own beliefs and worry instead about the mistaken beliefs of others.

The second cause is agnosticism. Unlike atheism, which generally promotes the idea that there is a given answer to the religious question, agnosticism promotes the idea that we can't come to an answer. And if this is the case, apathy sets in, because what would be the point of seeking an answer that can't possibly be found?

In that way, agnosticism and fanaticism work together to promote apathy about the religious ignorance of our society. Both make us believe we are infallible - one by stating our beliefs are certainly the answer, the other by stating we should admit no answer (and thus never be wrong).

[ December 01, 2004, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Unlike atheism, which generally promotes the idea that there is a given answer to the religious question, agnosticism promotes the idea that we can't come to an answer."

Again, this is a fairly strict definition of agnosticism which is in fact so narrow as to be almost useless in daily life, and certainly not descriptive of self-described agnostics.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
Wow, the agnostics are getting slammed by some people! There are a few things I want to address. I consider myself an agnostic because I honestly don't know one way or another if God exists. This doesn't bother me, doesn't make me confused, and certainly doesn't "cripple" me when it comes to making decisions. If you want to know the truth - I really don't worry about it. I've made some really fantastic decisions - such as - the decision to treat all people and animals with respect because I feel that all humans and animals share a common thread, the decision to do things like become educated so that I'm a positive influence in society, the decision to help others who need help, and the decision to be morally honest with myself. I don't pray because I think it *might* get me into heaven, and I don't not pray because it's some kind of moral stand for me. Call me an idiot, but I don't feel an aching hole in my life because I haven't made a decision whether God exists or not. I guess for me it just doesn't matter. I'm busy leading my life in the best way I can, and if I never make a decision about God I won't be bothered.

space opera
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
I think that is the normal agnostic approach, but I do think you are making religious decisions - and assuming a position on God.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Clearly we should all come together to battle the scourge of religious ignorance.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
Xap, I think you're making the decision that you know things you don't. While you can't tell me one way or the other if I'm right about being an agnostic, I can certainly tell you that you're wrong about me. What's that they say about assumptions....?

space opera
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I've finally figured it out! King of Men is a Tres/Xap pseudonym!
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

Wow, the agnostics are getting slammed by some people!

---

Really? I thought the thread was going pretty well.

Xap, do you have an opinion regarding my last post to you? I'm interested in what you think.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
Stormy, the thread is going very well.

space opera
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Unlike atheism, which generally promotes the idea that there is a given answer to the religious question, agnosticism promotes the idea that we can't come to an answer.

I never considered agnosticism that proactive. It's not a movement, or a proselytizing belief. It's a description of a state of belief. I suppose if declaring myself agnostic can be seen as promoting agnosticism then this might be accurate, but I've taken pains, especially lately, not to emphasize the validity of my beliefs over others.

Xaposert, since I'm having problems understanding your definitions, which don't seem to describe my reality, you'll have to help me out. I'm apatheistic now. What was I before?

I specifically rejected Christianity because of disagreements with vital tenets and a disbelief in the Christian God. This was done over a period of years, which were spent studying different versions of Christianity to make sure I wasn't just disappointed with one denomination.

I studied many other religious faiths and still did not find myself believing in any of them. In fact, their similarities and differences convinced me that all faiths are an application of wishful thinking over random and mostly uncontrollable conditions.

Despite this, it seems illogical and silly in the extreme to embrace atheism because that's as much a leap of faith as theism.

I respect the effects and guidance that religious thought has had over civilizations the world over. I respect the role religion has played in developing the life I now enjoy. I respect those with religious faith who use it to better the lives of themselves and those around them. I try not to belittle religion (at least, not any more than I belittle everything) because I am very aware I could be wrong and one of these faiths could be the One True One.

I do not believe in an afterlife or a soul. I strongly suspect that our consciousness is a brain/body interface produced by the electrical impulses in the brain, and that it dissipates when the brain ceases to function. I believe that many of the most confusing aspects of human behavior can be explained by the conflict between the body's needs and urges, the hindbrain's instinctive reactions, and the higher brain's need for symbolism and abstract thought. This leaves me in a constant state of amazement at what humans can accomplish.

Finally, even though my attitude towards the existence of God is entirely apathetic, my interest in religion, its history, and its affects on the people and institutions around me is ongoing and intensive.

So. What was I, in the Xaposert Dictionary? And is there a picture?

[ December 01, 2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 

quote:

---

Agnostics are essentially (for the most part, although not always) atheists, but rather than admit and defend their belief as atheists do, they hide behind the notion of "we can't really know for sure" in order to avoid having to defend the position they hold, and in order to separate themselves from those who do actively advocate the positions they hold. In practicality, agnostics are believers who want to avoid admitting and advocating their beliefs, for one reason or another.

---

As an agnostic, I find your opinion offensive and lacking in understanding. Perhaps it is because you are trying to lump most agnostics into one type of person.

Instead of attacking your quote, let me explain my agnosticism.

I have found particularly in my life, and in most of my friends and loved ones, that belief is based on "not-understanding."

When I have been tempted to believe in God, it is because I cannot account for awareness. Life seems too strange and wonderful to be left to chance. I am me. I think. I have awareness--surely there is a spirit. I don't know, and so I believe. Belief in God explains something I don't know.

When I am tempted to disbelieve in God, I look at all the horror and think, "how could a God let this happen?" I look at my unanswered prayers and all the times I have prayed and felt nothing, and I can't understand the existence of God. There is nothing. I don't know or feel God exists, so I believe in no God. I lean toward atheism.

Both types of belief, seem to be based in believing because I don't understand something. I believe in God because I don't understand life and awareness without a creator. I don't believe in God because I don't understand how a loving God can seem so absent.

I refuse to believe a tenant simply because I don't understand something. I look around and it doesn’t appear anyone figures it out before they die, so I don't feel any moral imperative to try and find the truth.

I have a short time to deal with this life and an eternity to deal with and discover the after life. I will follow Christ's words and "take no thought for the morrow, sufficient is the concerns of today." Or something like that.

Does that make me an atheist who is hiding behind an agnostic title so I don't have to defend my position?

DISCLAIMER

I know that there are many believers who base their belief on an experience they take as a type of proof in God. Mormons have their prayers about the Book of Mormon. Christians do good works because of their belief in Christ, and the good feelings, that accompany service or obeying commandments, acts as assurance.

As for me, I don’t think Christian principles are unique to a belief in God. You don’t need to be Christian to love family, service, and life. You don’t need a creed to have humility, compassion, or mercy.

If it helps you, go for it!

I withhold judgment. Finding the truth in Religion or Science seems futile to me. You live, love, eat, use the restroom, create stuff, appreciate stuff, and die. Why waste energy worrying about whether there is an afterlife in this life?

[ December 01, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
In the AJ dictionary, fugu I've kinda classified you under

fugu13: Cardigan corgi-lover, sometimes resembling a Tom Davidson Jr.

AJ
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Nah. If anything, on a good day, I resemble Russell.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
*runs away*
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Agnostics are essentially (for the most part, although not always) atheists, but rather than admit and defend their belief as atheists do, they hide behind the notion of "we can't really know for sure" in order to avoid having to defend the position they hold, and in order to separate themselves from those who do actively advocate the positions they hold. In practicality, agnostics are believers who want to avoid admitting and advocating their beliefs, for one reason or another.

This amuses me highly, since I've defended agnosticism in just about every thread that's ever mentioned the term on this forum.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
I've decided that I really like Chris and lem. That's all.

space opera
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Russell?

Yeah, maybe around the eyes.
 

---

Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 
thank you Space Opera
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Gee, I'm so glad I found time today to actually check hatrack.

[ December 01, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Hey, Dawn. *waves*
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
I was recently telling Pat that God's attempts to bring me closer to Him were only succeeding in pushing me further from man. Pat, if you're lurking, feel free to email me.

*thwaps Tom*
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Seems like all the points have been raised...I'll just sit here and watch.
Carry on.



[ December 01, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
Okay, I have had just about enough of multiple pages of people debating whether people who call themselves agnostics or atheists really are what they claim to be. So...

Dictionary.com:

a·the·ist
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

ag·nos·tic
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

2.One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Webster's Dictionary:

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly
: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

On either definition, of both words, there is an accepted definition which covers what people classify themselves as. You may reference a "true" meaning, perhaps something your philosophy teacher taught you, but both meanings appear to be equally valid.

So...

I either consider myself atheist or agnostic, depending on how convinced I am of the non-existance of God.

If I consider myself an athiest, by the definition offered on both sites, that just means that I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD. It implies nothing about whether I believe its POSSIBLE to KNOW whether God exists. So PLEASE do not turn every thread mentioning atheists or agnostics into arguments as to what the words mean. Especially, please don't say that I am too stupid to know what the term I apply to myself means. In return, I won't tell you to go to Hell (which I may or may not believe we can know exists ).
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Xap, I think you're making the decision that you know things you don't. While you can't tell me one way or the other if I'm right about being an agnostic, I can certainly tell you that you're wrong about me. What's that they say about assumptions....?

---

quote:

---

So. What was I, in the Xaposert Dictionary? And is there a picture?

---

quote:

---

Case 1: Let there be a God.

Since God exists, then by the definition of God, goodness is God's creation, and therefore goodness is defined by God. God defines himself as good, so God is good. QED

---

Actually. as a believer, I have a problem with this statement. You see, I believe that Good exists independant of God and that God chooses to be Good. I don't know if this POV is unique to LDS or not. I have no clue.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
*rubs eyes*

Oookay... I read that as "God exists independent of God" the first time around. Clearly I need to start getting more sleep.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I do not get why, just because God is 'the creator', all morality *must*, logically, flow from It. Is it not possible that God created the material universe and 'lets' us make our own decisions in the present? Are there no Deists or proto-deists left in the world?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
twinky

Sorry. Certainly an easy mistake to make when both are capitalized.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Nope, sorry Storm. Too confusing. Only "God is good" theists and atheists allowed.

Anything else might invalidate the tight logical progression necessary for theology, apparently.

[ December 01, 2004, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
*applauds Chris*

experience has left me doubt
and now they're after me
cause everybody's living in a digital world,
and i am not a digital girl.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I do not get why, just because God is 'the creator', all morality *must*, logically, flow from It.

---

quote:

---

I do not get why, just because God is 'the creator', all morality *must*, logically, flow from It.

---

I don't either. After all, I'm an atheist.

As King of Men points out, I'm only arguing the theist position of the basis of one *possible* god. Maybe I misread the arguments in earlier pages of in this thread, but the assumptions I used in this argument are those used by Dagonee, or at least my closest approximation of them.

Perhaps Dagonee can clear that part up. But I think the points remain valid:

1. We need a clear definition distinguishing atheist from theist.

2. If we agree to argue fairly, we must include both possible cases, regardless which God we are arguing about, and not argue about that God's characteristics from the opposing set of assumptions.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Atheist, I'd say.

I hope you're not surprised that I disagree.

Everything you've mentioned sounds consistent with the view that God doesn't exist...

Except for the part where I said I don't believe in the nonexistence of God, yes.

...and many of the beliefs are somewhat contingent on that belief. For instance, I think it's pretty tough to say it is likely there's no afterlife or soul, unless God also does not exist.

Actually it was pretty easy. That's the cool thing about being agnostic, it opens up so many possibilities, so many other things not to believe in

One doesn't imply the other. We might have been created by a god or gods but still die a final death when we go. A god might have started the act of creation and then sat back and watched us evolve, or left us to develop while he/she/they went somewhere else to do it again. It's possible that what/whoever started us has since died. Maybe only those saved by God have an afterlife, and the others just end. Maybe God, having never died himself, has no more idea of what happens next than we do. Then there's that reincarnation thing...

It's possible that god is a higher but still fallible being.
It's possible that god is a member of a pantheon (or race) of other beings.
It's possible that the earth itself developed a consciousness that directs evolution towards preferred directions.
It's possible that other races had something to do with it.
It's possible that what we'd consider God discovered us after we'd already been created and decided to take credit.
It's possible that we are all animals in god's eyes, on the same level as the other creatures, but we tell each other stories about our chosen status and happy afterlife.
It's possible that someone from the future came back and kicked off the Big Bang.
It's possible that gods are created from our beliefs, instead of the other way around, and that as we lose those beliefs the gods fade and die, or change into new gods to match our needs.
It's possible that the world and everything in it came into existence in 1965, complete with history books and fake memories, and it'll pop out of existence when I die.
It's possible that our creator was evil, or self-centered, or otherwise unadmirable, and that we have set goals higher for ourselves than our creator could reach (like the child of an abusive parent becoming a good and honorable adult).
It's possible that God is beauty, perfection, and benevolence, but that the belief in an afterlife came from humans frightened of their own nonexistence who told stories of heaven to each other for comfort and guidance.
It's possible that there is no god of any kind, but that ancient religious leaders discovered the ultimate carrot-and-stick method of crowd control.

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to shove me into either Christian theism or anti-Christian atheism. It makes me seem limited and unimaginative.

[ December 01, 2004, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
oh, and it pisses me off.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The only position I've really espoused in this thread is that it is unreasonable to judge the morality of God as depicted in the Bible based on half the story.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Xap, you responded in a post directly under my first post. Perhaps your post wasn't directed at me, but seeing as it was directly under mine I pretty much figured it was.

---

quote:

---

"Everything you've mentioned sounds consistent with the view that God doesn't exist..."

Except for the part where I said I don't believe in the nonexistence of God, yes.

---

Well, you did say that, but your other statements seem to fairly consistently suggest otherwise.

It's like if I say I have no opinion one way or another on the likely tastiness of hot dogs (it'd be a leap of faith to predict hot dogs will taste good), but then I go around eating hot dogs all the time. If I do that, what you should probably say is that I'm mistaken - I really do think hot dogs are good, and really do take that leap of faith.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Well, you did say that, but your other statements seem to fairly consistently suggest otherwise.

Only in a Christian God or no Christian God situation. In any of the other possibilities I posted -- and I can posit more if you like -- many combinations of beliefs are possible. What if I believe in an afterlife but not a God? I could probably dig up more empirical evidence of ghostly activity than I could of God's doings, but belief in ghosts is not a Christian tenet. Your definitions (and, worse, those of Glenn) allow only for an either/or situation and I flatly refuse to play.

It's like if I say I have no opinion one way or another on the likely tastiness of hot dogs (it'd be a leap of faith to predict hot dogs will taste good), but then I go around eating hot dogs all the time. If I do that, what you should probably say is that I'm mistaken - I really do think hot dogs are good, and really do take that leap of faith.

Wrong direction. In my case, I go around not eating hot dogs, recognizing that some like them, some don't, and neither opinion makes a difference to me.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
I'd say that means we should conclude you don't like hot dogs.

And yes, there are many possibilities in regards to religious issues - but most of these are atheist views, in that they aren't consistent with God (capital G) existing and creating the universe. But if God does exist, and you think things like souls and afterlives don't, a lot of questions arise. Firstly, you'd have to say virtually all churches and supposed prophets were simply lying about that stuff. Secondly, you'd have to allow that God isn't telling us the truth for some reason. Thirdly, there'd have to be some reason why you make the leap of faith in thinking you probably don't have a soul or afterlife, and most of the reasons for that that I can think of would also suggest God doesn't exist.

Yes, it is possible you have answers for all of these that you believe (in which case, you'd be a theist), but I'm inclined to think it's much more likely you don't. That's a judgement call, not something I can know for certain, but you did ask me where I'd put you based on the evidence you gave me about you, and my best guess based on that is still atheist.

But the fact that you allow for all those possibilities does not mean you are agnostic. I allow for all those same possibilities just as much, and I'm a Christian theist - because there is one particular possibility that I believe above the others (it has slightly more evidence in its favor), and use to guide my choices.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
'Yes, but what does it do?'
'Do? It doesn't do anything. That's the beauty of it.'
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I'd say that means we should conclude you don't like hot dogs.

Why? Just because I have no interest in them? There's a difference between disinterest and dislike.

And yes, there are many possibilities in regards to religious issues - but most of these are atheist views, in that they aren't consistent with God (capital G) existing and creating the universe.

Atheism = disbelief in one specific form of God/creation myth? Really? Are all members of non-JudeoChristian religions atheists as well? 'Cause if so then my definition and your definition aren't even in the same ballpark.

But if God does exist, and you think things like souls and afterlives don't, a lot of questions arise.

True enough. But, to be precise, we're not arguing about the existence of God. We're (or at least I'm) arguing about my belief in the existence of God.

Firstly, you'd have to say virtually all churches and supposed prophets were simply lying about that stuff.

No I wouldn't. Perhaps virtually all churches and supposed prophets were simply incorrect. Or victims of wishful thinking. Or they received deific communications but misunderstood the meaning. Or they experienced immanence and deduced the existence of an afterlife, assuming that the presence of a perfect god would not allow permanent death. Or maybe they were simply reporting the news as they heard it, but God was lying, which brings us to...

Secondly, you'd have to allow that God isn't telling us the truth for some reason.

Again, I don't have to allow that at all. Perhaps God imparted whatever truth he deemed necessary and humans extrapolated from that. Perhaps God exists and created the world but has never once communicated with any of his creations. Or perhaps God is telling us what he thinks we need to hear, the way parents filter what they tell their children depending on the children's comprehension.

Thirdly, there'd have to be some reason why you make the leap of faith in thinking you probably don't have a soul or afterlife, and most of the reasons for that that I can think of would also suggest God doesn't exist.

Actually in my case it would be closer to suggest that the main reason I made that leap (and I freely admit it is a leap of faith, as much as any other) is that I have yet to hear of or experience a God I want to exist, a God I can respect. Make of that what you will. Doesn't mean there isn't one.

But the fact that you allow for all those possibilities does not mean you are agnostic. I allow for all those same possibilities just as much, and I'm a Christian theist - because there is one particular possibility that I believe above the others (it has slightly more evidence in its favor), and use to guide my choices.

But there isn't one I favor over another, and I don't use any of them to guide my choices. That's kinda been my point.

Yes, it is possible you have answers for all of these that you believe (in which case, you'd be a theist), but I'm inclined to think it's much more likely you don't.

There's no way I can be anything other than a Christian theist or a total atheist in your world, is there? While we're trying ineffective anaologies, try this one:

I don't follow sports. Not at all. Don't care. Not interested. You're telling me I have to prefer either the Miami Dolphins or the New England Patriots.

"But I don't care."

"You're probably a Dolphins fan, then. You live in Florida."

"No, I don't follow either one."

"You don't like the Dolphins?"

"I don't care."

"Ah, then you're a Patriots guy."

There are other possibilities than just the two you espouse. Honest.

[ December 02, 2004, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Sorry, but I need a simple dichotomy in order to straighten things out."

As Chris has pointed out, this kind of oversimplification does not in fact straighten out anything.

As a side note, Glenn, you seem to be saying that it is impossible for any concepts to exist independently of their creator, or for anything created to surpass its creator. While central to Dag's definition of God is "a God that includes and encompasses everything in the universe, meaning that no concepts -- including evil -- make any sense without the inclusion of God," I would argue that it's perfectly possible even for strongly religious people (like bev and almost all Mormons, in fact) to operate under a different definition that does in fact allow for the possibility of attributes not possessed by God.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

There's no way I can be anything other than a Christian theist or a total atheist in your world, is there?

---

quote:

---

While central to Dag's definition of God is "a God that includes and encompasses everything in the universe, meaning that no concepts -- including evil -- make any sense without the inclusion of God," I would argue that it's perfectly possible even for strongly religious people (like bev and almost all Mormons, in fact) to operate under a different definition that does in fact allow for the possibility of attributes not possessed by God.

---

Of course. But that's NOT the concept of God I was discussing, nor was it the one being refuted in the essay which opened this thread.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
*insert spritely dance from your friendly Agnostice Neopagan*
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
There's no way I can be anything other than a Christian theist or a total atheist in your world, is there?

Chris, I haven't said anything to indicate that.

You've said very little otherwise. Every agnostic statement I've made you've tried to push into the theist or atheist sides, giving me things I "must" assume or "have to" believe for such statements to be acceptable to you. Your assumption that belief in a god must include belief in an afterlife, for example, betrays a bias that I simply don't have.

Now... what is the point of asking me to estimate your beliefs? I obviously will not be able to tell you for sure. But that says a lot more about my inability to see inside your head than it does about whether or not you actually do have beliefs one way or another about the existence of God.

Because you challenged me. I quote:

Agnostics are essentially (for the most part, although not always) atheists, but rather than admit and defend their belief as atheists do, they hide behind the notion of "we can't really know for sure" in order to avoid having to defend the position they hold, and in order to separate themselves from those who do actively advocate the positions they hold. In practicality, agnostics are believers who want to avoid admitting and advocating their beliefs, for one reason or another.

I'm defending my beliefs. At some length. Having chosen my sgnosticism after a great deal of introspection, hearing you tell me I'm just a weak theist or an atheist who can't commit brings out the typist in me.

Had you said "some agnostics" or even "most agnostics" I might agree with you, or at least admit the possibility. For all I know I might be the sole agnostic that doesn't fit on your either/or scale, but I know where I stand and why I chose it, and I'm more than happy to defend it.

Agnosticism is -- or can be -- just as strong and principled a position as theism or atheism.
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Chris, I think at some point you have to decide. Not on the existance or possible existance of a supernatural being, but as to whether your opponent here is incapable of understanding you or just ****ing with you. In either instance, is it worth the fight?
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Autofilters?



fan****ingtastic!
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Worth the fight? Sure.

Not because I expect to convince Xaposert, ever, of anything, but because others read these things besides the two of us and they might be influenced.

Besides, someday I'll pull all my lengthy forum diatribes together and publish a book, and I might as well start drafting it now...
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Can I preorder it?

And really, I'm just trying to build a humorous analogy to his 2-sided arguement.

I mean, everything he says leads me to believe that he just cannot understand, even if he says neither of my conclusions match his mindset, I'm still going to shoehorn him into one or the other. As if anything he says matters! Clearly, there are only two options.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
I don't think the fact that I can't guess your beliefs for sure illustrates anything about agnosticism though. That just illustrates that there are lots of possible beliefs, and I can't see into your head to figure out exactly which one is the cause of your actions.

And I did admit that agnostics were only "for the most part, although not always" what I was talking about in that quote you gave. It would be possible for someone to actually neither believe in the existence of any gods nor believe in the nonexistence of gods.

However, I think that belief system is a big mistake - so big, in fact, that I think virtually all people almost automatically come to a belief one way or another, whether they realize it or not. The mistake is this: There is zero cost to believing in something (except that you may have to defend that belief to yourself and/or others), and doing so allows one the chance to make better decisions, as long as one believes what seems most likely to be true (which people do I think.) Thus, there is no issue or question for which believing the answer you deem best would be better than believing no answer. I think this is something most people don't even think about - it's just something people do.

If someone truly did not act in that manner, and simply accepted no belief for a given question, I think their choices would reflect it, in a very negative way. If it were a noncritical issue, like whether Miami is a good football team, then it might not matter so much. But on more important issues, like religion, no deciding one way or another entails making random decisions on those issues - and could be costly. (And religious issues are important, even to the most agnostic or atheist person, because if God or gods DID exist THEN it would be critical for them to act in a certain fashion. If someone claims apathy, it probably means they actively believe all the beliefs about a meaningful God or gods that greatly influence or life or after life are false, because that is the only way such apathy would make sense.)

If someone REALLY were to do that, they'd just be blowing in the wind. When it comes to religious issues, their choices would either be random or determined by whereever the "wind" happens to push them - wind being other factors, like what is popular, what is easier, etc.

I haven't yet met an agnostic who acts in such a random fashion on issues of religion, that it would suggest they carry no beliefs on the matter one way at all. You, by all appearances to me (which are limited), seem to act in a way that is much more consistent with a belief in the nonexistence of God than it is consistent with someone who'd be blowing in the wind when it comes to questions where the right answer depends largely on religious questions. Instead it seems more like you've chosen a default which you believe until evidence comes in towards something else. I can't say for sure what that default is, but I still think it must be something.

[ December 02, 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Not because I expect to convince Xaposert, ever, of anything, but because others read these things besides the two of us and they might be influenced.

---

quote:

---

There is zero cost to believing in something (except that you may have to defend that belief to yourself and/or others), and doing so allows one the chance to make better decisions, as long as one believes what seems most likely to be true (which people do I think.)

---

quote:

---

So in order to prove my agnosticism, I would have to make random decisions?

---

quote:

---

I do not believe there is no God. I do choose to live with the assumption that there isn't one that has any obvious relevance to me. Not the same thing. And "atheism," as I've always defined it and heard it defined, requires the active disbelief in a god.

---

quote:

---

Is this really possible? Is belief so subject to whim of desire? Is it a light switch for you? Could you flip it to athiest by just deciding to?

---

Well, that is a good point, but I'm not suggesting people choose their beliefs that way. I think it is more automatic - but I think you automatically believe one way or another, rather than not in any option. When confronted with two or more possibilities, one switch automatically comes on. This is why I think agnostics are often atheists, even if they don't want to be - because they can't flip off the atheist switch by willpower.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Seems to me that there are agnostics that lean towards atheism and there are agnostics that lead towards theism. Of course, there are probably truly neutral agnostics also. It seems to me that it is a spectrum with atheism on one side, theism on the other, and a band of agnostics in the middle that overlap on both sides. No clear-cut black and white here. That's just how it looks to me.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
beverly - thank you. Had Xaposert started off with that this thread would be two pages shorter...
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Do we all still bear that animosity to God that you mentioned a few pages back?
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 

quote:

---

This is why I think agnostics are often atheists, even if they don't want to be - because they can't flip off the atheist switch by willpower.

---

Can you not see that either one requires some leap of faith? The default is neither. Neither!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Good question, celia. I am trying to figure out how I perceive this as I go. I think the "agnostics" that I made reference to there would be on the atheistic side of the spectrum. I just can't think of any "atheistic" agnostics that I have seen that don't have some feeling of animosity towards the Biblical God.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Frisco declares himself atheist, but isn't hostile to the Bible or religion. He just doesn't believe it.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
While I'm certain many do, some "atheistic" agnostics have less of an animosity towards a God than they have an animosity towards the God's followers, particularly where their influence affects the agnostic in question. And that can often appear to be the same thing.

[ December 02, 2004, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
I have to agree with Chris on that.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yup, there is definitely animosity from some towards believers.

Kat, I don't know much about Frisco's outlook except what he said in this thread, and while he didn't express any animosity, he also didn't address the matter at all. But I also imagine you are more familiar with his take on it than I am.

Maybe I tend to hear from those who hold animosity because those who don't also don't really care enough to say anything at all. True apatheists.

[ December 02, 2004, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Seems to me that there are agnostics that lean towards atheism and there are agnostics that lead towards theism.

---

quote:

---

" This is why I think agnostics are often atheists, even if they don't want to be - because they can't flip off the atheist switch by willpow"
Can you not see that either one requires some leap of faith? The default is neither. Neither!

---

quote:

---

Can you really "lean" a direction without actually believing? It seems to me that leaning a direction is simply what belief is, and although you can have varying degrees of confidence, you either believe or you don't. Thus, if you lean towards atheism, you believe atheism, I'd say. That's what it is to believe.

---

quote:

---

This is why I think agnostics are often atheists, even if they don't want to be - because they can't flip off the atheist switch by willpower.

---

quote:

---

The leap of faith is just as automatic as the belief itself is. Normally even the default requires a leap of faith, whatever that default may be (but I don't think it is typically neither).

---

quote:

---

I think most agnostics are actually also something else.

---

Happy? I'm happy. Is that something else?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Xap, to a certain extent, I agree with you. BUT, it sounds like you are trying to tell people who indeed are agnostic that they are not agnostic but something else. I would say, OK, maybe they are atheist. But they are *also* agnostic.
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
And I would say "God damn me, I am not an athiest!"


 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Celia, if you say you are not an atheist, I think it would be rude of me to dispute that. You know yourself far better than I, and we have access to the same definition. I leave the defining of self in your capable hands.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Chris,
Well, that is possible, but that's the group whose beliefs I find particularly problematic.

Fair enough. But your problem is not solved by declaring that no such group exists. You may not have out-and-out said that, but your every response has implied it. As a member of that group. I was a bit peeved
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"There is zero cost to believing in something...."

Hm. I would dispute this.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Why? We have Pascal's Wager to guide us. Personal integrity and principles are as nothing compared to the cost-analysis method of theology.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Tom,
I would dispute that too, but that's because you took off the rest of the sentence. Here's the whole claim (emphasis added):

quote:

---

There is zero cost to believing in something (except that you may have to defend that belief to yourself and/or others), and doing so allows one the chance to make better decisions, as long as one believes what seems most likely to be true (which people do I think.)

---

If you would still dispute this, please say why. I can't respond if you don't say why.

[ December 02, 2004, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I do not agree that believing in something has no cost outside the effort to defend it. Believing in something places a value on it, more value than other things. If you truly believe it, that means you are investing and sacrificing for it - it costs something, it costs the other things it took precedence over.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"If you would still dispute this, please say why."

Because the mere act of belief is exclusionary -- and takes effort.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 

quote:

---

Why? We have Pascal's Wager to guide us. Personal integrity and principles are as nothing compared to the cost-analysis method of theology.

---

quote:

---

Puritans frequently came to Vagabond camps bearing the information that at the time of the creation of the universe--thousands of years ago!--certain of those present had been predestined by God to experience salvation. The rest of them were doomed to spend eternity burning in hellfire. This intelligence was called, by the Puritans, the Good News.

---

thoughts of Jack Shaftoe, "King of the Vagabonds," in Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson. I read this a few days and it seemed appropriate for the thread, and shows characteristic Stephensonesque humor (cynical, sarcastic, realist, ironic .)

quote:

---

There is zero cost to believing in something (except that you may have to defend that belief to yourself and/or others), and doing so allows one the chance to make better decisions, as long as one believes what seems most likely to be true (which people do I think.)

---

quote:

---

This is why I think agnostics are often atheists, even if they don't want to be - because they can't flip off the atheist switch by willpower.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you not see that either one requires some leap of faith? The default is neither. Neither!

---

quote:

---

Theist: One who believes in the existence of a god or gods.
Atheist: One who does not believe in the existence of god or gods.
Agnostic: One who does not believe in either the existence of a specific god or gods or in the certain nonexistence of a god or gods.

---

quote:

---

Frisco declares himself atheist, but isn't hostile to the Bible or religion. He just doesn't believe it.

---

Well, I'm not a hostile person, in general. But does it count as "hostile" if every so often I take great pleasure in reshelving various religious texts into the "fiction" section of Barnes & Noble after I'm done reading them?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think part of the problem may be that there is more negative association with the term "atheist" than "agnostic". People seem to find "atheist" more threatening somehow.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Because the mere act of belief is exclusionary -- and takes effort.

---

quote:

---

If it costs you nothing to believe in God I would argue that you don’t really believe. Or you might as well not, since it isn’t impacting your life anyway.

---

quote:

---

Not only are there often enormous costs to believing in something (assuming it has effect on their behavior), do you really believe people believe in "what seems most likely to be true?"

---

Yes. Have you ever believed in something that you didn't consider to seem most likely true? If so, I'd really wonder why.

[ December 03, 2004, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"As for effort, it takes almost no effort. I just looked at the weather channel and now believe it will be sunny tommorrow."

Because you have prior reason to have faith in the Weather Channel. If I showed you a frog, skipped in a gay circle around you, and declared that my researches just then had made it clear to me that a typhoon would shortly be arriving to mess up your hairdo and do nothing more, I believe you would be skeptical.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
There's still no significant effort involved. When I go on a trip and turn on the local news station, I believe them too - and I don't have to do any research on the news station to try and figure out if I should have prior faith in them.

When it comes to God, many people first started believing simply because their parents said so. There is no troublesome effort required to do that. You just hear that piece of information and start believing one way or another. You can later choose to do more research if you want, but that's a cost of refining your belief, not believing itself.

I also haven't seen anything to indicate atheists go through any more research or effort than agnostics do, despite the fact that they make the jump to belief that agnostics supposedly do not. Agnosticism is not easier than atheism.

[ December 03, 2004, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Frisco, see my other post about us not neccessarily having the same defaults. My default is agnostic and either direction would take a leap for me.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
See, Chris, I've never met an atheist who was certain of the nonexistence of a god or gods, which, to me, makes the second two choices read the same. Atheists, I think, are just a little further from the 50/50 mark of belief/lack of belief than are agnostics.

You might want to write to the people at www.atheists.org, then. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear it.
Same problem I've been having with Xaposert's posts: your inability to conceive of someone believing the way I do has no effect on how I believe. You don't get to say I don't exist.

When it comes to God, many people first started believing simply because their parents said so. There is no troublesome effort required to do that. You just hear that piece of information and start believing one way or another. You can later choose to do more research if you want, but that's a cost of refining your belief, not believing itself.

There was indeed troublesome effort to stop believing what my parents taught me. I was devout and dedicated, certain of the necessary constant struggle during life and my rewards after death. Deciding to let that belief go was a scary thing. Suddenly I was living without a net, without any comforting belief that no matter what happened to me here, as long as I believed in Jesus I would be all right. Even though it's a choice I made with eyes open, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't dismiss the effort so quickly.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 

quote:

---

"As for effort, it takes almost no effort. I just looked at the weather channel and now believe it will be sunny tommorrow."

Because you have prior reason to have faith in the Weather Channel. If I showed you a frog, skipped in a gay circle around you, and declared that my researches just then had made it clear to me that a typhoon would shortly be arriving to mess up your hairdo and do nothing more, I believe you would be skeptical.

---

quote:

---

What does it cost you to believe in God then?

---

quote:

---

You might want to write to the people at www.atheists.org, then. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear it.
Same problem I've been having with Xaposert's posts: your inability to conceive of someone believing the way I do has no effect on how I believe. You don't get to say I don't exist.

---

quote:

---

I don't believe in a god. I don't believe that there is no god. I have no evidence or personal knowledge either way and see no point in choosing one over the other. I don't care

---

quote:

---

Me, personally? Everything I had planned to do with my life, my former political affiliation and economic philosophy, and a complete change of career to one with no financial prospects and no personal choice in where I will work or live.

---

quote:

---

That I'm lumped in with extreme cases on a stupid website who, if you're right, believe that something, anything, can be proved to not exist.

---

I've done it before, and no doubt I'll do it again, but I'd just like to point out that it is possible to prove non-existence of certain things. For example, there is absolutely, unequivocally, and indisputably no largest prime number. It provably doesn't exist.

Carry on.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I'd just like to say that I appreciate Mr. Xaposert and don't really find him to have been rude in this thread. Disagreement is not rude.

He's stuck it out in the face of heated opposition, which takes guts, without resorting getting angry or resorting to name calling. In fact, I can't think of Mr. Tresopax ever being snide or catty, ever calling names, with anyone.

Tresopax.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
*snort*

Tres, by that logic my utility bill doesn't cost me anything either, since it's best that the house is heated.

Just because something is worth the cost doesn't mean it isn't a cost.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Storm... okay, let's not go too far.

dkw,
Well, to draw the comparison, I do think that the piece of paper itself doesn't cost you anything. It's your use of the heating that costs you, and the bill just tells you. If the bill never came, you'd still owe - you'd just not know it. You might even pay a greater penalty, if you let the amount go unpaid.

I think belief is like the bill, the time and effort you give up to God and mankind in general is like the payment, and the benefits you get (which I'll leave up to you to describe, although when I go to church and do service I'd probably consider the benefits to be learning, joy, fellowship with the others there, and the experience of serving itself) are like the heat. And I think to say you are paying a price for your belief, is like saying you are paying a price for the bill you've recieved. I think the price is still there if you don't believe, and will probably be even greater - much like there is a greater penalty if you never look at your bill.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Who the hell pissed in your cheerios? I said that, to me, atheists and agnostics are the same, only varying in degrees. It's obviously a semantic argument. Who are you to tell me that I'm certain in the nonexistence of a god?

You came in on the end of a long argument where any claims of agnosticism on my part were being explained away as being really just theism or atheism. You appeared to be blurring the lines I thought I was drawing, so I lashed out in your direction. Please accept my apologies. I don't agree with your definition of atheism, but since I've been fighting to be able to define my own beliefs I shouldn't be picking on others for doing the same.
 

---

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
 
can I believe the same thing you two do and call myself a little green furry animal?
 

---

Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
 
*angry bunny stance in front of Tom*
He's mine, and don't you forget it! He can come over to play, but at the end of the day, he's ALL MINE.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Angry bunny stance? Can we get a picture of this, please?
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
@ ElJay
@ Christy
AJ
 

---

Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
Kama, you can call yourself anything you want.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The Angry Bunny stance, while often underestimated, is one of the most powerful martial arts stances.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
I prefer the Drunken Panda mode personally.

I don't think Xaposert has been rude especially, just tedious in trying to pigeonhole all agnostics into his definitions.

King of Men, I was surprised in your earlier posts when you skipped over the clearest case of of a Christian God violating human morals and ethics: The Great Flood of Noah. The Big Kahuna of all genocides. No human middleman like Joshua to do the deed, just God as cosmic hit man, wiping out EVERY HUMAN AND LAND-DWELLING ANIMAL, except for the lucky few that could fit on a small, smelly boat.

I wonder sometimes at a religion that would worship such a God.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Very good point, actually. Now that you mention it, I'm surprised too. Maybe I'd have thought of it if the thread hadn't derailed into a tedious discussion of semantics.

On the subject of "I don't understand the prophets' intentions" and "Revelations must be interpreted", why is it not just as valid for me to claim that religious people do not understand what is meant by "sitting on the right hand of God," for example? For all you know, that means "doing all the scutwork." Or even "...where he can easily smack you around if he feels like it." The latter would be more in character.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
KoM, whom are you addressing when you write your posts? The reason I ask is that it seems unlikely that you're trying to persuade Christians when you include lines like "the latter would be more in character."

[ December 03, 2004, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Why, all the world's a stage, and we are but players, that have our day upon it... My thoughts are meant for the world entire; they are far too lofty to be addressed to any one individual, or even class of individuals.

In any case, I was not particularly trying to convince, just setting forth my thoughts for others to respond to, or not. I didn't bother to edit them for rhetorical effectiveness.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 

quote:

---

Not only are there often enormous costs to believing in something (assuming it has effect on their behavior), do you really believe people believe in "what seems most likely to be true?"--Morbo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. Have you ever believed in something that you didn't consider to seem most likely true? If so, I'd really wonder why ---xaposert

---