How is it possible to be agnostic?

[Mirdath]

You say your upright; upright as apposed to what? There is no such thing as upright in your world, it just an invention of your mind; a snobish opinion about your self as opossed to the actions of other people you dont like.

Sure there is: acting for the benefit of others, even at your own expense.

Can we get away from this ‘there is no morality without God’ tripe already? It’s unfounded and untrue, and I’ve yet to see it used as an actual point of debate or anything other than a slanderous attack on a non-theist.

 

[drafdog]

The agnostic position is in fact the only intellectually honest position for a person who is not blessed with the gift of faith. Since it has been shown repeatedly by thinkers in every age that the existence of God is not provable, and since you cannot prove the non-existence of something, it makes sense to maintain a neutral ground and admit that you don’t know whether or not God exists. I have a friend who has struggled with this for a long time and believe me, it’s a lot of work to remain honestly skeptical.

The atheistic position pretends to know that there is no God. This is laziness in the extreme in that it purports to believe in nothing. At least those who believe in God believe in something.

The worst part of atheism is that, if the atheist is truly honest with himself, he is a person in a great deal of fear for which there is no hope of relief. We are all afflicted with the fear of death, the final dissolution of being. Only in religion do we find a system which holds any solace for that root terror at the core of our being. Belief in a God who takes us to Himself when we have passed beyond the realm of the physical world is a sure comfort. Look at how many people on this forum are terrified of the possibility of Hell, the nothingness that lurks beyond the grave.

Belief in God is good for the soul and the psyche. The agnostic is still trying to get there, but the atheist has lazily given up all hope.

Matthew

 

[Mirdath]

We are all afflicted with the fear of death, the final dissolution of being. Only in religion do we find a system which holds any solace for that root terror at the core of our being. Belief in a God who takes us to Himself when we have passed beyond the realm of the physical world is a sure comfort. Look at how many people on this forum are terrified of the possibility of Hell, the nothingness that lurks beyond the grave.

I appreciate the rest of the post, but this paragraph struck me.

Religion is not the only solace for fear of death by a long shot – in fact, some would argue religion creates that fear with its damnations and its hells. It’s possible to come to terms with one’s mortality without belief in an afterlife. It may, perhaps, take a certain humility or sense of scale or even humor to do – to say that the universe isn’t about you, that there’s (as far as you know) nobody watching over you to send you to one place or another for all eternity, that you’re just one very small wavelet on a very large sea, transitory and fading.

I find the idea of an eternal afterlife, good or bad, far more upsetting than that of death being completely final.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

You have totaly missed my point in favor of maitaining a perverted veiw of religion.

Religion is perverted. Like almost anything humans have fabricated. But I don’t want to go there, this thread has already derailed enough.

There is no morality in your world, only preference. The both of us would preffer not to be killed, but you cannot call somebody immoral for killing us.

Morality is preference. And about you telling me that I can’t be moral, I can say something similar about you: There is no morality, only fear. People in most versions of Christianity are confronted with the threat of hellfire and the bribe of heaven. Basic carrot-and-stick all over.

Morality is preference and is instilled in the young through proper rearing. Science has studied it in children of all kinds, both indoctrinated in whatever religions or not. Yes, everyone can be moral.

---

BTW, don’t indict my “uprightness”. It is not honorable to question a man’s honor, especially that of one you do not know and can harbor nothing against (without prejudice, that is). Thank you for understanding.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

Originally Posted by drafdog
We are all afflicted with the fear of death, the final dissolution of being. Only in religion do we find a system which holds any solace for that root terror at the core of our being. Belief in a God who takes us to Himself when we have passed beyond the realm of the physical world is a sure comfort. Look at how many people on this forum are terrified of the possibility of Hell, the nothingness that lurks beyond the grave.

I appreciate the rest of the post, but this paragraph struck me.

Religion is not the only solace for fear of death by a long shot – in fact, some would argue religion creates that fear with its damnations and its hells. It’s possible to come to terms with one’s mortality without belief in an afterlife. It may, perhaps, take a certain humility or sense of scale or even humor to do – to say that the universe isn’t about you, that there’s (as far as you know) nobody watching over you to send you to one place or another for all eternity, that you’re just one very small wavelet on a very large sea, transitory and fading.

I find the idea of an eternal afterlife, good or bad, far more upsetting than that of death being completely final.

The Epicureans, and Epicurus in particular, gave great answers to the “fear of death” issue, which is quite logical (modern psychologists, such as Albert Ellis, also do). The most famous one goes something like this:

Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.

It’s not easy to understand, but there is no horror in death. No one “remembers” the horro of death, from eternity to (1972, in my case) the monent of birth. That’s a very long time.

Death is nothing, but hell is somethinhg. Eternal damnation, nothing to live for, but a prospect of torture for all times. Drafdog, are you sure religion doesn’t create far worse nightmares than a ‘state of nothing we will never experience because we will not be there’ (death)?

It’s a question worth reflecting upon, IMO.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

This only means something to you; but in reality, it means nothing with out God, …]

I don’t mind my good deeds meaning nothing to YHWH, any more than the common (XXIst century) man doesn’t give a care if their deeds mean nothing to Dionisus, for instance.

…] since you could not act upon good if it did not exist.

Sure that ‘good’ exists! Look at you and me! We’re fab! And I don’t care if Vishnu, Avalokitesvara (a Buddhist bodhisattva) or YHWH don’t care or “aren’t around” to care, you and I are fab.

Good exists, Virginia. (I’m paraphrasing this)

 

[tomarin]

Can we get away from this ‘there is no morality without God’ tripe already? It’s unfounded and untrue, and I’ve yet to see it used as an actual point of debate or anything other than a slanderous attack on a non-theist.

mirdath,

i don’t mean to attack anyone, and i don’t want to harp, but this (to me) radical difference between a god-centered morality and a human-centered one is the crux of my argument. if as you say human-centered morality can offer moral absolutes, then there is no reason to believe in god or to act in accordance with his wishes.

i’m just not familiar with the argument for human-centered moral absolutes. it seems (to me) impossible for the reasons i outlined above (namely, these absolutes are always open to challenges from other humans, whereas divine ones are not).

can you enlighten me? (not being facetious here, i’m genuinely seeking truth).

pax christi,

tomarin

 

[LogosSokratikos]

mirdath,

i don’t mean to attack anyone, and i don’t want to harp, but this (to me) radical difference between a god-centered morality and a human-centered one is the crux of my argument. if as you say human-centered morality can offer moral absolutes, then there is no reason to believe in god or to act in accordance with his wishes.

i’m just not familiar with the argument for human-centered moral absolutes. it seems (to me) impossible for the reasons i outlined above (namely, these absolutes are always open to challenges from other humans, whereas divine ones are not).

can you enlighten me? (not being facetious here, i’m genuinely seeking truth).

pax christi,

tomarin

—Not answering, but only taking adavantage of the post—

Talk about “moral absolutes” makes me shiver, as when being a Cathar versus Catholic was a moral absolute (negative one) for pope Innocent III (curious name for one like this), who practically ordered the wipeout (in modern terms, genocide) of the Cathars. Homosexuality was also considered in absolute terms (still is, but I don’t want to go there, for that is a subject for very long threads!) and they were tortured, mutilated or killed for millenia…

On the other hand, if life isn’t a moral absolute, you will have GWBush, who is fascinated with killing the born, but appalled with killing the unborn. For many evangelicals and some non-evangelicals who BTW believe in absolutes, don’t find that one (life) a moral absolute!

*So, in short, I don’t think the crux of the issue is so much whether you believe in moral absolutes or not, than if your morality/ethics is warped/perverted. *

Another subject is self defense, which most people, even Augustine of Hippo believed in. Regard:

• If you believe in self defense, can you call life a moral absolute for you?
• If you believe that your God (whatever your religious inclination is) is being fair by condemning humanity to death because one guy transgressed, can you still say life is a moral absolute for you (or for God)?
• If your answer is that God can do that but you aren’t allowed to, can it be said that it’s a case of “do as I say, not as I do”? And if you subscribe to the belief that God can do or ordain as he wills, can we say you have moral absolutes, if you do stuff only because of god commands and god whims?

Whatever your answers may be, the questions are important.

 

[Mirdath]

i don’t mean to attack anyone, and i don’t want to harp, but this (to me) radical difference between a god-centered morality and a human-centered one is the crux of my argument. if as you say human-centered morality can offer moral absolutes, then there is no reason to believe in god or to act in accordance with his wishes.

If human-centered morality offers absolutes, it is not a reason to disbelieve in God, but a reason to act primarily in the interests of humans instead of trying to please that deity first. God still, apparently, has quite a lot to offer for those who don’t get the screaming heebie-jeebies from the idea of eternal life.

i’m just not familiar with the argument for human-centered moral absolutes. it seems (to me) impossible for the reasons i outlined above (namely, these absolutes are always open to challenges from other humans, whereas divine ones are not).

can you enlighten me? (not being facetious here, i’m genuinely seeking truth).

There’s no lack of arguments. Jesus’ own ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’, while a simple statement, implies plenty of absolute wrongs and rights without bringing God into it. Not all of them may be agreed upon, certainly, but that’s just as much a fault of moral systems laid down by divine fiat: one religion declares eating meat a moral evil, another says that one must literally eat and drink God’s flesh and blood. Nor does Kant’s Categorical Imperative hold a deity as the source of moral law, and so on and so forth.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

agnosticism is just a pompous title for indecision and confusion
it is no more an intellectual position than not being able to choose between sugar puffs and shredded wheat
a position that actually states nothing is obviously very defensible

I understand that agnosticism is a very sure belief that the existence of any god is unknowable. I used to call myself agnostic untill I discovered that it can be known: after all, there are versions of God around, and that the concept is based in the Quran, the Bible, etc, and certain interpretations (trinitarian, unitarian, Mormon, etc). That pretty much decided it for me, examining the worthiness of the “models” (so to speak) of God available.

 

[Ahimsa]

I understand that agnosticism is a very sure belief that the existence of any god is unknowable. I used to call myself agnostic untill I discovered that it can be known: after all, there are versions of God around, and that the concept is based in the Quran, the Bible, etc, and certain interpretations (trinitarian, unitarian, Mormon, etc). That pretty much decided it for me, examining the worthiness of the “models” (so to speak) of God available.

There are ‘hard’ agnostics and ‘soft’ agnostics. If you’re ‘hard’, then not only is knowledge currently lacking, but knowledge will always lack. If you’re ‘soft’, then the current lack of knowledge might someday become knowledge.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by freesoulhope
The reason i asked you the qeustion, is because, when you say that your agnostic, your saying that it is irrational to dedicate one’s-self to either side with out evidence, because none have any proof. But it is illogical to take the title of agnostic, because it usely means that your “atheist” untill a theist can prove otherwise.

That’s only your perception of it. Of course I follow no organized religion – I couldn’t very well do that and claim to be agnostic, could I? And atheism by its very nature is not really ‘organizable’. But it does not mean I’m basically atheist – I’m functionally irreligious. The possibility that there is a God or gods sounds just as reasonable to me as the possibility that there’s no such thing. I simply believe it’s impossible to know.

You believe that what I know I can’t know.

Since I know that God exists, you claim to know that what I know is unknowable.

How can you prove that? Even To yourself, much less anyone else?

Since you seem to forbid yourself to believe in things that you can’t prove exist, you are now forced to prove that I don’t know what I know to believe that it is “Impossible to know if God exists”.

Go for it!

Can you, indeed, PROVE to your own satisfaction that I don’t know what I know about the existence of God?

…or would you like to restate your assertion?

You like to tell youself you are functionally irreligious, but you are actually religiously (dogmatically) ignorant (of God).

That’s not a put down. By “ignorant” I mean that you are “un-knowing”. You simply don’t know how to discern anything related to this “God” stuff.

And you are religious about it, in that you hold to the idea that knowledge of “God stuff” is impossible simply because you feel and sense that that must be reality because you have yet to experience such things as you “should” discern them to confirm, one way or the other, their reality.

How you can judge what a thing “should” look like (God stuff) without (self admittedly) having anything to compare it to is “interesting” to me. If the existence of a thing is unverifiable, even if it does exist you can’t possibly know that it does, leaving you exactly where you were. Ignorant of it.

I would contend that you structure your beliefs so that it is utterly impossible to verify God, regardless of ANY evidence whatsoever.

I can’t prove that, of course, but neither can you if you’re being honest, and I believe you’re a VERY honest person indeed.

You believe as you do, religiously, for the same reason we all do. Because it holds. When it no longer holds, you will change your belief, as do we all. I personally think you’re here in search of a reason for your belief to “not hold”.

May you find what you seek with all dispatch.

 

[Mirdath]

stuff

What I’m more curious about right now is why you decided to resurrect what’s by my count every thread I’ve ever posted.

 

[freesoulhope]

What I’m more curious about right now is why you decided to resurrect what’s by my count every thread I’ve ever posted.

God exists.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

What I’m more curious about right now is why you decided to resurrect what’s by my count every thread I’ve ever posted.

Because I think you’re one of the most interesting people around, and RIDICULOUSLY intelligent, and such an obviously “searching for God” person, who uses that massive intelligence to religiously believe in “unbelief” with such vehemence as you demonstrate.

In other words, YES, I’m stalking you, but only because where you are there is interesting discussion!

…and I don’t think I’ve “resurrected” EVERY thread you’ve posted in, though if I had the time I would certainly set that as a goal.

So, basically, I like you and appreciate your contribution immensely.

 

[Ahimsa]

Because I think you’re one of the most interesting people around, and RIDICULOUSLY intelligent, and such an obviously “searching for God” person, who uses that massive intelligence to religiously believe in “unbelief” with such vehemence as you demonstrate.

In other words, YES, I’m stalking you, but only because where you are there is interesting discussion!

…and I don’t think I’ve “resurrected” EVERY thread you’ve posted in, though if I had the time I would certainly set that as a goal.

So, basically, I like you and appreciate your contribution immensely.

Sheesh…get a room.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Sheesh…get a room.

Hah ha ha ha ha ha…! "

My chastity feels very much intact, thank you very much!

…though I may have overextended my charity by a few centimeters. I do hope I haven’t pulled anything. I don’t really need any “spriitual” injuries at the moment!

 

[inthecloud]

Being an agnostic is the easiest thing in life. Trust me. I was one for almost 20 years.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Being an agnostic is the easiest thing in life. Trust me. I was one for almost 20 years.

I’m a 47’ish year veteran myself.

It’s easy to be an agnostic, in a “being lazy” kind of way, but that kind of laziness makes you spiritually a “38+ year old virgin who lives in his mother’s basement collecting Satanman Comic Books (ok, Graphic Novels!)”.

That may be easy, but it’s really hard on you.

 

[CHCatholic]

As Stephen Colbert said in his book:

An Agnostic is just an Athiest without balls

Personally, the agnostics I know just want proof, as in to see it in front of their face, since theres none of that solid proof either for or against the existence of God, then they don’t take a position.