The Agnostic Thread

[Adder-Laid]

I tend to call myself more of an agnostic than an atheist, purely to appease the people asking me if I'm religious or not.

I pretty much made up my mind many years ago, that I believe there is no existence of an "after-life" or religious theories, but I'm open to suggestion. Therefore I am agnostic, but lean a lot closer to the views of an atheist than any religious views.

I created this thread so that we could all share our views without ruining the Christian thread. ;)

Deletion of this thread on the grounds it is just critisising the Christian thread, is unfair discrimination. :)

[jacobsian]

As this is an Agnostic thread, are Atheists also welcome?

Here's a topic for debate: Is atheism a religion?

[Adder-Laid]

I'd be including atheists in this discussion too, as I'm actually an agnostic with closed views towards all things religious.... which would pretty much make me an atheist too :P

I'd say atheism is a religion by one loose definition, but it isn't regarded as a religion by the community due to it's lack of community and congregations.

[Arunava]

I don't think atheism is a religion, rather the lack of religion.

[jacobsian]

Atheism though is a doctrine or belief in itself - it's not just a lacking in religion, it's outright stating that you believe there is no God. Being agnostic is having a lack of religion and generally not giving a rat's arse either way - or perhaps more accurately, because God can't be proven to exist, don't waste your time trying to figure it out.

[Arunava]

Yeah, you're right. I'm an agnostic.

[Dale]

Atheism though is a doctrine or belief in itself - it's not just a lacking in religion, it's outright stating that you believe there is no God. Being agnostic is having a lack of religion and generally not giving a rat's arse either way - or perhaps more accurately, because God can't be proven to exist, don't waste your time trying to figure it out.

Prove to me you exist, yob

[Dale]

I tend to call myself more of an agnostic than an atheist, purely to appease the people asking me if I'm religious or not.

I pretty much made up my mind many years ago, that I believe there is no existence of an "after-life" or religious theories, but I'm open to suggestion. Therefore I am agnostic, but lean a lot closer to the views of an atheist than any religious views.

I created this thread so that we could all share our views without ruining the Christian thread. ;)

Deletion of this thread on the grounds it is just critisising the Christian thread, is unfair discrimination. :)

Just out of curiousity, why do you believe there is no afterlife ?

[jacobsian]

Prove to me you exist, yob

I don't.

[Adder-Laid]

Just out of curiousity, why do you believe there is no afterlife ?
I don't necessarily believe there is no afterlife as such...

I believe that there is no afterlife in the way it is made out to be by mainstream religion. As we are at the moment, we are aware of our existence. When we are dead, Christianity will have you believe you are aware of your existence in an "afterlife". I believe that when we pass away, some energies left behind that were part of your existence in this life may linger for some time in some shape or form. But I do not believe that these energies would be part of a "spiritual being", and I don't believe these energies would have the ability to think, or do anything.

My views are all pretty complicated... but in a nutshell, no - I don't believe in an afterlife as defined by religions... I believe we are made up of different energies which die slowly after our actual body and physical makeup cease to exist.

[jacobsian]

Adder-Laid has been playing too much Final Fantasy VII.

[Dale]

I don't necessarily believe there is no afterlife as such...

I believe that there is no afterlife in the way it is made out to be by mainstream religion. As we are at the moment, we are aware of our existence. When we are dead, Christianity will have you believe you are aware of your existence in an "afterlife". I believe that when we pass away, some energies left behind that were part of your existence in this life may linger for some time in some shape or form. But I do not believe that these energies would be part of a "spiritual being", and I don't believe these energies would have the ability to think, or do anything.

My views are all pretty complicated... but in a nutshell, no - I don't believe in an afterlife as defined by religions... I believe we are made up of different energies which die slowly after our actual body and physical makeup cease to exist.

That's a fair response. Still, I supposed I'd be interested to hear what information / experiences / influences led to this particular view.

[Adder-Laid]

It'd be too hard to put my lifetime's worth of learning, considering other people's views and opinions, etc etc into one forum post.

I try not to ever let anyone tell me what's what, and I try my best to form my own opinion on things... I'd say my views above come from a million and one different observations throughout life, having been to an Anglican school, having been raised by parents that let me form my own opinions on religion and life, and having friends that believe all sorts of different things... oh, and the final fantasy series...

[Dale]

Final Fantasy series ? Well that explains evrything. :wink2:

No, I don't expect a dissertation from you. And I'm certainly not interrogating you. I'm just interested as to how one can extrapolate from the temporal to determine the nature of the afterlife.

[uewepuep]

lol ff7 religion :)

[barneybuck]

I would think that agnosticism is a philosophy more than a religion

[NZer]

I guess I would be an athiest.

[defec8R]

Tick me as an agnostic.... although that word sounds a bit like "noncommittal but possibly swaying towards belief", which isn't likely to happen. Nothing against people who see things differently, but having been exposed to religious views, I just find it all extremely farfetched - not relevant and not worth "believing" one way or the other.

[Randwicked]

I'm agnostic as the concept of an infinite god is so far outside empirically testable reality that holding a position on Its being or non-being can never be more than speculation (faith). As I'm not in the business of speculating I can only ever not know (a-gnosis).

[Tony P]

Well stated Randwicked. I'm in that position too.

[MILIUX]

Anyone believes that future is already written?

[kwigibo]

Atheist here, and no, atheism is not a religion or a belief or anything like that, it's a word. Theism meaning religious belief, or belief in a deity/higher power/supreme being/what have you, and the prefix a- meaning without. It's as simple as that, and doesn't mean anything more, it is a vacuum of presupposition. I know hundreds of atheists, and that's pretty much all they share in common, philosophically or otherwise. It's not a matter of denying or believing anything, objectively at least.

Agnosticism and atheism are not categorically the same necessarily, one can be both as I see it.

I probably should have skipped this thread, I didn't register here to debate the deeper issues, there are forums much better suited to that purpose :runaway:

[Dale]

Atheist here, and no, atheism is not a religion or a belief or anything like that, it's a word. Theism meaning religious belief, or belief in a deity/higher power/supreme being/what have you, and the prefix a- meaning without. It's as simple as that, and doesn't mean anything more, it is a vacuum of presupposition. I know hundreds of atheists, and that's pretty much all they share in common, philosophically or otherwise. It's not a matter of denying or believing anything, objectively at least.

Agnosticism and atheism are not categorically the same necessarily, one can be both as I see it.

I probably should have skipped this thread, I didn't register here to debate the deeper issues, there are forums much better suited to that purpose :runaway:

You're welcome as far as I'm concerned, but atheism has never meant, until very recently, "vacuum of presupposition. History and linguistically, the term has always denoted a strong negation of God: "A" = NO ... "there is no God".

Moreover, I've never met the professing atheist who is himself void of presuppositions. All alike are creatures of faith.

It's important to nail down terms if only because the contemporary definition of atheism is used to suggest that atheism is the rational default position, when then position amounts to a passional commitment much like any other.

[Dale]

I'm agnostic as the concept of an infinite god is so far outside empirically testable reality that holding a position on Its being or non-being can never be more than speculation (faith). As I'm not in the business of speculating I can only ever not know (a-gnosis).

How do you know that knowledge of God can never rise above the speculative ? You sound certain about this.

[jacobsian]

How do you know that knowledge of God can never rise above the speculative ? You sound certain about this.

When something is not completely proven, you have the choice of either believing it will or won't be. If you believe it will be proven, you need evidence for that. If you don't believe so, you need to prove why. And so turns the agnostic wheel again - a faith can't be proven by definition.

[Dale]

yob, very little in this life can be proven, including the assertion that God cannot be proven.

Of course I suppose it would help if we defined "proof". If it is indubitable certainty, then again we're back to the acknowledgement that few if any things can be proven.

[jacobsian]

yob, very little in this life can be proven, including the assertion that God cannot be proven.


So you take the position that a faith can be completely proven?

[Dale]

Then how do we define "faith" ? I do not ascribe to the notion, for instance, that theists "believe" whereas agnostics restrict themselves to knowledge.

What about you ?

[jacobsian]

I go for the good old dictionary:

From WordNet (r) 2.0 :

faith
n 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that
control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his
morality" [syn: religion, religious belief]
2: complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished
the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient
relationship is based on trust" [syn: trust]
3: institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was
raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own
faith contradicted him" [syn: religion]
4: loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the
faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"

Why would confidence in a person or plan be required if it was outright scientifically (or otherwise) proven?

[Dale]

Again, what does one mean by "proven" ?

What I am suggesting is that Christians, agnostics and atheists alike live by faith, so that it cannot be said that one group believes and the others know (or don't know).

And your #4 probably comes closest to capturing what the Bible means by faith.

[jacobsian]

Established beyond doubt.

[Dale]

I'll grant that that's the going understanding. Still, I wonder what in this life can be established beyond doubt. I for one am happy to admit that I believe in things - strongly - which I realize are capable of being doubted. I suppose my own position with respect to God is one which is confident and subject to doubt out the same time, not unlike what I experience with the most precious people in my life.

[jacobsian]

Still, I wonder what in this life can be established beyond doubt.

This is the question that all people ask themselves when deciding whether they beleive in God.

A christian would subscribe to a belief that cannot be proven because they have faith that any doubt will be removed when they die. An agnostic would argue that because religion cannot be established beyond doubt, only the choice not to believe can be justified.

It's like if you give a blind man a glass of red cordial and tell him it's not green. That in itself does not prove it's red.

[Amaruu]

According to most law lecturers, 'beyond reasonable doubt' means over 90% certain, usually between 95-100%.

[jellyman]

I once saw a marvelous argument that we could be 96.8% certain that christ exists. However I cannot remember it.

[jacobsian]

I once saw a marvelous argument that we could be 96.8% certain that christ exists. However I cannot remember it.

I'm sure the author had themselve's convinced by the end of it.

[Randwicked]

How do you know that knowledge of God can never rise above the speculative ? You sound certain about this.

Because God is infinite, and infinity is purely an abstraction.
:) Mathematically testable maybe, but not logically testable. Finite beings can ony speculate on the nature of the infinite.

[Adder-Laid]

Either way.... my feelings towards organised religions (it's what they are) can be viewed in the Monty Python release - "The Life of Brian"...

[Homeroids]

Because God is infinite, and infinity is purely an abstraction.
:) Mathematically testable maybe, but not logically testable. Finite beings can ony speculate on the nature of the infinite.

hence why 'faith' is the key, or the bridge, or the mechanism needed to be employed where the finite finishes. Faith is the evidence of things you CANNOT see. Now ironically, that is a logical explantion for the need of faith :).

[Dale]

This is the question that all people ask themselves when deciding whether they beleive in God.

A christian would subscribe to a belief that cannot be proven because they have faith that any doubt will be removed when they die. An agnostic would argue that because religion cannot be established beyond doubt, only the choice not to believe can be justified.

It's like if you give a blind man a glass of red cordial and tell him it's not green. That in itself does not prove it's red.

Thus, such agnostics are invariably inconsistent because they readily embrace and give themselves over to things (other than God) which cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Dale]

Because God is infinite, and infinity is purely an abstraction.
:) Mathematically testable maybe, but not logically testable. Finite beings can ony speculate on the nature of the infinite.

Is it logical to assume that the infinite cannot reveal itself or make itself known to finite creatures ?

[Dale]

Either way.... my feelings towards organised religions (it's what they are) can be viewed in the Monty Python release - "The Life of Brian"...

But we're not talking about "feelings" here. We're trying to be calm and logical about this. :wink2:

[jacobsian]

Thus, such agnostics are invariably inconsistent because they readily embrace and give themselves over to things (other than God) which cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

What have I given myself over to?

[Homeroids]

Only you can answer that Yob. If you were an athiest, quite possibly, the question would be irrelevant.

[Dale]

What have I given myself over to?


Probably many things, this particular discussion, for example. Another example would be any of your personal relationships. Another example would be your own life - can you prove that you were not created five minutes ago, with memory intact ? No, you except that you exist and assume that your memory is genuine.

I daresay there is nothing, nothing in your life which is not capable of being doubted, but this does not hinder commitment on your part.

And as to these things in your life which can be doubted, nonetheless, you pursue them with vigor and passion, and as you passionately pursue these things, you sometimes find in yourself an increasing confidence that such pursuits are profitable, worth pursuing. They become very real. they occupy mind and body.

The pursuit of God is a lot like this.

[Randwicked]

Is it logical to assume that the infinite cannot reveal itself or make itself known to finite creatures ? Truth be told, I don't know (or maybe it's just too late in the evening). Is it logical to even ascribe purpose (a human concept) to the infinite?

[Adder-Laid]

can you prove that you were not created five minutes ago, with memory intact ? No, you except that you exist and assume that your memory is genuine.
Now you're just diving into the realms of the hypothetical... exactly where religion has it's downfall...

[Dale]

Truth be told, I don't know (or maybe it's just too late in the evening). Is it logical to even ascribe purpose (a human concept) to the infinite?

Is it logical to assume that in revealing itself to man, that the infinite could not also reveal its purposes, such that those purposes could be termed an infinite concept passed down to man ?

[Dale]

Now you're just diving into the realms of the hypothetical... exactly where religion has it's downfall...

I couldn't help but notice that you seized upon the one example I gave which is arguably implausible. Now I'm waiting for you to demonstrate how God revealing himself to man is likewise implausible.

Or, you could demonstrate how, say, Christianity is nothing more than a Monty Pythonesque accident of history.

Is it possible that there are emotional and personal reasons for rejecting "organized religion" ?

[Adder-Laid]

Note the differences between our postings.

Yes, I may have created this thread - but I am in no way trying to push my argument onto others. If you have a look back at your previous postings, you'll see a trend that is as much a part of religion as "God" himself - a sales pitch.

My theory on most decisions I have to make in life, is that if it's good enough, it doesn't need a salesperson.

[Adder-Laid]

Is it possible that there are emotional and personal reasons for rejecting "organized religion" ?
No.

The main reason for rejection of religion amongst the majority of my generation in this country is due to it not being forced in our faces. We have a chance in this country at a young age to make decisions for ourselves about this, rather than simply be told "There is a God".

It's not a part of our culture here, unlike the US. I'm very thankful for that...

[Dale]

Note the differences between our postings.

Yes, I may have created this thread - but I am in no way trying to push my argument onto others. If you have a look back at your previous postings, you'll see a trend that is as much a part of religion as "God" himself - a sales pitch.

My theory on most decisions I have to make in life, is that if it's good enough, it doesn't need a salesperson.

Your post is more diversionary than helpful. In reality, agnostics on this thread are: (1) attempting to justify their position and (2) offering criticisms of religion. I'm providing a bit of pushback. I'm still a long way from pushing. I think the pushing accusation is overwrought and a way to short circuit debate at the outset.

[Dale]

No.

The main reason for rejection of religion amongst the majority of my generation in this country is due to it not being forced in our faces. We have a chance in this country at a young age to make decisions for ourselves about this, rather than simply be told "There is a God".

It's not a part of our culture here, unlike the US. I'm very thankful for that...

Again, overwrought.

[Adder-Laid]

You are debating the wrong man if you're trying to put your point accross though, as I've heard your views through many people I've known in the past - ie "demonstrate how God revealing himself to man is likewise implausible"...

That statement CANNOT be answered. What point is there clinging onto the 0.00000000001% of a chance that a God may exist... This is where I stick to the atheist line of view...

Again, overwrought.How can you call it overwrought when you don't even live here and know the social circumstances of being a 20-29 age bracket Australian male? Believe me when I say, it's true!

[Randwicked]

Is it logical to assume that in revealing itself to man, that the infinite could not also reveal its purposes, such that those purposes could be termed an infinite concept passed down to man ?

One can assume that all one wants. My point really is that logic is incapable of dealing with infinite concepts. How can infinity even be broken down into finite revelations? Infinity/infinity is still infinity. But there we are, back to attempting to test God mathematically. I don't think it's possible. Your assumption (assuming that you do hold this position) is just that to me: pure faith.

[Dale]

You are debating the wrong man if you're trying to put your point accross though, as I've heard your views through many people I've known in the past - ie "demonstrate how God revealing himself to man is likewise implausible"...

That statement CANNOT be answered. What point is there clinging onto the 0.00000000001% of a chance that a God may exist... This is where I stick to the atheist line of view...

How can you call it overwrought when you don't even live here and know the social circumstances of being a 20-29 age bracket Australian male? Believe me when I say, it's true!

Wherever do you get the idea that God (as opposed to not God) is wildly implausible ? sounds like you have prior commitments which have little to do with reason and logic.

And just to clarify, children even in America are not commonly "forced" to believe in God. Certainly higher numbers of Americans than Aussies profess to believe in God, and naturally American children tend to conform their believes to those of their parents (fortunately so, in my case, I would say). And it is true that ostricism is a possibility when belief in God is questioned, though such ostricism does not itself call God into question.

On the flipside, American universities and colleges tend to encourage doubts about God*, and ostricism often occurs when students seek to reaffirm the beliefs of their youth in the academic environment.

*Assertions as to the non-existence of God in the academic environment has little to do with reason and logic.

[Dale]

One can assume that all one wants. My point really is that logic is incapable of dealing with infinite concepts. How can infinity even be broken down into finite revelations? Infinity/infinity is still infinity. But there we are, back to attempting to test God mathematically. I don't think it's possible. Your assumption (assuming that you do hold this position) is just that to me: pure faith.

I don't mind that you pin the term "faith" on me. Certainly I believe things. So do you. But how is it illogical to assume that the infinite could reveal itself in the finite, in some manner ? I'm not suggesting that the finite should be able to absorb the infinite, but only that the finite might absorb *something* of the infinite.

And incidentally, I do not engage in wild flights abstract reasoning. I rather *accept* as true the story of God revealing himself to man by way of nature events, prophecies, and ultimately Jesus. Yes, I hold this by faith. I know this was not forced upon me. This faith has been severely tested at times. And this faith is still subject to doubt.

[Oriolus]

Can I just say that I'm astonished by how much discussion matters of religion have brought up, particularly as most of us are late teens or twenties. I was under the impression that young people today were pretty much areligious - certainly I've never had a theological discussion with my friends.

Personally I have been brought up as a Catholic but studying science I find it very hard to reconcile the two. As a scientist you learn to trust that which can be measured and studied and that confirm to the laws of physics and such. In that respect I find religion of little relavance to me.

[Dale]

Can I just say that I'm astonished by how much discussion matters of religion have brought up, particularly as most of us are late teens or twenties. I was under the impression that young people today were pretty much areligious - certainly I've never had a theological discussion with my friends.

Personally I have been brought up as a Catholic but studying science I find it very hard to reconcile the two. As a scientist you learn to trust that which can be measured and studied and that confirm to the laws of physics and such. In that respect I find religion of little relavance to me.

Science is great. I love the way I was able to whip up a batch of chili in under 15 minutes tonight.

On the other hand, I know of *no one* (you'd be the first) who lives their life by scientific principles, life being more complex than all that. And we all alike live by faith.

[jellyman]

I have heard that generation Y (15-25??) is more sprititual than any before, although more focused on a wide variety of experiences, particularly after the flavour of eastern philosophy, stuff like many ways to God, and no absolute truth etc. I think organised religion is out of favour though.

I do not think we can prove that God exists, but there is a lot of historical evidence associated with the Christian Bible. Neither do I think that you could prove that Julias Caesar existed. But we accept the historical evidence. There is a huge amount more historical evidence that Biblical history through much of the Bible is accurate. However there is much more obvious motivation to fake the Bible than there would be to fake Julias Caesar.

Do those who think the existence of God cannot be proven mean that we cannot know without a shadow of a doubt that God exits? Or that we cannot even mount a reasonable case and that we have nothing better to go by then gut feel?

I only think that trying to sell a particular idea about God, or lack of God is wrong when you cross the line of trying to force it down someone's throat, or looking down on someone because they don't believe the same. Pretty hard to see where the line is sometimes. At the moment I personally am not majorly interested in pushing my beliefs on anyone, but talking about them to test them. If what I say makes sense when I say it, and others aren't able to convince me of glaring mistakes, then I can be a bit more confident in my beliefs.

And this forum is an interesting place to discuss relgion, as there are more normal everyday people here who aren't specifically interested in religion, but still have an opinion.

[Randwicked]

I don't mind that you pin the term "faith" on me. Certainly I believe things. So do you. But how is it illogical to assume that the infinite could reveal itself in the finite, in some manner ? I'm not suggesting that the finite should be able to absorb the infinite, but only that the finite might absorb *something* of the infinite.

I'm not saying it's illogical, I'm saying that the concept of infinite God is completely outside the realm of logic. It's impossible to move beyond speculation. You may absorb something of it (assuming that it exists), but really without understanding the whole, which is impossible, it's impossible to know. That's why faith is so important to religion.



And incidentally, I do not engage in wild flights abstract reasoning. I rather *accept* as true the story of God revealing himself to man by way of nature events, prophecies, and ultimately Jesus. Yes, I hold this by faith. I know this was not forced upon me. This faith has been severely tested at times. And this faith is still subject to doubt.

I don't have a problem with other's faith. I just don't necessarily share it, that's all.

[Dale]

I'm not saying it's illogical, I'm saying that the concept of infinite God is completely outside the realm of logic. It's impossible to move beyond speculation. You may absorb something of it (assuming that it exists), but really without understanding the whole, which is impossible, it's impossible to know. That's why faith is so important to religion.




I don't have a problem with other's faith. I just don't necessarily share it, that's all.


I've been married 15 years and I can't even say I know the whole of my wife. So do I not know my wife ? If perfect knowledge is not required in marriage, then it's hard to see how perfect knowledge of God would be required in order to enjoy relationship with him.

[Randwicked]

I've been married 15 years and I can't even say I know the whole of my wife. So do I not know my wife ? If perfect knowledge is not required in marriage, then it's hard to see how perfect knowledge of God would be required in order to enjoy relationship with him.

Of course not. That relationship will always remain hypothetical, though, unlike with your wife. I hope. :)
You don't need faith to know your wife exists.

[jacobsian]

Your post is more diversionary than helpful. In reality, agnostics on this thread are: (1) attempting to justify their position and (2) offering criticisms of religion. I'm providing a bit of pushback. I'm still a long way from pushing. I think the pushing accusation is overwrought and a way to short circuit debate at the outset.

I will never have to justify myself to you.

[Dale]

I will never have to justify myself to you.

No need to be petulant. We're simply debating.

[Dale]

Of course not. That relationship will always remain hypothetical, though, unlike with your wife. I hope. :)
You don't need faith to know your wife exists.

Well, for the believer, there is not so much of a need for faith that God *exists* but that he cares, is constant, will be faithful; the same kinds of things I wish from my wife, things about which I can never be completely certain, etc.