Posted on 05/15/2008 9:41:56 AM PDT by delacoert
Two times in two weeks I've had a conversation with friends about agnosticism. Both friends -- one a rational, intelligent person and another one who ... well, let's just say he wasn't as bright -- claimed to be agnostic when asked the very, very loaded question "Do you believe in God?"
I used to just ignore it when people would answer "I'm agnostic," to such a question, even though I took issue with it. As an atheist, I knew that my so-called agnostic friends were really atheists.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at progressiveu.org ...
I also think the development of the categories of agnosticism (i.e., strong agnosticism, mild agnosticism, apathetic agnosticism, agnostic theism, agnostic atheism, ignosticism, etc,) shows the folly of the attempt.
I think that a thread labeled "agnostic ecumenic" is an un-un-label label, but thanks for the opportunity.
When blind faith of either a supreme being, or blind faith of the absence of a supreme being is not your cup of tea.....
.....you might be an agnostic.
So it would be similar to liberals saying the are moderates or progressives?
An anti-theist is equivalent to the person who, being ethically opposed to breakfast, decides he really needs to poison YOUR flapjacks just to make a point.
Are they Jedis or Siths?
Likewise, we have been told that educated and sophisticated people are: nuanced, tolerant, broad-minded, and inclusive.
Given this sort of social environment, being "agnostic" seems like the best possible choice for anyone who wants to be "with it". On the other hand, being a Christian who believes in Heaven and Hell would seem to be about as "uncouth" as you can get.
Still, philosophically agnostics break down into degrees & orientations...agnostic theists; agnostic atheists; strong vs. soft agnosticism...apathetic agnosticism, etc.
The title of that should be “You’re an Atheist; You Just Don’t Know It Yet, Because Agnosticism Doesn’t Exist” because the title makes you think she’s going in a different direction.
Since agnostics say god is "unknowable", that makes it irrelevant in the question.
I pantheism is a valid third choice though. It sort of bridges the gap and says that the laws of nature and the universe make up something that to human beings is very godlike. Pantheism is not naturalism in that it is worshipped, but its a frame of reference for something that is greater and more powerful than one's self.
I think atheists are annoyed because so much is "unknowable" but that doesn't stop us from making decisions. It's "possible", but unknowable, that Zeus exists. It's "possible", but unknowable, that we are living in the Matrix right now. But pretty much everyone is comfortable dismissing those possibilities. Atheists admit that their position is unknowable, so all atheists are agnostic by that definition-- so are all theists, really. When you're talking about the supernatural, you're talking about the unknowable. We make fun of Miss Cleo the (not really) Jamaican psychic, because we dismiss fortune telling as real. There's nothing odd about dismissing the unknowable. We do it all the time.
Do you think faith is always blind? I don't.
Moses wasn't called to lead Israel on blind faith. God showed him miracles and prepared him for 40 years prior, and met his objections before sending him to lead Israel.
Joshua wasn't either. He started with small battles long before he was prepared to lead Israel.
When some of the pharisees asked Jesus for a sign, what did Jesus do? He said it was a wicked generation that needed a sign, and said the only sign they would receive was the sign of Jonah. Of course that turned out to be a huge (HUGH) sign.
I think the reason he called them wicked, was that there was already an abundance of prophecy and if they had a decent prayer life, they would have recognized Jesus for who he was. There were people who did so.
But He still gave them their sign. If you need evidence, or if you need Him to change your perspective on evidence you've already seen, then ask. It can't hurt.
Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
I used to call myself a Catholic, then an agnostic, then an atheist, and, finally, I stopped wearing labels a few years ago.
After looking into organized religion for years, discussing atheism with atheists, visiting churches again, and so on, I found that labels say little about people. There are many people who claim to be Christian but then hold the same views that atheists do in an anything-goes version of Christianity. Then there are atheists who claim to be friends of science but ignore science when they put forth their own humanist ideals.
IMHO, the real question isn’t about whether someone believes in God. Everyone believes in a higher power, even if they only believe in the universe. What I want to know from them is: What do you believe that higher power expects from you? And do you believe in Natural Law?
Athiests are at war with God. They clain to know with certainty that He is not, when there is no way they can know that. Agnostics don't care.
Some Athiests attempt to include agnostics in their groups, so as to reduce the criticism that they are really at war with God. But I think that's funny, because true Agnostics wouldn't care enough to participate with them.
Great post!
susie
.....you might be an agnostic.
Your premise is wrong. Atheism isn't based on faith, it is based on evidence and whether something is falsifiable. Atheists simply refuse to believe in something without evidence, especially something that can't be falsified.
Almost every religious person is in 99% agreement with atheists, the only difference is that instead of rejecting all of the Gods they reject all of them except for one or a few : )
unlike Moses and Joshua, most of us have not been shown a sign.
Your wrong. real Atheist have almost a religious faith in the NON existence of God.
Agnostics just don’t know one way or another.
6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 1 Corinthians 15:6 (NIV)
I never understood why the above event happened, but God/Jesus sees no need for something similar today, in a day when an event like this could be validated.
I think atheists are annoyed because so much is "unknowable" but that doesn't stop us from making decisions. It's "possible", but unknowable, that Zeus exists. It's "possible", but unknowable, that we are living in the Matrix right now.
Well, would you not agree though that it's "possible, but unknowable" that the spouse you'll be married to will remain your spouse? Therefore, as you said, that doesn't stop us from making decisions. There is much uncertainty in life from an "absolute" perspective, but that doesn't often bog us down. We don't know if our commute to work will be safe; yet we don't remain at home unless we don't have a commute. The dangers in Iraq & uncertainty of returning don't stop our military folks from going there. Therefore, doesn't commitment, self-sacrifice, and faith transcend absolute certainty?
My point here is to ask, "Do people assign a higher need-to-know factor for making spiritual or faith-based decisions than they do in other aspects of life, where they go ahead & make decisions anyway minus a lot of knowledge or certainty?"
Atheists admit that their position is unknowable, so all atheists are agnostic by that definition-- so are all theists, really. When you're talking about the supernatural, you're talking about the unknowable.
Well, the supernatural is unknowable until making itself or Himself known. Some folks claim encounters with demons. I would say those entities have "made themselves known" in those cases, would you not? I would also say that an amazing Being named Jesus Christ, who said, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father" claimed to be the very representative spiritual image of another Being He referenced as His "Father"--God.
The supernatural unknowable was/is unknowable until the Revelation appeared. Therefore, I would say "theists" fall into two camps--those who know this Revelation of God, and those who don't know Him.
LOL I am an Atheist. I know of what I speak : )
Let me give you an analogy that may help. Atheists give apx. the same weight to the possible existence of God as they do to the expectation that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong. Less weight actually, because the theory of relativity is falsifiable and the theory of God isn't.
And it's not just about something being falsifiable, it's that the requested belief is an extraordinary claim (and an extraordinary request on the requestor's part), so the standard of evidence is extraordinary.
For more on this test, click here.
The issue at hand is whether an "ecumenic" thread can be based on a biased article. In most cases, the base article would be favorable to some particular belief, e.g. Catholic, LDS, Reformed, etc.
In this case, the poster is challenging the viability of "ecumenic" threads where the base article is biased and has chosen the (non)belief of agnostism/atheism as the base article bias.
The guideline for "ecumenic" threads in the Religion Forum is simply this: the poster must not argue against any other beliefs. He can only argue for what he believes – or ask questions.
Neither atheist nor agnostic nor theist nor anti-theist nor [pick a confession] should have his/her beliefs (including the lack thereof) attacked on this thread.
God used both miracles and prophecies as validation tools. Moses was validated before Israel by the miracles and they also had prophecies so they were expecting a leader.
Moses in turn laid down the test for prophets in the future. Many of those prophets were also validated by miracles and prophecy.
When Jesus came you had miracles and prophecies like none other. Not only did you have multiple Old Testament prophecies describing His coming, you had miracles out the ear. The blind say, the dead came to life, He walked on water, He healed the sick, and he prophesized as well.
We continue to see in today's age, fulfilled prophecy with the return of Israel. If God is not performing miracles like that, perhaps it's because the revelation is complete. There probably won't be miracles and prophecy like that until the great tribulation when two prophets of Israel that are mentioned in the Book of Revelations will walk the earth.
But I still believe God is in the miracle business, and I believe that someone who honestly needs evidence is likely to get an answer.
The only other possibilty is if aliens visit us and tell us where the Supreme being is located, then I'll take their word for it..as GOSPEL! LOL!
You are correct, but I would settle for a testable theory. I would even settle for a clear, unambiguous, definitive prophecy that has come to pass. Just one : )
We have been. We are shown signs often, we just don't recognize them. Israel being restored as a nation is a big fullfillment of prophecy.
If you read Lev 26 or 28, it says that if Israel would keep God's commandments they would live in the land in peace. But if they didn't they would be exiled. If they repented they would be brought back. And if they didn't repent they would be brought back anyway for God'd name sake.
Israel suffered the Babylon exile and they repented and were brought back. Shortly thereafter the prophet Zechariah, wrote of a time when Israel would be restored but not repentant. He wrote after the first exile so he couldn't be referring to the Babylon exile.
And Zechariah also wrote this.
So Zechariah not only foretold the coming exile that occurred in AD 70 and lasted nearly 2000 years, but he also foretold that Israel would not recognize God when He came.
Jesus prophesized the destruction of Jerusalem and said it was because "They knew not the time of their visitation."
In 1947 we saw the fulfillment of Zech's prophecy about Israel being restored. We also saw the fulfillment of Lev 28 or 28 about them being restored yet still unrepentant.
You are living in a time of fantastic fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and you can't even see it.
There are other signs, fulfilled prophecy, miracles. Sometimes you have to be in the right place at the right time to catch those. Because we are right to be skeptical about every claim.
That's why I'm suggesting you ask for something a little more personal.
Yes, as Sagan/Truzzi put it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/proof." There are a lot of things that Christians claim to know, things that are multi-step proposals, like "Not only is there, in fact, a God, but I know his mind-- I know what he wants us to do-- and I know what he's going to do to us if we don't obey and it won't be pretty, let me tell you!" And it strikes us the way "Not only is there, in fact, a god named Zeus, but I know Zeus' mind-- I know what he wants us to do-- and I know what he's going to do to us if we don't obey and it won't be pretty, let me tell you!" strikes you.
Well, the supernatural is unknowable until making itself or Himself known. Some folks claim encounters with demons. I would say those entities have "made themselves known" in those cases, would you not? I would also say that an amazing Being named Jesus Christ, who said, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father" claimed to be the very representative spiritual image of another Being He referenced as His "Father"--God.
Some folks claim encounters with Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi, too, or little green men from Mars. The evidence for all of that, including those things about Jesus, is quite flimsy. In fact, I'd probably sooner believe in little green men because there's nothing really hard to grasp about that-- they are just greener, smarter versions of ourselves and I'm comfortable in saying we exist. James Randi has $1M to anyone who can prove any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event, and there are no takers.
I think the key here here for this & future ec posts is to allow open disagreement with the specific content of the article, but to refrain from attacking posts by specific posters. That way the ecumenical spirit as applied to posters is maintained while not allowing gross bias to be introduced unchecked in the article & remain challenge-free.
I also think that we can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Just because some of the bathwater on threads becomes dirty with tone issues, doesn't mean that every content challenge is "anti-ecumenical." (we do a disservice to "ecumenicalism" if we think the word is equivalent to uniformity).
But I'm glad this is all being thought through with trials like this. Thank you for your efforts.
Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.
The objective of the "ecumenic" tagged thread is for none of the posters to tear down - or attack - the beliefs of others.
Except that we don't have a billion world-wide disciples of deceased Eleanor Roosevelt or Mahatma Gandhi, do we? Whereas, I would point to the billion disciples of a deceased-but-who-by-eyewitness testimony didn't remain so.
In fact, I'd probably sooner believe in little green men because there's nothing really hard to grasp about that-- they are just greener, smarter versions of ourselves and I'm comfortable in saying we exist.
The question for me, though, is "why." Why would you rather believe in little green men than...(fill in the blank)?
James Randi has $1M to anyone who can prove any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event, and there are no takers.
You know, Randi, or scientists can't prove "Love" either, right? But that doesn't stop people from "falling" into it, right? We see the demonstrable results of love, just like we see the demonstrable results of a Designer...and of a person who claimed to design a church.
There are a lot of things that Christians claim to know, things that are multi-step proposals, like "Not only is there, in fact, a God, but I know his mind-- I know what he wants us to do-- and I know what he's going to do to us if we don't obey and it won't be pretty, let me tell you!" And it strikes us the way "Not only is there, in fact, a god named Zeus, but I know Zeus' mind-- I know what he wants us to do-- and I know what he's going to do to us if we don't obey and it won't be pretty, let me tell you!" strikes you.
Well, thank you for helping us see how "foreign" this sounds to your ears. (We need to be reminded of this).
But I think you may be missing one of the points of why you hear some of what you hear from Christians.
Example: Let's say some Greek ruler makes a decision that he claims to effect you as a US citizen. You claim, "Nonsense. What that Greek ruler does is particular at best to his own constituency; I am not a Greek citizen."
Likewise, even though Zeus was identified as a King of the gods in their myth...
...he still wasn't even of the rank of chief god (Olympia)...
...other than major inner-city sanctuaries, a few islands, and a few caves, he wasn't worshipped in the Greek world...
...And his lordship turf didn't extend to the sea (that was ruled by Poseidon), or the underworld (ruled by Hades), or the earth (ruled by Gaia).
Zeus was simply an erotic god of the sky & thunder who made no ultimate lordship claims on anybody--including the Greeks. He was mostly a locally recognized air-god played up by local Zeus cults.
But Christians don't make the same claims about Jesus Christ. Christians say one day every knee will bow to Jesus. I would suspect that if some Greek ruler claimed to be someone you would have to bow the knee to, you would perk up & take notice and fully investigate his claims. All I'm suggesting is that folks do that with Jesus Christ.
It seems odd to me that atheists know nothing about science, or just don't want to discuss the evidence therein for God.
Yes. But "challenge" or "take issue with" doesn't always mean "tear down" or "attack." (I would think it would be much easier on mods if they only had to focus on clearer-cut guidelines like tone issues than to try to match up too "fine lines" of what is a legitimate content challenge and what isn't).
Wookie
This thread is instructive and so far I see none of the contributors complaining that they are being "picked on" for what they believe (or do not believe.)
An anti-theist is equivalent to the person who, being ethically opposed to breakfast, decides he really needs to poison YOUR flapjacks just to make a point.Not poison, but harshly criticize it :^)
If you can't handle the debate, you shouldn't be making the claim publicly.
You should have left this thread open. It would be more fun, and frankly I don’t think we need any protection.
If you can’t handle the debate, you shouldn’t be making the claim publicly.
****
I think more can be accomplish when the thread has civil demeanor to it!
I can never understand why a beliver thinks a hostile or contentious enviorment which opens the door for opposition and makes it uninviting for the Spirit of the Lord to present is more fun?
I can't recall a time when I accepted anyone's restatement of my intent, but in this case, you are 100% right. <tips hat>
Also, and it may be premature to say this, but I think I have been convinced that an "ecumenic" tagged thread just might be workable. <--- begrudging admission, but an admission none-the-less.
I would like to continue to argue the point about the pre-ecumenic-tag qualifier being illogical (just because of ego). But, I think I can see how the pre-ecumenic-tag qualifier could be the thing that acually makes this work (as illogical as that sounds).
All threads should have a civil demeanor but I don’t think its uncivil for someone to argue against my beliefs.
I'm an agnostic and I'll gladly discuss it. Our earth is the only planet in our solar system that is inhabitable. That's a high failure rate when making planets. My body was made by a Supreme being? I think it was made by an idiot, because we are susceptible to many diseases and even have organs that we don't even use, such as the appendix.
When using facts, logic and critical thinking skills, agnosticism is the way to go and atheism is indeed a religion.
FYI: The appendix is probably a “back up” for your intestinal fauna. If something happens, the small intestine can restock from there; occasionally something goes wrong and it gets infected instead.
I agree.
I think disagreement is too valuable a thing to be banned, but a degree of civility is not unreasonable to expect.
I disagree with the premise of the article. You’re not automatically either a theist or atheist. You can be an idon’tknowist or I’mstilltryingtofigureitoutist and unwilling to commit to either polarity.
I disagree with the premise of the article. You’re not automatically either a theist or atheist. You can be an idon’tknowist or I’mstilltryingtofigureitoutist and unwilling to commit to either polarity.
Dang, it looks like I disagreed with it twice!
But I haven't really seen folks in this particular thread “go after” some of the biased premises in the article itself. Yes, folks have been cordial toward one another. But I haven’t seen folks rally around a few of the most provocative concepts in the article itself. Maybe some posters would have had significantly different reactions had you excerpted & posted this paragraph below from the same source – and if you said you fully embraced it:
Article excerpt: … but if you are going to duck the question then at least do so with something original. Don't just say "I'm agnostic." Instead say something like "Do I believe in God? Well, let me tell you -- hey, is that an invisible magic monkey tree behind you?" Then run away. If the person turns to look, then next time they confront you then you can hit them with "Do you believe in invisible magic monkey trees?"
So, the “bottom line” premise of the author is that believing in God is the philosophical equivalency of believing in “invisible magic monkey trees.”
So, just imagine an atheist comes into the religion section of FreeRepublic and posts an article that says our coinage might as well have “I trust in the invisible magic monkey trees” and that as an educator he had his classroom kids recite a pledge of allegiance to the “invisible magic monkey trees” this morning.
No matter how “cordial” we might be in tone to the thread poster & other posters, do we seriously think such bias on the part of this writer wouldn’t be at least calmly called on the carpet? I would think that making belief in God the equivalency of believing in “invisible magic monkey trees” is worth a challenge and is something worth taking issue with. And, I think it can be done without attacking other posters (there is such a thing as “kinder & gentler” nudges & challenges).
What can’t be controlled is the subjective perceptions of others.
So my "challenge" to the author is:
Well, don't you already believe in something that's...
...invisible?
...magical?
...natural & growing like a tree?
...and wild like a monkey & yet can be tamed & domesticated like a monkey?
Don't you believe in love?
Isn't love all these things?
I think this "trial" would work best if folks were honest about how they feel their belief in God being presented at the level of belief in an "invisible magic monkey tree" while trying to keep their comments "tame" enough to at least steer away from treating other posters as "barbarics."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.