Agnosticism

People pray to God for miracles, and disasters are the complete opposite. If there was a God who cared about people in this world, then he wouldn't let the people die. I also don't think we can rely on just a single person for everything the world is and everything we are.

We don't have any proof of God. If people think that miracles are proof, they're not. We haven't had one single sign of God. There are so many different theories--an experiment by so called aliens, the Big Bang, etc. I think most of them are a lot more reasonable, though, than the theory of having a man in the sky, or in space, or whatever, that creates people and water, and trees, and EVERYTHING.

One thing I feel the need to clear up quite often is the actual definition of "agnostic", which is not mutually exclusive from theist or atheist. It describes a lack of knowledge (while theist/atheist describes (lack of) belief).

Gnostic theist - I believe in [insert deity here] and I know that [he/she/it] exists.
Agnostic theist - I believe in [insert deity here] and but I don't know that [he/she/it] exists.
Gnostic atheist - I don't believe in any gods, and I know that no gods exist.
Agnostic atheist - I don't believe in any gods, but I don't know that no gods exist.

I think that most theists/atheists, when being honest, would identify themselves as agnostic. It's quite a jump to be gnostic about one's theism/atheism, and I often consider it quite arrogant in a person.

Alex; oxytocin.:

One thing I feel the need to clear up quite often is the actual definition of "agnostic", which is not mutually exclusive from theist or atheist. It describes a lack of knowledge (while theist/atheist describes (lack of) belief).

Gnostic theist - I believe in [insert deity here] and I know that [he/she/it] exists.
Agnostic theist - I believe in [insert deity here] and but I don't know that [he/she/it] exists.
Gnostic atheist - I don't believe in any gods, and I know that no gods exist.
Agnostic atheist - I don't believe in any gods, but I don't know that no gods exist.

I think that most theists/atheists, when being honest, would identify themselves as agnostic. It's quite a jump to be gnostic about one's theism/atheism, and I often consider it quite arrogant in a person.

That is, by very far, not an universally agreed upon classification of systems of beliefs and one very biased in favour of atheism at that. Until Kierkegaard and Christian existentialism, the notion of agnostic theism was unheard of in Christianity and mainstream Christianity still maintains that human beings are perfectly capable to reason out the issue of God's existence and that religious beliefs are not self-delusions, things of whose validity you convince yourself because it's convenient or nice to think they're valid, that's an atheist interpretation of theism, not an unbiased, objective one.

I don't like to call myself "agnostic" and stuff like that, but I don't believe in a higher god, and don't believe in the devil either. I don't believe in Jesus, heaven or hell, or angels and demons.

I do believe that when we die, we live again in another human/animal form. What difference do we know? All we know is that we're living, and that we have been alive. We do not know of being dead, we do not know of being in heaven, and we do not know of being in hell. We already live the two here on earth. We just know that we're alive in our bodies, and that's it.

kafka.:

That is, by very far, not an universally agreed upon classification of systems of beliefs and one very biased in favour of atheism at that. Until Kierkegaard and Christian existentialism, the notion of agnostic theism was unheard of in Christianity and mainstream Christianity still maintains that human beings are perfectly capable to reason out the issue of God's existence and that religious beliefs are not self-delusions, things of whose validity you convince yourself because it's convenient or nice to think they're valid, that's an atheist interpretation of theism, not an unbiased, objective one.

In what way is it biased in favour of atheism?

^I know this is not a question intended for me but I have recently had a similar argument. I can provide one possible answer then.

Note that Christianity is based on things like emotions, feelings, hope and faith, while atheism (although hardly a unified "system" or even a group) is based more on rationality and logic. So what you originally said is quite obviously in favor of atheism, as religion tends to avoid implementing rationality and logic into its system.

By introducing (a)gnosticism into the expression of religious beliefs, one forces a rationalisation into the whole faith thing. By making a Christian express himself in this way, one would force him to either say that he doesn't know that God is real, therfore that his/her unshakeable faith is flawed and that there is a possibility that it's "delusional" business as kafka says. Alternatively, he can claim that he/she knows that God is there, and would therefore had to provide the basis or the source of his knowledge, which is either not there or is completely irrational.

So either way, it's completely unconvenient for the Christian community and is much easier to be sidestepped entirely.

^ That makes sense.

I suppose there is a lot of trouble with terminology. I mean, if you want to use "agnostic" as a middle-of-the-spectrum kind of term, it also causes problems, because a) if you're 'not sure' that a god exists, technically you don't believe that a god exists, even though you're not stating it as an opinion; a stance involving anything other than a belief in something implies a lack of such belief, unless there are reasons to be neutral on it, such as lack of information (but I wouldn't consider that to be relevant, because most self-confessed agnostics know what the concept of a god is). And b) there is a distinct difference between belief and knowledge, and using "agnostic", or "don't know" as a middle-ground implies that both ends do know, when in fact it's quite possible for someone to believe/not believe something and not know for sure if they're correct in doing so/not doing so.

And as I've said before, I think it's downright daft to claim to know if a god does or does not exist.

Xsoteria:

^I know this is not a question intended for me but I have recently had a similar argument. I can provide one possible answer then.

Note that Christianity is based on things like emotions, feelings, hope and faith, while atheism (although hardly a unified "system" or even a group) is based more on rationality and logic. So what you originally said is quite obviously in favor of atheism, as religion tends to avoid implementing rationality and logic into its system.

By introducing (a)gnosticism into the expression of religious beliefs, one forces a rationalisation into the whole faith thing. By making a Christian express himself in this way, one would force him to either say that he doesn't know that God is real, therfore that his/her unshakeable faith is flawed and that there is a possibility that it's "delusional" business as kafka says. Alternatively, he can claim that he/she knows that God is there, and would therefore had to provide the basis or the source of his knowledge, which is either not there or is completely irrational.

So either way, it's completely unconvenient for the Christian community and is much easier to be sidestepped entirely.

I have to apologize for laughing, but epistemological enquiry has such a long tradition within theistic thought systems it's frankly ludicrous to say that theism finds it uncomfortable. Plato, Kant, Hume, Descartes, Thomas Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Berkeley, to a certain extent even Nozick were all theists. This is the kind of nonsense only people like Richard Dawkins who don't actually know anything about theist thought or philosophy in general would say.

Alex; oxytocin.:

In what way is it biased in favour of atheism?

It assumes that knowledge defined in a strictly atheist way is the only kind of knowledge that exists by stating that knowing God is impossible and thus that being a gnostic theist is impossible (or, as you put it, 'downright daft'). Leaving aside the fact that mainstream theism says differently, any kind of attempt to squeeze a concept as complicated as knowledge in a single definition and pretend that what you're doing is an unbiased process is 'downright daft'.

^I'm glad you found my experience amusing, so have I. I would think that a devout Christian/theist would find the reality of the subject a lot more horrific though. Of course, it's much easier to elevate the discussion above the down to Earth everyday theists, which make out the everyday reality, and instead just revert everything to name flinging of a few historic individuals, which ironically, most of everyday theists have barely heard of.

Still, as much as you would like to establish some sort of lifeline between modern concepts of religion and philosphers of the past, the ones that lived in predominantly religious world - it seems pretty futile so far. You have yet to explain this abstract concept of "mainstream theistic knowledge" as opposed to knowledge as a term used in... well just about any dictionary.

Xsoteria:

^I'm glad you found my experience amusing, so have I. I would think that a devout Christian/theist would find the reality of the subject a lot more horrific though. Of course, it's much easier to elevate the discussion above the down to Earth everyday theists, which make out the everyday reality, and instead just revert everything to name flinging of a few historic individuals, which ironically, most of everyday theists have barely heard of.

Modern theist thought, at least in its mainstream strands, is based almost 100% on the thought of those historic individuals that everyday theists have barely heard of. In organized religious organizations doctrine is not decided upon by everyday theists individually, it's decided by the religious organization as a whole through organisations such as ecumenical councils which are made up of individuals who have an extensive knowledge of the history of Christian thought at the very least.

Quote

Still, as much as you would like to establish some sort of lifeline between modern concepts of religion and philosphers of the past, the ones that lived in predominantly religious world - it seems pretty futile so far.

There were plenty of atheists in the lifetimes of most of those people, they didn't live in an oppressively religious world.

Quote

You have yet to explain this abstract concept of "mainstream theistic knowledge" as opposed to knowledge as a term used in... well just about any dictionary.

I don't think you find it in any dictionary, if you look it up in a dictionary of philosophical or epistemological terms, I'm pretty sure you're not going to get a simple explanation. Mainstream theist thought says that knowing God is not only hypothetically possible, but that a lot of people already know Him and that to reject knowledge of God as impossible because at the present moment it cannot be quantified through scientific instruments is to say that anything that human beings cannot measure cannot exist - which, of course, is absurd, we've been shown time and time again that elements of reality which we can't observe through our imperfect instruments are there, just inaccessible to us until we develop better instruments. Think for example of atoms and subatomic particles or the wave-particle duality of light. There was a time when we couldn't measure those, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.

^Nobody says that God can't exist because we can't quantify his existence through scientific methods. What's being said is that there is no actual knowledge or justified certainty of that existence. Of course God can exist without us knowing about it. But that's not what we're talking about.

The fact that there were atheists in the past does not mean that religion was not oppressive or imposed on people. It was an essential part of the culture and since absolute majority of the people you mentioned were raised into religion as children and continued to live surrounded by religion and religious people, I have no qualms regarding the origin of their own religious belif.

My whole family is Catholic. And they don't understand my logic when it comes myself in believing that there's actually a "God" or some other higher power. Unless something is proven, unless this supreme being shows himself to me, I will be agnostic till the day I die.

You are supposed to be 1 or the other not luke warm- in the middle.
pick a side and dont be so wishy washy.

warrior 4 him:

You are supposed to be 1 or the other not luke warm- in the middle.
pick a side and dont be so wishy washy.

I think agnosticism is the true logical stance. There is no way to prove the existence of God either way and as such, making an assumption about the presence or absence of something we cannot possibly get evidence for is a bit illogical.

The Master.:

I think agnosticism is the true logical stance. There is no way to prove the existence of God either way and as such, making an assumption about the presence or absence of something we cannot possibly get evidence for is a bit illogical.

Thisssss.

There's 'hard' atheism and 'soft' atheism, the former being the assertion that there is no god/God/gods, the latter being the lack of belief in it/them. I suspect that very few self-described 'atheists' subscribe to 'hard' atheism, though I think you could just as easily have the belief that the universe is cold/empty as you could have the belief that there is a loving presence in it / with you.

But I think the majority of 'atheists' when pressed would tell you "I don't know if there is a god" which more or less means "I do not have the belief that there is a god." The issue is that our religious hangover (and various human predispositions) presupposes theism; as some comedian has stated, do I have to state that I don't believe in alchemy? (In unicorns? In a flying spaghetti monster?) Logically speaking, I think, the default should be a lack of belief - a tabula rasa - which may be affected by personal experience, upbringing, exposure to a religion or to multiple religions, exposure to literature, etc. So it's not "sitting on the fence" or "hedging bets" or anything like that - it's simply not subscribing to a system that you have no evidence for.

pravda.:

But I think the majority of 'atheists' when pressed would tell you "I don't know if there is a god" which more or less means "I do not have the belief that there is a god."

Exactly. I don't believe in any gods, but that doesn't mean I know for a fact that there aren't.

with a vengance:

You are supposed to be 1 or the other not luke warm- in the middle.
pick a side and dont be so wishy washy.

You're supposed to be a shining beacon of God's love and acceptance. How about stopping with the name-calling and trying to be Christ-like?

does dru walk away?:

You're supposed to be a shining beacon of God's love and acceptance. How about stopping with the name-calling and trying to be Christ-like?

That didn't seem like name calling. And telling people to try and be Christ-like is just as offensive. That's up to the individual to take that step not for others to guilt them into.

The Pies Endure:

That didn't seem like name calling. And telling people to try and be Christ-like is just as offensive. That's up to the individual to take that step not for others to guilt them into.

She stated on another thread that she identified as a Christian and Christians believe they are supposed to lead a life like Christ. And I felt the term "wishy washy" to describe someone who is agnostic was definitely name-calling. But maybe that's just 'cause I hate it when people use similar terms to demean my religious beliefs.

The Pies Endure:

That didn't seem like name calling. And telling people to try and be Christ-like is just as offensive. That's up to the individual to take that step not for others to guilt them into.

Hm. It may be up to the individual in the same way that any spiritual/philosophical/lifestyle choices are up to the individual - but the only Christians that I have held in unusually high esteem/regard have been those who have stated (and followed through) a desire/intention to try and follow Christ by emulating him - and asking you to love others, accept them, turn the other cheek, wasn't that asking Christians to at least try to be like himself? Wasn't he leading by example, showing you that this was how you should live and treat others? How else should you live if not helping the poor, spreading the Good News, etc?

-shrug- to quote Gandhi, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."