BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic

Subject: RE: BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:56 AM

I was an agnostic for a long time. Didn't become an atheist till my Quaker, conscientiously objecting father was killed by radical islamic terrorists. Didn't become a fundamentalist atheist till 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 12:19 AM

dianavan, when I picked up that definition of "Faith" I managed to contradict myself somewhat. I'd moved beyond one point and was considering another by the time I added it. I used the whole thing to keep the context intact, and it is probably a definition that many would accept, whether others agree with them on what constitutes a "rational attitude." It's all too common down here where I live in the Bible Belt to encounter the blind faith that dismisses any other considerations. I selected several remarks to comment on, not just yours, but I selected yours in part because it was so brief and it appeared to be suggesting that the only way to know god was through [blind] faith, and I think that's entirely wrong. One first has to define "god," and decide how many of them and where they reside. Many Agnostics, atheists, and Unitarians have come to recognize that humans created god to answer questions and make connections we are unable to answer for ourselves yet. I consider it a position of strength to recognize that if there isn't a god, or a universal god (maybe just a kitchen god and a garden god and compost heap god and a chevy silverado god) that we need to take more responsibility for our actions in this world.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 12:26 AM

And if there is the kind of God that I believe in, Stilly, then people have to take total responsibility for their actions in this World or beyond it, cos God is not gonna do it for them. :-)

You're right, though, that the first problem in discussing "God" is reaching agreement or understanding on what the word "God" means when a specific person uses it. That's already far more thinking than the average church goer OR atheist is prepared to do. They usually figure that the one simple idea they've already got about what "God" means is the only one possible! And that's funny!

Subject: RE: BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic
From: 42
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 07:24 AM

'ever' is such a long time!

j

Subject: RE: BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 02:05 PM

Being agnostic is not for the weak, as Dave O has said.
The weak in my eyes are those who 'know', be they atheists, believers of a traditional faith or free floating thinkers. Their 'know'ledge sounds quite condescending to me.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:48 PM

Weakness is an obstinate and unwavering view of the world never influenced by changing events or allowing for personal growth. It's the "lemming virus".

Agnosticism and Secularism have a history in America. Check Susan Jacobi's book.

Agnosticism is a kind of humility that says that no one knows everything. Faith is useful if it is tempered by tolerance, questioning, and an open mind. An open mind doesn't mean a lack of conviction as some would say. It just means that mankind is an adaptable creature and that's why we've survived.
Changing your mind is part of the process. Believing in something that seems right and true, also.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 06:35 PM

Well said, Frank.

Subject: RE: BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:04 PM

Faith can only be defined as belief without proof.
I chose to believe, but I keep an open mind, and respect anyone who thinks about what they belive, or do not belive in. Well said indeed Frank.

Bunnahbhain

and as DNA said.

The arguement goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove I exist' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
'But' says man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguements, you don't'
'Oh dear,' says God, and proptly vanishes in puff of logic.

Subject: RE: BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:26 PM

"Faith can only be defined as belief without proof."

No, I don't think so. Faith can also be defined as belief based upon repeated worldly experience and observation. Example: I have known a specific person for many years. I have found them to be honest and reliable. I have lent them money and time, and they have always returned both in full measure. They have proven to be thoughtful, caring, and trustworthy. Accordingly...I have great faith in that person, based on my actual experience...which IS proof for me.

In a similar way, God can be found to exist, not through faith-based religious books or church-based authority structures...but through the actual experience of living Life and finding out in the process that something greater than oneself helps one out in times of trial and answers one's questions and meets one's deepest needs.

All of the above experiences can be readily had without once belonging to ANY organized religion. In fact, I think organized religion often gets very much in the way of it!

Subject: RE: BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 10:29 AM

It may be useful here to point out a distinction, between "God" and "god".

"God", with the capital G, in our culture is likely to be a reference to the Judaeo-Christian god figure. Or at least is likely to be taken as such a reference. In this sense, "God" is, if not a name, at least a name-substitute for YWH, whereas "god" is a word that may relate to any number of entities, some of which are conceived to be sort of supernatural persons and some not.

In my opinion it's much better in a discussion such as this to avoid the capital G unless one is referring to that concept. This helps keep logical order in a rather indefinite and intellectually messy arena of discussion.

Just a small suggestion.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 09:32 AM

Isn't everyone agnostic, whether they admit it or not? I mean, nobody knows for certain that there is a god, and nobody knows for certain that there isn't....it all comes down to what the individual chooses to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 10:35 AM

Blissfully Ignorant:

No, not everybody is agnostic. Maybe they should be, but many are not.

There are many who consider that they know the existence and probably the nature of God (capital G), on the basis of Biblical revelation. And it is in the "consider that they know" or "will assert that they know" that the distinction lies.

The philospher who coined the term "agnostic" for this purpose (and I'm embarrassed that I can't think of his name right now) as I recall made clear that he personally believed in the existence of God, but that he found that the question was incapable of proof one way or the other.

Thus, one can be either a believer or an unbeliever and at the same time an agnostic, that is, conscious that one is believing without the ability to prove. And that's all right.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 12:40 PM

conscious that one is believing without the ability to prove

I like that line and I like the thought behind it.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 12:52 PM

I thought Little Hawk might give me some grief about mentioning a chevy silverado god--pointing out, perhaps, that it should be a non-denominational pickup truck god.

Subject: RE: BS: is it ever wrong or weak to be agnostic
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 02:06 PM

Chevy Silverados are merely a pleasant illusion, Stilly, whereas pickup trucks are a more generic illusion. Pick whichever one suits your taste best. :-) I think a Chevy Silverado version of god would probably be more fun.