How is it possible to be agnostic?

[freesoulhope]

There was a time when I told people I was agnostic.

To me, it’s just a way to explain your spiritual dilemma. Also, you could be agnostic and be Buddhist, for example, so agnosticism doesn’t really prevent one from adopting the philosophical elements of a particular belief system. I realize that doesn’t work for Christianity, but I think it would probably work for many Eastern religions.

I guess I’m just trying to say that being agnostic is more an emotional state of mind than it is a religious belief.

Agnostism is a belief in a priciple, a way of thinking, a state of mind; bubdism is also the case, but degiused mixed with spirtual elements.
Like atheism, it fails to logicall explain the existents of reality, or why they should live as they do. In my eyes It is an atheists version of theistic religion; a priciple of living rather then a religion.

 

[freesoulhope]

In the Miller-Urey experiment, they found that when they set up a sterile system only fed with water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen, heat and an electric spark, that after running the apparatus for a week, all sorts of organic compounds had occurred naturally… including DNA. Later experiments have shown similar results.

I’m not familiar with this experiment; However, this doesn’t explain why it happened, why reality works as it does; working in such and ordered fashion that life should occur; it only means that under certain conditions, with the right cemistry and the fundemental building blocks involved, life does occur. It doesn’t explain the compounds themselves, why DNA develops as it does and acts towards a goal (to produce information and pass it on), and since the experiment is repeatable, then it is proven that DNA “must” occur under the right conditions, and is not an accident.
Again, in respect of the experiment, it was not conducted before the big bang; in other words, it is conducted in a world were all the forces and the elements are in place; there-fore, the experiment does not explain the existents of matter and its function in the first place; it says nothing about existents.

If a pink elephant pops out of my ceiling, then maybe reality is a mistake; but reality works in a rational fashion with rational governing laws, producing rational minds that understands it, enabling us to fulfil a rational desire to understand it.

 

[Mirdath]

You never said that you are agnostic because of reason or philosophy; you said it is because there is a lack of scientific evidence. What you speak of, is more like some kind of scientific materialist principle, rather then a philosophy.

Actually I was speaking in philosophical terms from the start.

It’s natural to want to know the truth, but to be agnostic, is to not want to know anything untill empirical evidence is present; of which you know there is none, therefore it is a fallacy to search for an answer through science, since science studies nature, and God is beyond nature.

No, it’s saying knowing is impossible. ‘Not wanting to know’ is a different thing, although yes, I’m pretty ambivalent on that – considering I believe it’s impossible, what’s the point?

1&2

Agreed.

1. God has a very logical basis for reality, and is in fact, the only logical answer that can explain the existents of are reality; regardless of the lack of scientific evidence.

God has no logical basis, and your own religion depends on that – were it otherwise, free will (in this case, the ability to disbelieve) would be severely impaired at best, no? Isn’t that the entire point of Faith?

The existence of the universe may well be a question science is unable to answer, but that does not mean religion must needs have the answer by default.

1. They may not be any evidence that points “directly” to God, but the evidence available through emprical natural science (especially when we know of D.N.A; how obvious can it get?), is certainly suggestive of God, and an underlying purpose driving nature, even though it is in a very indirect sense. In other words the world has the signature of God written all over it, even if the writer is not present.

Such ‘evidence’ can just as easily be taken as supporting the exact opposite concept.

1. Atheism, as a belief system, fails to explain the fundamental basis of are reality; why it acts as it does and produces what it produces; in other words, if it has no intelligence behind it, then why does it act as if it does? Atheism has know logical answer to this question, but God does.

Atheism doesn’t try to explain that. Why are we talking about atheism anyway? This thread isn’t about it or about theism except as they deal with agnosticism.

To be agnostic, is to hide behind a tool that cannot prove the existents of God (not a philosophy) and neither is it designed to. Being agnostic doesn’t follow or prove that there is no other way of knowing that God exists.

In the absence of any direct evidence for or against the divine, and in the absence of satisfactory reasoned proof for or against (considering that’s a question to which many of the worlds’ greatest minds have entirely devoted themselves for millennia), I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet.

The only reason I could think of for not wanting to put hope or belief in a higher dimension, a super nature, is because it goes against something that you want.

Or because it just doesn’t make sense? As I’ve been saying, the only way to really do that is to accept non-sense as fact on faith, which is a capacity I apparently lack.

1. Inteligence: The idea that somebody would doubt the existents of a God, when out of the many possibilities of how the universe could have turned out with out intelligent restraint, that a rational mind, fully aware of its self, should occur, full stop, is mind boggling to me.

I don’t doubt – I simply can’t answer the question.

 

[Bennie_P]

I suppose it is easier to defend your position when you stay away from people who disagree with it. I think I’m secure enough in my beliefs to expose myself to dissenting views occasionally.

As for me, I’m here to try to better understand my wife’s religion.

If you have a need to defend then whom is on the offence?
In order to defend then you need a have invader attacking your camp. Otherwise you are an aggressor going to another’s camp to defend your positon.

If you have doubt of the existence of God, or if you don’t believe in God, then you are defending your position against nothing for you are being attacked by nothing? Is that not a stance of a madman? Therefore God must be in order to defend yourself from God.

 

[freesoulhope]

Actually I was speaking in philosophical terms from the start.

No, its saying knowing is impossible.

I agree that, " through direct scientific reaserch we cannot yield results that empirically prove the existents of God. In this way we can’t know. Philosophy is a different matter. I can know enough, to have a reasonable faith.

God has no logical basis, and your own religion depends on that – were it otherwise, free will (in this case, the ability to disbelieve) would be severely impaired at best, no? Isn’t that the entire point of Faith?.

You have not proven that God has no logical basis on reality; you have only challenged a Christian understanding of God which has no bearing on whether God exists or not. What you speak of is a matter of religion; we are no longer in the realm of philosophy, rather we have now entered the world of theology.

As for disbelieving or believing; such a concept can only be spoken of in a world where there is wide spread “atheism”; there was a time when the majority, if not all, of the world believed in some kind of God or other. This concept has very little to do with Christianity. Having faith is about putting trust in God and being faithful; disbelieving in God is putting trust in ones self and disobeying God. This does not amount to error just because one can be philosophically sure that there is a God; many prophets including Moses came face to face with angels and manifestations of God; they were at least sure that some kind of God existed. Thomas of the New Testament is doubtful at first, but then touches the resurrected body of Christ; from that moment on, Thomas, along with all the other apostles, knew “empirically” that Jesus is the Christ. God values faith; he doesn’t rule out definitive knowledge of his existents.

The existence of the universe may well be a question science is unable to answer, but that does not mean religion must needs have the answer by default…

It’s the only logical answer, if atheism (the belief in the non-existents of God) is logically impossible. If the world cannot logically exist with out a super nature, then a believer in “logic” and “reason”, especially a scientist (since “philosophical reason" gave birth to empirical science, if you do your history) Should believe in a super nature, since atheism is redundant as a philosophy.

The only true atheist, is somebody who just doesn’t care or is simply not ready for a belief in God at some particular time in his life, or somebody who has been unable to access the philosophical evidence due to materialist brainwashing and fear of embarrassment. An atheist is not somebody who has been enlightened.

It’s strange and irrational that, being somebody who agrees with numbers 1&2, you don’t agree with the rest of my answers.

Such ‘evidence’ can just as easily be taken as supporting the exact opposite concept.

If this is the case, then show me.

Atheism doesn’t try to explain that. Why are we talking about atheism anyway? This thread isn’t about it or about theism except as they deal with agnosticism…

Atheism is a philosophical position that has to prove the other side philosophically incorrect in order to be understood as a rational position. When asked why somebody is an atheist, they always give the wrongs answers; in other words, they purposely avoid the illogicality of there own position and blame God.
In order for me to prove the agnosticism to be an irrational and unreasonable position I must expose the error on which it is founded; and that is atheism.

In the absence of any direct evidence for or against the divine, and in the absence of satisfactory reasoned proof for or against (considering that’s a question to which many of the worlds’ greatest minds have entirely devoted themselves for millennia), I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet…

You haven’t proven that there is an absence of any satisfactory “reasoned” proof; your answer will remain an unproven “irrational opinion" until you do-so.

Or because it just doesn’t make sense? As I’ve been saying, the only way to really do that is to accept non-sense as fact on faith, which is a capacity I apparently lack…

It might not make sense to you at this time in your life, but it does not follow that my philosophical position is not reasonable if not iron-clad.

 

[freesoulhope]

Continued…

I don’t doubt – I simply can’t answer the question.

You don’t want to answer the question, and you avoid asking it by hiding behind empirical science; there by, reliving your self of your human responsibility to take “reason” to its logical conclusion.

Peace.

 

[freesoulhope]

peace

 

[freesoulhope]

peace

 

[freesoulhope]

What an agnostic should ask himself or herself is: "Is it logically possible, for there to be another philosophical position, which is just as “probable” as the existents of God. If there is, then agnosticism can be a personal and philophically honest position in the sense of being unsure, and not being ready to dedicate ones self to either one. But if atheism is redundant, and there are no other philosophical possibilities, I don’t see how one can deny an intelligent God/super nature, except to close ones eyes.

Nice talking to you; you have strengthened my philosophical conviction that a God does exist, and is the only conceivably logical position to take; hence, I have a rational faith. Peace.

 

[Mirdath]

Having faith is about putting trust in God and being faithful; disbelieving in God is putting trust in ones self and disobeying God.

In other words, faith is faith and not having faith is in itself wrongdoing. Even discounting the circular definition, that doesn’t add up: how can not believing in what objectively appears nonsensical (for an example, the dual nature of Jesus) be a moral problem? How about faith is belief in a thing without the necessity of reason?

It’s the only logical answer, if atheism (the belief in the non-existents of God) is logically impossible.

The impossibility of atheism is identical to that of theism: neither can prove itself satisfactorily. That one of the two is unprovable lends no credence to the other.

If the world cannot logically exist with out a super nature, then a believer in “logic” and “reason”, especially a scientist (since “philosophical reason" gave birth to empirical science, if you do your history) Should believe in a super nature, since atheism is redundant as a philosophy.

It can’t? I know that’s a major point of Lewis’, but I haven’t read it specifically – and ‘super nature’ by definition is defiant of logic, so attempting to say that existence without the supernatural is ‘logically’ impossible makes no sense at all.

The only true atheist, is somebody who just doesn’t care or is simply not ready for a belief in God at some particular time in his life, or somebody who has been unable to access the philosophical evidence due to materialist brainwashing and fear of embarrassment. An atheist is not somebody who has been enlightened.

This thread is about agnosticism. Thanks.

It’s strange and irrational that, being somebody who agrees with numbers 1&2, you don’t agree with the rest of my answers.

Not at all. Points one and two are simply just as true for theism as they are for atheism, and the rest of them fly in the face of that.

If this is the case, then show me.

LapsedAtheist already did in the post mentioning the Miller-Urey experiment.

Atheism is a philosophical position that has to prove the other side philosophically incorrect in order to be understood as a rational position. When asked why somebody is an atheist, they always give the wrongs answers; in other words, they purposely avoid the illogicality of there own position and blame God.
In order for me to prove the agnosticism to be an irrational and unreasonable position I must expose the error on which it is founded; and that is atheism.

This thread is not about atheism.

You haven’t proven that there is an absence of any satisfactory “reasoned” proof; your answer will remain an unproven “irrational opinion" until you do-so.

What do I even have to prove? It’s the theists and atheists who do, not I – and unless and until they manage that, it would seem to me that my opinion is the height of rationality.

You don’t want to answer the question, and you avoid asking it by hiding behind empirical science; there by, reliving your self of your human responsibility to take “reason” to its logical conclusion.

This is the conclusion of Reason, as far as I can tell – nor is its use to any extent a human responsibility (imagine how I must feel looking at those who profess Faith, were that true!). Should an answer become apparent, I’ll be happy with that; but until then, no matter how much I may want that answer I have little recourse but to believe I cannot have it without ignoring the very Reason you appeal to.

 

[LapsedAtheist]

Not at all. Points one and two are simply just as true for theism as they are for atheism, and the rest of them fly in the face of that.

They’re also just as applicable for the devout here with respect to their rejection of all religions and all deities but one.

I suspect that most people here have rejected the majority of religions outright without a proper examination of them, likely on the basis of “common sense” alone (a god with the head of an elephant? Nature spirits and talking animals? Preposterous!), but then those who have posted here previously ask for much, much more justification than that when someone rejects the religion that they hold dear.

If you have a need to defend then whom is on the offence?
In order to defend then you need a have invader attacking your camp. Otherwise you are an aggressor going to another’s camp to defend your positon.

My point was that if you’re insecure in your beliefs, then it would be natural to hide from any threat to them.

If you have doubt of the existence of God, or if you don’t believe in God, then you are defending your position against nothing for you are being attacked by nothing? Is that not a stance of a madman? Therefore God must be in order to defend yourself from God.

There is a difference between religion and God. You’re right that I would be foolish to “pick a fight with God” over my atheism. However, I’m perfectly willing to defend my position to the religious.

The only true atheist, is somebody who just doesn’t care or is simply not ready for a belief in God at some particular time in his life, or somebody who has been unable to access the philosophical evidence due to materialist brainwashing and fear of embarrassment. An atheist is not somebody who has been enlightened.

I’m trying to decide if that’s an ad-hominem attack or a baseless generalization.

Personally, seeing how I go to Mass most Sundays, read the Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church regularly, and generally put quite a bit of thought, energy and effort into trying my best to fairly consider religion, Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, I don’t think your characterization is accurate. Most other atheists I know put quite a bit of thought and reflection into their positions.

 

[Bennie_P]

They’re also just as applicable for the devout here with respect to My point was that if you’re insecure in your beliefs, then it would be natural to hide from any threat to them…

Is it a sign of being secure in your beliefs to seek out conflect? Or a sign of aggression or a sign of fear to go on the offence into the “enemy’s” camp to defend oneself?

One that claims in the idea of live and let live, it would appear to be comfortable within their own circle of like thinkers. But is there a need to be the one with the ‘correct’ knowledge and be the conqueror over the foolish believers in God? Does it offend one that doubts, or don’t believe so much that they must be in control of not only their own ‘right’ thinking that they must also control or break the belief of the ‘foolish’ believer?

There is a difference between religion and God. You’re right that I would be foolish to “pick a fight with God” over my atheism. However, I’m perfectly willing to defend my position to the religious.

But the religous doesn’t need to defend themselves to you, only to God. and as Christians we know that we cannot even do that with the help of God.

I’m trying to decide if that’s an ad-hominem attack or a baseless generalization…

Is this what you mean by ad-hominen attack?
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”
Bill: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”
Dave: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.”

The type of arguments thrown at Catholics everyday?

Personally, seeing how I go to Mass most Sundays, read the Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church regularly, and generally put quite a bit of thought, energy and effort into trying my best to fairly consider religion, Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, I don’t think your characterization is accurate. Most other atheists I know put quite a bit of thought and reflection into their positions.

Add prayer to that and you too may soon be an ex-nonbeliever as I am. Like I stated before, agnostics, athiest and pagans that come to this site are most likely seekers. Your in my prayers, may God bless you and your wife.

 

[Tmaque]

Mirdath,

I respect your position. I felt exactly as you do for many many years. I think that many people come to be agnostics because they are seeking truth and they refuse to accept belief in anything without reasonable evidence. It’s a position of integrity and I understand exactly where you are coming from.

Like you I believed that it was impossible to know if God exists. Yet I did know, having been religious before, that a belief in God gives us great comfort in life. Why did we evolve with this desire to reach beyond the physical world and connect with the infinite? I’m glad you’re here because it means that you are exploring possibilities. Please keep searching for truth. You’re on the right path.

When I was agnostic I often said a little prayer. It was simply “God, I have no idea if you exist, but if you’re up there please guide my life”. It was my feeble entrance into Paschal’s wager. I’m curious, do you ever say a little prayer because God might be there?

 

[Mirdath]

When I was agnostic I often said a little prayer. It was simply “God, I have no idea if you exist, but if you’re up there please guide my life”. It was my feeble entrance into Paschal’s wager. I’m curious, do you ever say a little prayer because God might be there?

Actually, yes I have, though not very often. Pascal’s wager has its own problems, though – universalist religions are not accounted for at all, and there’s still the question of ‘which God/gods?’

 

[Bennie_P]

Actually, yes I have, though not very often. Pascal’s wager has its own problems, though – universalist religions are not accounted for at all, and there’s still the question of ‘which God/gods?’

Try doing it every day, thats only 3 - 5 seconds a day. What you got to lose? Just think how much time you waste watching TV commericials.

 

[Tmaque]

Actually, yes I have, though not very often. Pascal’s wager has its own problems, though – universalist religions are not accounted for at all, and there’s still the question of ‘which God/gods?’

“Which” God was never an issue for me. If there is a god in the real sense then he/she is the one that created the universe and everything in it, including other gods. The ultimate prime mover, the infinite God, outside of space and time, that is the only being worthy of an attempt to communicate.

 

[Mirdath]

Try doing it every day, thats only 3 - 5 seconds a day. What you got to lose? Just think how much time you waste watching TV commericials.

I don’t watch TV But sure, I’ll take you up on that dare – what do you say, every day for two weeks?

“Which” God was never an issue for me. If there is a god in the real sense then he/she is the one that created the universe and everything in it, including other gods. The ultimate prime mover, the infinite God, outside of space and time, that is the only being worthy of an attempt to communicate.

Much as I agree with that, it still seems that almost every religion under the sun worships such a God, yet many are mutually exclusive and some claim that those who don’t ‘get it right’ are condemned. Which is one to choose then?

 

[Bennie_P]

I don’t watch TV But sure, I’ll take you up on that dare – what do you say, every day for two weeks?
quote]

Don’t blame you on the TV thing, don’t like it much myself.

It’s not a dare just a suggestion. Go for it.

But it takes 21 days to make a habit, some say.

 

[Mirdath]

But it takes 21 days to make a habit, some say.

21? It took me three days to get into some habits

Nonetheless, you’re on Starting now…

 

[Tmaque]

I don’t watch TV But sure, I’ll take you up on that dare – what do you say, every day for two weeks?

Much as I agree with that, it still seems that almost every religion under the sun worships such a God, yet many are mutually exclusive and some claim that those who don’t ‘get it right’ are condemned. Which is one to choose then?

Mirdath,

I was never concerned with what religions taught. I believed nothing religion had to say. In my unbelief I simply said a prayer to whatever was up there. My heart told me that something should be there, but my mind could find no reason to affirm belief in the supernatural at all. I didn’t need to name this force, person, whatever. I wasn’t worrying about condemnation. I just wanted to communicate with this “higher power”, if it was there, no matter who or what it was. Does that make any sense?