Why I Am Agnostic

[Istolethisname]

Has anyone else read this book by Robert Ingersoll?
Very thoughtful, and motivating. To me anyways.....

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

[billyjack]

Has anyone else read this by Robert Ingersoll?
Very thoughtful, and motivating. To me anyways.....

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

have you ever heard the song called -dear god- by XTC? its sounds agnostic

[Istolethisname]

have you ever heard the song called -dear god- by XTC? its sounds agnostic

No, but I'll be sure to check it out.

[maryjude]

"When I became convinced that the Universe is natural -- that
all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain,
into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling,
the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the
dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and
manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave."

What are his prison walls? Tradition? Religion? Religion is to broad, it must be something more specific. He's not agnostic. He says he is "convinced". In the Greek the prefix "a" is a negator, and "gnosco" means "to know", so he is not knowing yet convinced?

[Istolethisname]

"When I became convinced that the Universe is natural -- that
all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain,
into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling,
the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the
dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and
manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave."

What are his prison walls? Tradition? Religion? Religion is to broad, it must be something more specific. He's not agnostic. He says he is "convinced". In the Greek the prefix "a" is a negator, and "gnosco" means "to know", so he is not knowing yet convinced?

Do you not know what an agnostic is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism - Here is something you can look at.

And yes, to the second part, he is convinced that he doesn't know, which is main part of being agnostic.
Here is his entire book, Its amazing.
http://www.infidels.org/library/hist..._agnostic.html

You should check some of this information out, I think you will find it to be very interesting.

[JGL57]

"When I became convinced that the Universe is natural -- that
all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain,
into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling,
the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the
dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and
manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave."

What are his prison walls? Tradition? Religion? Religion is to broad, it must be something more specific. He's not agnostic. He says he is "convinced". In the Greek the prefix "a" is a negator, and "gnosco" means "to know", so he is not knowing yet convinced?

Good reply by Istolethisname but I will add this: Conviciton is one thing, and any claim to some form of absolute knowledge via either the miracle of faith (or the strenght of one's I.Q.) is quite another kettle of fish.

E.g. - I am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt (my human ability to doubt) that the earth is spherical and encircles the sun, between Venus and Mars. I do not have the capacity to know this as a certainly or absolute fact, nor can I prove it to an absolute degree (Nor would I or any other human have any need to prove anything absolutely ever).

Religionists many times (and some self-labeled atheists) do claim such perfect knowledge. That is not good.

Ingersoll was convinced the god of the bible was a myth. I can understand this. As to some unknown or unknowable sentient source of our observable universe, or some philosophy of existence unknown to him but which would be logically and morally consistant, I suspect that is where Ingersol was an agnostic - just like any sensible person would admit. It's like admitting one is human.

Ingersoll was called "The Great Agnostic". I don't think this was without reason. All you have to do is read him extensively and not just a selected quote or two.

[cuppajoe_9]

Good reply by Istolethisname but I will add this: Conviciton is one thing, and any claim to some form of absolute knowledge via either the miracle of faith (or the strenght of one's I.Q.) is quite another kettle of fish.

E.g. - I am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt (my human ability to doubt) that the earth is spherical and encircles the sun, between Venus and Mars. I do not have the capacity to know this as a certainly or absolute fact, nor can I prove it to an absolute degree (Nor would I or any other human have any need to prove anything absolutely ever).

Religionists many times (and some self-labeled atheists) do claim such perfect knowledge. That is not good.

An excellent point, and I would like to add another if I may. There is indeed a difference between a conviction and a claim of inhumanly absolute knowledge and there is, I would submit, a fairly easy test of which one you have. The test goes like this: try to imagine a reasonable set of circumstances which would cause you to shed your conviction. A 'conviction' is literally something which you are convinced of, and being convinced of something should always include a possibility of becoming unconvinced.

I, like JG, am convinced that the earth goes round the sun.* However, if somebody strapped me into the space shuttle and took into outer space and showed me the earth sitting in the centre of the solar system and all the other planets and the sun moving in neat little geometric circles around it, I would immediately renounce my views and become a devout geocentrist until my death (quite possibly caused by the space shuttle crashing into the first of the seven concentric crystal spheres into which the stars are stuck).

I am also an outspoken atheist (outspoken in the sense that I will probably tell you this whether you ask or not). And, likewise, there are numerous circumstances that would cause me to recant that worldview. I've detailed them elsewhere, and I'm certainly not expecting any of them to occur, but I can at least imagine circumstances that would cause me to cheerfully admit that I was wrong.

I submit that all of one's convictions should be, at some point, subject to such a test.

* Pedants' corner: The earth only goes round the sun if you define the sun as standing still. This isn't the case. When measured from a different vantage point – the geometric centre of the universe, say – the sun is actually whizzing around very fast, and the earth is moving in a sort of wave pattern nearby. In fact, one could just as easily define the earth as standing still and everything else moving in relation to it. The problem with this is that the orbit of everything else becomes severly screwed up. Never mind.

[chaplin]

Conviciton is one thing, and any claim to some form of absolute knowledge via either the miracle of faith (or the strenght of one's I.Q.) is quite another kettle of fish.

Religionists many times (and some self-labeled atheists) do claim such perfect knowledge. That is not good.

Although not an agnostic or atheist, I completely agree with this, although do not also concur that it is particularly harmful.

I belong to a Church where the statement "I know my Church is true" is a staple for the expression of belief. Obviously, they do not know that their Church and its principles are pure truth, they merely believe in them.

However, I do not think this is a big issue in the expression of religious or lack of religious belief, because really when you come down to it, it is only a semantic arguement. People are not going to say I believe in, but do not have absolute knowledge of, my Church, everytime they testify to others of their faith. Exaggeration and the use of stronger words than is warranted is human nature and should not be used as a criticism against any set of beliefs or the expression thereof.

[cuppajoe_9]

However, I do not think this is a big issue in the expression of religious or lack of religious belief, because really when you come down to it, it is only a semantic arguement. People are not going to say I believe in, but do not have absolute knowledge of, my Church, everytime they testify to others of their faith. Exaggeration and the use of stronger words than is warranted is human nature and should not be used as a criticism against any set of beliefs or the expression thereof.

But it isn't a semantic issue if what they mean is: "I believe my Church is true, and will not, under any imaginable circumstances, relinquish that belief". It's that kind of narrow-mindedness that occasionally produces dangerous results.

[chaplin]

But it isn't a semantic issue if what they mean is: "I believe my Church is true, and will not, under any imaginable circumstances, relinquish that belief". It's that kind of narrow-mindedness that occasionally produces dangerous results.

But that is the very heart of belief in all societies, today and yesterday. Firm faith is a faith that will not shake or shift under threat of death or anything worse, that is what is celebrated as true faith and not philosophy. And the mere possession of such a faith is not harmful. It is not the belief, that will not, "under any imaginable circumstances", be relinquished, but the intolerance of any different belief of equal strength, that produces harmful results.

[cuppajoe_9]

But that is the very heart of belief in all societies, today and yesterday. Firm faith is a faith that will not shake or shift under threat of death or anything worse, that is what is celebrated as true faith and not philosophy.

And I don't think that it deserves any particular celebration.

And the mere possession of such a faith is not harmful. It is not the belief, that will not, "under any imaginable circumstances", be relinquished, but the intolerance of any different belief of equal strength, that produces harmful results.

Isn't it? What happens when you 'believe', as Oliver Cromwell did, that God wants you to defend His people from Catholicism by force? What happens when you 'believe' that it's reasonable to convert pagans by torture in order to save them from hell? For that matter, why not 'celebrate' these beliefs as 'true faith' just like any other similar belief?

[chaplin]

What happens when you 'believe', as Oliver Cromwell did, that God wants you to defend His people from Catholicism by force? What happens when you 'believe' that it's reasonable to convert pagans by torture in order to save them from hell? For that matter, why not 'celebrate' these beliefs as 'true faith' just like any other similar belief?

Now you're criticizing particular beliefs instead of belief itself. There are moral beliefs and immoral beliefs, constructive beliefs and destructive beliefs, but the very thing of belief is not the problem.

It is the particulars of each belief that brings harm, not the fundamental thing of belief, even if such a statement is not philosophically stimulating. Belief is the conduit for thought to become more, whether thought produced independently or given involunatrily from birth; and just because harmful thought is practiced and expressed through belief, it does not follow that belief, itself, is harmful.

[cuppajoe_9]

Now you're criticizing particular beliefs instead of belief itself. There are moral beliefs and immoral beliefs, constructive beliefs and destructive beliefs, but the very thing of belief is not the problem.

It is the particulars of each belief that brings harm, not the fundamental thing of belief, even if such a statement is not philosophically stimulating. Belief is the conduit for thought to become more, whether thought produced independently or given involunatrily from birth; and just because harmful thought is practiced and expressed through belief, it does not follow that belief, itself, is harmful.

It's not that this sort of belief is harmful in and of itself (except, perhaps, in the intellectual sense); it's that it is a very dangerous thing to say "I believe this thing and I will always believe it no matter what", because there is always a chance that the particular thing you believe will turn out to be very destructive and dangerous when unleashed on the real world. This is particularly dangerous when, as is the usual practice, such beliefs are conferred upon children who are very young and therefore not particularly good at critical thinking, as well as fantastically gullible.

Fallibilism, in this way, works like a safety mechanism. If you believe something that turns out to be quite true and a good idea, then a little bit of critical thinking won't spoil it. Good ideas do not stop being good ideas on contact with oxygen. Bad ideas, almost by definition, do not stand up to reality very well. In fact, bad ideas are often preserved and passed on by this sort of 'true faith' where they should have been discarded long ago. Nationalism, in its extremes one of the worst ideas anybody has ever had, depends for its survival on its believers not asking the fairly obvious question, "what makes people born on the piece of ground here better than people born on that piece of ground there?" I'm sure you can think of other examples.

[chaplin]

It's not that this sort of belief is harmful in and of itself (except, perhaps, in the intellectual sense); it's that it is a very dangerous thing to say "I believe this thing and I will always believe it no matter what", because there is always a chance that the particular thing you believe will turn out to be very destructive and dangerous when unleashed on the real world. This is particularly dangerous when, as is the usual practice, such beliefs are conferred upon children who are very young and therefore not particularly good at critical thinking, as well as fantastically gullible.

Obviously we could go on and on, and if we did I think you'd eventually get the better of me (if you haven't already); I've found your arguements well written and laid out with a firm conviction, perhaps bordering on "belief", but it's all semantics anyway right?

[cuppajoe_9]

Obviously we could go on and on, and if we did I think you'd eventually get the better of me (if you haven't already); I've found your arguements well written and laid out with a firm conviction, perhaps bordering on "belief", but it's all semantics anyway right?

Well, no, because if it could be demonstrated to me that holding this sort of faith carries more benefits than drawbacks, I would recant.