Is there such a thing?
I was wondering whether agnosticsm can merit its own religion of beliefs of disbeliefs?
How long would it last before one makes up their own mind about going one way or the other?
Printable View
Is there such a thing?
I was wondering whether agnosticsm can merit its own religion of beliefs of disbeliefs?
How long would it last before one makes up their own mind about going one way or the other?
Most agnostics, in the way they describe their belief system, are really atheists. Either they don't know it, or they don't want to attach themselves to the word "atheist" because of the connotations some put on the word.
I think the words "agnostic" or "atheist" require a specific object which others would call a "God" they believe in. There are people who claim to be opposed to all Gods, but it seems too vague to me. So if that is the case, we are all agnostics or atheists since there is some conception of God we do not accept.
The question of how long something lasts before a change occurs I find very interesting. Most of the time we don't seem to change much, but then something happens and suddenly we have a different way of looking at things. Change occurs quickly and then we live with that change for perhaps quite a while.
I agree with Mutatis in that an agnostic neither believes or disbelieves there is a God. Here's what I gathered about them:
- A person who actively denies the existence of any and all deities is an Atheist.
- A person who feels that we have no method by which we can conclude whether a deity exists is an Agnostic.
Agnosticism is a belief related to the existence or non-existence of God. An Agnostic is a person who feels that God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved, on the basis of current evidence
My experience with Agnostics is that they are more in line with "pagans" or even Neo-Platonist beliefs when it comes to spirituality.
They generally want a form of spirituality (for many reasons) but being familiar only with the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God, they do not want the (forgive the expression) "baggage" that is the Tanakh/Bible/Koran, or the religious institutions.
I knew someone who said they believed in God, and in most of the stuff in the Tanakh, but claimed to be agnostic simply because she could not identify herself with a faith (Jewish) whose fundamental text denounces homosexuals.
So, while I agree with Shadow's distinctions on a philosophic level, I think Agnosticism is more a cultural movement - much like the 16th century Protestant movement - to discover a form of spirituality removed from the institution that controlled it (in that case, the Catholic Church.)
[QUOTE]how do you mean by 'opposed to all Gods'?
Even if one does not accept does that necessarily make one or the other?Quote:
So if that is the case, we are all agnostics or atheists since there is some conception of God we do not accept.
I am not so sure on this one.
If the concept of God did not exist there will be neither.
changes occur when we least expect them and so one would propably say never say never.Quote:
The question of how long something lasts before a change occurs I find very interesting. Most of the time we don't seem to change much, but then something happens and suddenly we have a different way of looking at things. Change occurs quickly and then we live with that change for perhaps quite a while.
All three stooges of history, namely theists, atheists, and agnostics, properly read, are atheists. The theist has a better chance to survive because he hides within the parameters of some inhibiting culture.
That's what is vague about it. How do you know you've covered all the possible conceptions one can come up for God?
I assume if one says they don't believe in Allah or Jesus as a God they would be atheists or agnostics only with respect to either Allah or Jesus. They might believe in Yahweh or Rama or Zeus or Chance or something indefinite called Consciousness.
I agree.
One does not have to deny the existence of god to be an atheist, atheist just means a lack of belief in a god--nothing more, nothing less. Now, there are hardcore atheists who believe that without a doubt there is no god, but they're rare, because for them it's not a belief, it's a fact. Could there be a god? I guess, but i don't believe so.
I don't think this can work. It's like trying to reconcile the story of Creation as it appears in the Bible and the theory of evolution - I have seen it done, but it doesn't work.
"Well," they say, "you see, when it says that God created the world in six days, those are days according to God's perception of time, not ours. Therefore the six days could have been billions of years, as evolution theory posits."
"No," says I, "that is a cop-out. Get off the fence."
You could reject God, but if you believe God exists and what is written is true, you are not an Atheist.
No MM is right.
Atheism is a stated disbelief in God, it doesn't have to mean one believes God is impossible, it's a statement of one's relationship to the answer of the question "Does God Exist?"
Agnosticism is a statement of one's relationship to the nature of the question rather than the answer.
Some agnostics can be theists and some can be atheists.
There's a difference in thinking there MAY be a god and that there COULD be a god.
I don't believe there is a god, but I concede that, however unlikely the chance, there could be. I don't think there is, though. I don't believe people have been abducted by aliens, but it could have happened. I'm not sure what's confusing about this mindset.
An theist doesn't believe there's a god. It's s simple idea that is often complicated. I guess, and I say this with respect, the difference between a lot of atheists and religious people is that we can conceded that there's a possibility we're wrong. Most religious people I've met don't think that way--for them, the existence of god is as certain as the sun rising.
I didn't choose not to believe in god. I don't believe in god. I didn't in one day go from being a believer not not being one on a whim. I've tried believing in god. It doesn't work for me.
That's like keeping the door open. In all due respect, in faith that's wishy washy. I can't say, I kinda believe Jesus Christ died for my sins. Either I believe it or I don't.
Of course, no one can prove anything.
In the natural world, you can prove things by the senses or disprove it.
In the supernatural (God's realm) with belief, it's different.
You believe in something you can't tangibly prove to a non-believer. It's called faith.
Yep. You believe, I don't. We're in agreeance, no?
Bertrand Russell put forward a fairly sound definition of what agnosticism is http://atheistempire.com/mm_dl/text/...20Agnostic.pdf
I enjoy how that is written like a brochure. You can imagine the front cover: SO YOU'VE DECIDED TO BE AN AGNOSTIC - and a very confused stick figure with a floating question mark above his head.
I don't like to be referred as wishy washy myself. Some of us don't make the existence of God a number one priority in our lives. So I have a spiritual self and admit the answer to such questions are totally beyond my thinking and I can be content living as a good person trusting that in death I am bound to discover what is and what isn't. For some people black and white answers are imperative. It isn't like that for others.
How is creation and evolution reconciled if one is to do with God and the other is to do with Champs?Quote:
Charles Darnay;1134330]I don't think this can work. It's like trying to reconcile the story of Creation as it appears in the Bible and the theory of evolution - I have seen it done, but it doesn't work.
One is a parameter of the other surely.
The question is:
What does one call one those who do not believe in evolution and would it be in the same line as one that does not believe in God?
Are we saying denial is the same as not believing?
Six days? for a God that is powerful it seems to have taken him/her quite a while...I would have thought it was created quicker then that, no offence.Quote:
"Well," they say, "you see, when it says that God created the world in six days, those are days according to God's perception of time, not ours. Therefore the six days could have been billions of years, as evolution theory posits."
what about those who believe there is a God but do not believe in what is written?Quote:
"No," says I, "that is a cop-out. Get off the fence."
You could reject God, but if you believe God exists and what is written is true, you are not an Atheist.
This is a bit off topic, but why does everybody always bash fence-sitters? The fence is the best place to be, you're elevated enough to see both sides clearly. I think everyone should at least start out on the fence for each issue until they've seen all there is to see, and no one should berate them to get off until they're good and ready.
I've wondered about that as well, but I've always seen this as a story with perhaps some moral underlying it rather than what actually happened.
If I understand the big bang correctly, the universe was created in 10^(-43) seconds. Of course it took many years after that to get itself settled into place enough to support life.
Just because He chose to create everything in six days doesn't mean that He was unable to do it more quickly. There is some profound symbolism in what was created on each day. It's a teaching method. He took about 4.000 years to bring Christ to the earth. One could ask why He took so long.
I don't agree that atheist believe that there could be a God. That's more the agnostic's opinion. Atheism is the contrary position to theism. As such, atheists reject the belief in all deities. There isn't much difference in rejecting a belief and not believing, other than semantics.
I always assumed it took six days for two reasons: it explains the seven day week, and it's more interesting, in a literary sense.
Agreed, it does come across as a fictional story with an underlying issue of morality of some sort.Quote:
YesNo;1134557I've wondered about that as well, but I've always seen this as a story with perhaps some moral underlying it rather than what actually happened.
That is something I never knew... it would be good to find out how they worked the actual time it took to 'bigbang' ...it is after all an exact time and by the second.Quote:
If I understand the big bang correctly, the universe was created in 10^(-43) seconds. Of course it took many years after that to get itself settled into place enough to support life.
Cacian, you are scaring me to life. You are making too many good points and asking too many good questions and within genuine context.
Literarily interesting. It makes for a better story than "He created the world in a minute."
Well, I'm making a huge assumption here, but I assume that we had a seven day week before Genesis was written/conceived. So, I'll also assume that the story was written around that template. It is not unusual for Christianity to integrate already established traditions into their religion.
Yes but the fence is often pointy and painful. Furthermore, you are far too unstable unless you cling on to something - you are at the mercy of everything around you if you don't want to break your neck. No one can be firm on a fence.
But in all seriousness - I am not wholly opposed to people seeing both sides of an issue - this is a good practice - but when you try to reconcile two irreconcilable events in order to avoid any conflict, this is just silly.
I am no expert on calendars but there is one thought - used in Ancient Babylon - that the seven day week is based on a lunar cycle. The moon enters a new phase every seven days. And in Ancient Babylon, the seventh day of the week was observed as a holy day. This seems to be separate from the Ancient Jewish tradition taken from Genesis. I do not know enough to say which came first.