quote: But the exact nature of the punishment is not relevant; the way I see it, any threat to gain worship is immoral.
i think this quote deserves a notice. i don't think you understand the prophets intention when they mention things like "lake of fire" to describe hell. also, you don't understand that generally the scriptures aren't the words of "god" but the words of his "prophets." some prophets are more inclined to use different tactics than others. imagine yourself, though, as a parent and you have children that are getting their driver's license shortly. do you say "if you wear your seatbelt, i'll give you a reward!" or do you say "wear your seatbelt, or you will probably die in a horrible car wreck!" is this a threat to make children follow your will, or counsel to help them see the consequence of a bad decision?
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I disagree. I consider myself an agnostic, and you are right that I lean more towards atheism than theism. 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. This is because religion is a closed theory, like solipsism or the belief that Slartibartfast created the planet to aid a bunch of whit mice in their quest for meaning in life. However, millions of people believe in religions. They may be right. I don't believe they are, but I am under no illusion that my beliefs are based on anything more than my own experience and understanding. You may not see this as a meaningful distinction, but I'm a lot more comfortable on the fence, because, as I see it either way is a leap of faith. Faith is a choice to believe in something without any evidence, to believe without knowing, and thus to choose to know. I choose not to choose.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
I know of NO atheist who currently believes this, and I have specifically asked a number of them. I know of many self-proclaimed atheists who say they can't know there is no God, but say that by default we should assume there isn't one.
quote:Christians (for example) believe not only that there is a God, but that it can be known there is a God.
I've known some Christians who believe that, but more who believe it can't be known, including a current pastor at my church. He recently gave a series of sermons on doubts he had personally had about God's existence, in critical times during his life.
As I said, agnostics typically think they are the only ones who recognize that they don't know whether or not God exists, but they are wrong in thinking that. That's not what distinguishes them from atheists and theists, and I think even a quick survey of self-proclaimed atheists and theists would show that.
I, for one, believe I can't know God exists, but I am a Christian, Methodist, and theist.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Are you including feelings and emotions as rational or irrational?
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?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
quote:While the true definition of "agnostic" is "one who does not believe that the existence of God can ever be known,"
What is true about it, though? 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.
That is, unless you take 'known' in a very broad sense, as in 'I just know the Steelers are going to win the Superbowl this year.' In that case, it becomes so narrow as to exclude virtually all self-proclaimed agnostics.
I don't think there's any middle line that could be drawn to make it work, simply because there are agnostics who believe more strongly in the non-existence (or existence) of God than some atheists (or theists) do.
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
posted
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?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that many of the problems with it apply, modified, to your proposed example. Critical thinking, Xap.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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'?
posted
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.
quote: The thing is, I think very few agnostics consider God to be evil, if he were to exist.
You think so? I seem to find repeatedly that one of the reasons why self-proclaimed agnostics don't believe in God (and thus lean towards atheism) is because something about God as taught in the predominant religions (as twinky said, the big 3) is offensive to them. In essence, they find that God to be evil, or at least, not worthy of worship. There is a feeling of animosity there. I have never met a self-proclaimed agnostic who didn't feel this way.
So taking what Xap is saying and combine it with what Tom is saying, are most self-proclaimed agnostics actually atheists while many self-proclaimed believers are actually agnostics? Makes sense to me.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)."
posted
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).
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
I think that is the normal agnostic approach, but I do think you are making religious decisions - and assuming a position on God.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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....?
posted
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 ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. 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.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
