Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[slingblade]

From the human perspective.

It's the only one I've got.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

If your cultural heritage involves a belief in god then yes. The fact that it's Jewish culture matters not one whit. Also you're 100% convinced in the non-existence of Zeus. This makes you an atheist. If you are convinced of the non-existence of all other gods with the exception of the god of the bible then you're 99.9% atheist!

As for the god of the bible, you are clearly more inclined to the believing side of the scales as you are unwilling to offend him by using the word God and you champion the cause of those people who mutlilate their children to keep that god happy. You may have questions, but you're coming from a position of belief rather than a position of "I don't know". That's the definition of agnosticism.



Of course an agnostic could go to church! "I don't know, but I'm trying to find out" is a perfectly valid position.

Will you be going to a Mormon church and a Catholic church as well to make sure that they don't actually have it right? If not, why not?

And can you see how someone who wasn't brought up in your culture and with your beliefs might feel the same way about them as you do about Zeus and all the others?

Critical Sock: I have no idea where you can even say that someone who does not believe in Zeus is 99.9% atheist. Greek Gods had human-like characteristics much like the Gods of many ancient civilizations. The fact that I am 100% convinced that Zeus does not exist is irrelevant towards my agnosticism of a higher intelligence somewhere in the universe. And as a matter of fact, I have gone to church and to mosques. In college and afterwards I made a point to read up and learn about as many religions as possible.

 

[Brainache]

Critical Sock: I have no idea where you can even say that someone who does not believe in Zeus is 99.9% atheist. Greek Gods had human-like characteristics much like the Gods of many ancient civilizations...

Like Yahweh for instance?

Jealous, Angry, fallible... What's not human about that?

 

[Nicole Friedman]

The following is a dead serious question: What would it change ? Would it change your tastes in clothes ? Would it change your favourite hobbies ? The movies you like or the music you listen to ? If it changes nothing, then why bother with a "reason" and "purpose" ? I have purpose, and that's good enough for me. Why isn't it a good enough reason for you ?



Again: why ? Once you are dead, you won't even notice, so it won't make a bit of a difference. Now, I can understand that it's a bit disquieting, being creatures who are "built" to want to survive at all costs, knowing that you will someday die. But don't you think it's a bit dishonest, to yourself, to _want_ to believe in something although you know that you are probably just making it up ? This is another very serious question.

I really must answer your questions with some questions of my own. Why would knowing that God doesn't exist not change anything for you? It would change everything for me. No it wouldn't change my clothes or hobbies but wouldn't knowing that we weren't alive by random chance but for some greater purpose supercede all of that anyhow? Obviously we should live each day as if it were our last regardless of whether or not God exists, and of course we can make our own purpose in life. However, I simply cannot compare the two. And how would I know that I'm deluding myself when I'm not sure? Simply because I like many others want to believe in a God, does that somehow prove God doesn't exist? (And yes, I'm typing "God"- quite frankly I'm sick and tired of all of the whining on here over what to me is a trivial point about how I choose to spell or not spell God.) Finally, a question to everyone on this thread. Let's suppose that science prove God does not exist. What do you think will happen? Will the world become a better place? Will wars cease to exist? Or will people lose hope and become depressed and angry?

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Like Yahweh for instance?

Jealous, Angry, fallible... What's not human about that?

If you read many of my other posts, when I say the word "God" I am referring to any higher intelligence out there in the universe. I have never said that I take anything in the Torah or Bible literally.

 

[Hokulele]

No it wouldn't change my clothes or hobbies but wouldn't knowing that we weren't alive by random chance but for some greater purpose supercede all of that anyhow?

For me, it would make my life less meaningful. I mean, if I were simply a pawn in a game between unknown forces, I would have less interest in making the most out of the one life I have. After all, if I am only serving someone/thing else's purposes, why does it matter what I choose to do? Knowing that the only meaning and purpose in my life is what I give it, it makes it that much more important to me to do the best I can for myself and for the others here with me.

Although I do understand that not everyone feels the same as I do.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

I always wonder about this. It shows that you don't want to believe in god, but specifically a benevolent god. Because you can then believe in a benevolent purpose.

I always wonder why agnostics never wonder if their god is like a big child with a video game or ant farm: our purpose nothing but to amuse. Or, their god being like a scientist or computer programmer: our purpose to show all possible outcomes, solve a specific problem, or even just to expand its knowledge. I guess because, in both cases, what happens to us means little to nothing to that type of god. We would be like game pieces and god would have little to no emotional attachment to us. Our purpose would then mean very little to our lives, which may be devastating to those wanting a higher purpose. Still as an agnostic skeptic shouldn't you think on these possibilities.

I understand your point. However, I can say 100% that I do not believe in a God who dangles us like puppets for its amusement the same way that I 100% do not believe in any kind of hell for eternity. Whatever is in this universe is either benign at the worst or good at its best. (Please do not misconstrue me here; I'm talking about if there's some form of higher intelligence; not individual murderers or criminals). Anything else simply does not make any logical sense to me. If there is a God, why would it be evil? What would the purpose of that be?

 

[Nicole Friedman]

For me, it would make my life less meaningful. I mean, if I were simply a pawn in a game between unknown forces, I would have less interest in making the most out of the one life I have. After all, if I am only serving someone/thing else's purposes, why does it matter what I choose to do? Knowing that the only meaning and purpose in my life is what I give it, it makes it that much more important to me to do the best I can for myself and for the others here with me.

Although I do understand that not everyone feels the same as I do.

I can see where you're coming from. But why would you necessarily have to be a pawn? If there's a higher intelligence in this universe, maybe it's purpose was simply to give us life, in order for us to find our own purpose. :} Obviously it's possible that we would be pawns, but I'd rather be an atheist than believe in a God that would do that for no reason.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

By presuming or asserting the capability of human thought to address the question of the existence of God/gods you are doing two things;
1, you are limiting any gods which may be out there to those which can be considered by the human mind.
2, you are asserting that the human mind has the quality or capacity to address aspects of existence itself. I see no evidence of this in scientific material or western philosophy. Please furnish me with such evidence if there is some, as I may not be as well read as some.

I see no justification for either line of reasoning.

Please explain?

Again, presumably you mean real in human terms, not real as actually existing.

Firstly I see no reason why something we can't necessarily comprehend should be assumed to behave in comprehensible ways.
Secondly existence itself(ie everything) may well be the interaction or effect on us.

Please explain?

You made excellent points! Why does God have to be defined, when the very definition of God is that it cannot be defined; at least by our limited human senses. That's why the very notion that one can prove or disprove God with science simply makes no sense to me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Huh ?

The OP and post #46 are basically saying "get to know me and my beliefs so I can know if I'll be accepted here" ...

Would you prefer people be fake about who they are on this forum to make her feel welcome .... or would you prefer that people who would like to ridicule just go ahead and come out and ridicule so she can see for herself what types of people she is concerned with being welcome by ?

I just think a lot of posts sound more like ridicule than discussion.

Post #23:

In Judaism you're not supposed to spell out the word G-d. I don't always use the hyphen but I do feel more comfortable doing so.

emphasis mine.

That's not any kind of declaration of fact, it's a simple statement of preference, something that is not evidence based. What in that preference begs for debate?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I think people are mostly hung up on how Abrahamic your theology is. If you aren't sure there's a god, then the god you aren't sure about could logically be ANY god. If I tell you "there is a snake on that plane," assuming you take me at my word, you can't logically exclude any particular breed of snake just because you are unfamiliar with it.*

Any god can fit the bill of a "higher intelligence." That's why equivocating wedge documenters love falling back on the phrase, it's completely unfalsifiable and useless in any practical sense. YHVH, Allah, Lil' J, Zeus, Osiris, Vishnu, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all work fine. In many ways the FSM is the best god for the role, as his religion hasn't had time to build a cohort of angels, djinni, spirits and companion gods to chill with him. So if you're really agnostic, you can't tell me the FSM is NOT the one true god, his sauce be praised.

Unless of course you're not really agnostic at all, as the term is used here, just a wavering believer. You don't really know which of the Big Three to go with, but you're pretty sure it's gotta be one of them because you were brought up that way, and find the comfort of a beard in the sky too enticing to give up altogether. Which is fine, y'know, semi-theists are also welcome here.

*In fact there were ALL of the snakes on the plane. The theological implications of this reference is left up to the reader.

[Edit] From your recent posts, go ahead and throw "benevolent" god in there with the other stuff you can't know and still claim agnosticism. There's at LEAST as much evidence that any god which exists would have to be a right bastard as a good guy. If you can't accept that possibility, well, tough, that's what puts the 'a' in "agnostic."

 

[Nicole Friedman]

I just think a lot of posts sound more like ridicule than discussion.

Post #23:emphasis mine.

That's not any kind of declaration of fact, it's a simple statement of preference, something that is not evidence based. What in that preference begs for debate?

Much appreciated. I was starting to feel unfairly attacked.

 

[Leumas]

You made excellent points! Why does God have to be defined, when the very definition of God is that it cannot be defined; at least by our limited human senses. That's why the very notion that one can prove or disprove God with science simply makes no sense to me.

 

[Brainache]

If you read many of my other posts, when I say the word "God" I am referring to any higher intelligence out there in the universe. I have never said that I take anything in the Torah or Bible literally.

Sorry, I just assumed you meant YHWH because as far as I know he's the only god who has a problem with people saying his name.

OK, you don't believe in the old tribal god of that particular middle eastern tribe from whom your culture descends, but you like the idea of a nice friendly "Great Spirit" kind of thing.

I can't believe in that, but good luck to you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Pedantic point: "God" with a capital G refers to a specific god. It doesn't have to be the Biblical god but typically Christians refer to their god as God. The gods, small g refers to the group or class of gods.

It is the same gramatical rule for Mom, moms, Dad, my dad and so on. A good rule of thumb is, if you can substitute the person's name in the sentence, capitalize it. If not, then don't.

I went with Dad. I went with my dad.

 

[Naive1000]

I understand your point. However, I can say 100% that I do not believe in a God who dangles us like puppets for its amusement the same way that I 100% do not believe in any kind of hell for eternity. Whatever is in this universe is either benign at the worst or good at its best. (Please do not misconstrue me here; I'm talking about if there's some form of higher intelligence; not individual murderers or criminals). Anything else simply does not make any logical sense to me. If there is a God, why would it be evil? What would the purpose of that be?

Just so you know I'm not attacking you. I try to debate/discuss things from a more detached viewpoint. If you feel like I was attacking you I apologize for that.

I was just posing it more as a question for thought, but it seems that you have already thought it through and have decided what you believe. That's always a good thing. Thinking that is. As my favorite shirt says, "Think, it's not illegal yet."

 

[Trent Wray]

Finally, a question to everyone on this thread. Let's suppose that science prove God does not exist. What do you think will happen? Will the world become a better place? Will wars cease to exist? Or will people lose hope and become depressed and angry?

I think the world would be essentially the same, although I would expect a sort of "flip-flop" if you will.

For those who need to believe in something more than what is already here, if they found out there was nothing, they would lose control and go ape$hit and become nihilists. The reason I think that, is because without a god telling them what to do, they already claim that the world would fall into "sin" and despair. I believe them ... because I think they are projecting. In other words, they would be the ones who would fall into sin and despair, without an invisible parent around that they think is giving them rules to follow.

For others who don't need those rules, or the belief they are always being watched and judged ... but already enjoy life, and value their world, I think they would get a greater crack at "freedom" in the sense that at some level they would sort of "rise to the top" instead of being at the bottom.

And to one other thing you said .... concerning "live each day as though it were your last" ... I actually do the opposite . I live each day as though I'll live forever, for the most part. For me personally, I find that it helps me find a deeper meaning in things, rather than having a panicky type of fear that I would cling to. It also helps me be a bit less selfish, if that makes sense ...

I just think a lot of posts sound more like ridicule than discussion.

Post #23:emphasis mine.

That's not any kind of declaration of fact, it's a simple statement of preference, something that is not evidence based. What in that preference begs for debate?

Strawmen are tiring But it is Halloween, and Scarecrows are some of my favorite decorations

I never said anything about anything begging for debate. So lets get back to the point ... you summarize your point when you say "a lot of posts sound more like ridicule than discussion".

Typically, when someone makes a statement on a public thread, especially one in which they invite themselves to be probed and want to probe others ... discussion would involve responding to the statements they make. Simple as that.

I don't even see a problem with you having a problem with feeling as though others are being ridiculing. Some will be ridiculing, some won't. Some will be respectful, some won't. It all goes without saying. What I'm curious, is to know what I asked you specifically ... would you rather people be fake and sugar coat how they would want to respond, or would you rather them be "real" in the sense that if they want to ridicule, or pick apart, they go ahead and do that so that a poster who asks "will I be accepted here" can see quite clearly whom the people are she is talking to. In my eyes, it speaks for itself.

If a person goes into an unknown and basically says, "what will happen to me if I come this direction ?" it's more than fair that those in that unknown identify themselves. Whether they be ********** or respectful individuals.

Plus I am interested lately in the interaction that specific types of people are seeking to have with others and what they hope to gain from it. It's why I would like you to answer my question, since it's a personal one and you made a personal statement. But you don't have to if you don't want to of course.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Strawmen are tiring But it is Halloween, and Scarecrows are some of my favorite decorations

I never said anything about anything begging for debate. So lets get back to the point ... you summarize your point when you say "a lot of posts sound more like ridicule than discussion".

Typically, when someone makes a statement on a public thread, especially one in which they invite themselves to be probed and want to probe others ... discussion would involve responding to the statements they make. Simple as that.

I don't even see a problem with you having a problem with feeling as though others are being ridiculing. Some will be ridiculing, some won't. Some will be respectful, some won't. It all goes without saying. What I'm curious, is to know what I asked you specifically ... would you rather people be fake and sugar coat how they would want to respond, or would you rather them be "real" in the sense that if they want to ridicule, or pick apart, they go ahead and do that so that a poster who asks "will I be accepted here" can see quite clearly whom the people are she is talking to. In my eyes, it speaks for itself.

If a person goes into an unknown and basically says, "what will happen to me if I come this direction ?" it's more than fair that those in that unknown identify themselves. Whether they be ********** or respectful individuals.

Plus I am interested lately in the interaction that specific types of people are seeking to have with others and what they hope to gain from it. It's why I would like you to answer my question, since it's a personal one and you made a personal statement. But you don't have to if you don't want to of course.

For the record, I did not single out anyone for posting ridicule in lieu of legit discussion. I initially quoted Nicole defending her personal preference. The reply of hers I quoted was her reply to Leumas. I took your reply to me as a general comment as to why some people were addressing the g-d thing. I did not say that every comment regarding the g-d thing included ridicule.

Is there some reason you feel my post addressed your posts specifically?

Would you feel differently if I quoted the posts that sounded more like ridicule than discussion? I was trying to avoid going there.

 

[Trent Wray]

For the record, I did not single out anyone for posting ridicule in lieu of legit discussion. I initially quoted Nicole defending her personal preference. The reply of hers I quoted was her reply to Leumas. I took your reply to me as a general comment as to why some people were addressing the g-d thing. I did not say that every comment regarding the g-d thing included ridicule.

Is there some reason you feel my post addressed your posts specifically?

Would you feel differently if I quoted the posts that sounded more like ridicule than discussion? I was trying to avoid going there.

Awesome new avatar btw !

Seriously ... if you really do not want to answer my question, just say that you don't want to. It's so easy to do. I am not going to accuse, or anything like that. What is irritating, is when you avoid it and try to take it elsewhere. Avoid it by saying, "I'm going to avoid it" or simply don't respond at all I have no problem with that whatsoever, I think it's more respectful actually

You don't have to quote posts that sounded like ridicule to you ... I am not debating, or putting anything on a judges stand. I didn't even consider the idea that your post addressed my posts specifically .... what drew me to your post was the curiosity of how someone with the post count you have on the JREF would actually be concerned with whether or not someone else was being ridiculed. I was curious as to your actual emotional, psychological, whatever reason for that concern. You specifically ....

And you still haven't answered that specific, personal question I asked. The other straw can burn in a Halloween pumpkin So again .... would you rather everyone sugar coat things, or just specific people whom you find to have ridiculed ... rather than go ahead and letting them hang themselves by their own ridiculing if they so desire ? IOW .... why did you personally take offense or have an issue with it ? I'm curious as to WHY you would stand up and essentially say, "come on guys ... that's enough" ... again, the personal reason is what I'm asking. If you don't want to answer it, just say you don't want to and don't. Or ignore this post. If you divert from answering it again with all this other stuff that I'm telling you quite clearly I don't even care about ... I probably will drop it and keep moving on myself, assuming you're simply going to dodge it because you either don't want to share the substance of it or there is no substance there to share anyway. Which is okay to do ... I'm just telling you i would prefer you be straight up is all

 

[kerikiwi]

... but I'd rather be an atheist than believe in a God that would do that for no reason.

There's where I have a fundamental difference with you.
I cannot choose to believe something because I rather fancy the idea, or choose not to believe something because I dislike the idea.
I base my beliefs on evidence.
It's raining here right now and I really wish it weren't, because there are things I could do if it were fine. But the evidence is that it's raining, and what I like or dislike has no effect.
If there were good evidence that a vengeful thoroughly nasty god existed, I would believe it. I wouldn't like it, but I would believe it.