Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[dlorde]

Creatures more intelligent that us is not the thing one thinks of when god fiction is the subject.

True enough. We were discussing what Nocole's God was/is. She said 'a higher intelligence'. That was it. In my indirect way, by pointing out how uselessly broad that was, I was trying to elicit a more specific description.

So far we have reached 'a higher intelligence somehow involved in the creation of the universe'. Which isn't much help in figuring out why that would be particularly desirable.

 

[dlorde]

I think that it's obvious I'm not talking about aliens but some higher force/intelligence that is either behind the creation of our universe or is intricately part of it. I can't define it more than that because if there is anything out there, I don't want to limit my definition of it.

I was trying to point out that 'a higher intelligence' isn't, on it's own, a very useful definition or description. Why do you find it so desirable to have an undefined higher intelligence involved in the creation of the universe? How does that affect you?

I could understand it if you described a higher intelligence that had your best interests at heart, but no - you don't want to limit your definition of it; so it could be a higher intelligence that doesn't know we exist, or sees us as vermin, or perhaps torments humanity with natural disasters, who knows? Why would such an ill-defined entity be more desirable than accepting we just don't know?

 

[dlorde]

Yes I was trying to show it's basically an illusion "on both ends" ... not only do we not have "free will", but we also are serving neither will nor purpose by being limited within causality, although the illusion we are serving the "will of causality" might be there.

I was saying what you are saying ... but giving credence to the illusion for it's analogous use whilst still trying to point out the illusion itself.

Oh, I see; sorry, it went right over my head at the time

 

[Trent Wray]

Oh, I see; sorry, it went right over my head at the time

And I was probably drunk at the time lol

 

[tsig]

And yet you responded.

People are condescending here for several reasons: because theists are usually nonresponsive to evidence, reason, and polite discourse; because they are themselves condescending; because they come here claiming to be agnostics although they are really fundamentalists or creationists. You know, that kind of thing.

Lying for the Lord has a long tradition.

 

[dafydd]

Seriously- why are so many on here so condescending and negative? This does not even deserve a response.

Somebody telling me that they believe in an imaginary super being does not deserve a serious response.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Have I said that? I said "Jewish by religion". Is there a better word? "Judaist"?

The point is that the tradition is rooted in Judaism and she obviously shared it. Is there a point you're trying to make? This is getting tedious.

You are losing track of the discussion. Feel free to explain what I've missed:

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.

SG (paraphrased): The argument is the person "feels more comfortable" using a Judaic ritual. One need not be anything else other than respecting someone else's or even one's own tradition. There are practicing Jews who are also atheist, BTW, and see their rituals as ethnic, not necessarily personally theistic.

What you said:

It's her own tradition, not someone else's. She was not asked to respect our tradition. She knew full well the feel of the forum, just look at the OP.

What doesn't fit well with agnosticism is hanging on teeth-and-nail to such silly superstition. With every post she's making I'm more and more inclined to think she's a theist for sure, and more gnostic than agnostic.

(emphasis mine)

I repeat, how does respect for a religious tradition not fit with agnosticism? I am not arguing about the evidence for theism in Nicoles posts in general. She states plainly that she would prefer theism over atheism. But how does following any ritual betray underlying theist beliefs? You won't find anyone more atheist than myself in this forum (there are those equally convinced gods are fiction but not more convinced) and I respect a lot of religious traditions depending on the setting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Somebody telling me that they believe in an imaginary super being does not deserve a serious response.

Sure it does. It deserves this serious response: The evidence is overwhelming that such super beings are imaginary. There is no evidence they are not.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

You are losing track of the discussion. Feel free to explain what I've missed:

Post #23:
SG (paraphrased): The argument is the person "feels more comfortable" using a Judaic ritual. One need not be anything else other than respecting someone else's or even one's own tradition. There are practicing Jews who are also atheist, BTW, and see their rituals as ethnic, not necessarily personally theistic.

What you said: (emphasis mine)

I repeat, how does respect for a religious tradition not fit with agnosticism? I am not arguing about the evidence for theism in Nicoles posts in general. She states plainly that she would prefer theism over atheism. But how does following any ritual betray underlying theist beliefs? You won't find anyone more atheist than myself in this forum (there are those equally convinced gods are fiction but not more convinced) and I respect a lot of religious traditions depending on the setting.

Of course the situation here is not you as an outsider in someone else's church respecting their traditions but rather Nicole 'respecting the traditions' of someone else's church in a completely different place unconnected with that church and where she is not surrounded by those who share that tradition and belief.

If you bow your head and faux pray in a church to fit in with everyone else then fine. If you come to my house and do the same then you're not doing it just to fit in, you obviously feel there is some importance to it.

 

[Naive1000]

If you bow your head and faux pray in a church to fit in with everyone else then fine. If you come to my house and do the same then you're not doing it just to fit in, you obviously feel there is some importance to it.

I bow my head out of respect for the people I care about. To show I respect them not their beliefs. I would never bow my head in a church if I didn't believe in what they were saying. I think that shows a total lack of respect, acting like you believe when you don't. The people I care about know I'm doing it for them.

 

[laca]

Of course the situation here is not you as an outsider in someone else's church respecting their traditions but rather Nicole 'respecting the traditions' of someone else's church in a completely different place unconnected with that church and where she is not surrounded by those who share that tradition and belief.

If you bow your head and faux pray in a church to fit in with everyone else then fine. If you come to my house and do the same then you're not doing it just to fit in, you obviously feel there is some importance to it.

Exactly.

 

[laca]

I bow my head out of respect for the people I care about. To show I respect them not their beliefs. I would never bow my head in a church if I didn't believe in what they were saying. I think that shows a total lack of respect, acting like you believe when you don't. The people I care about know I'm doing it for them.

Don't go to church with people you care about. Otherwise you might find yourself bowing your head out of respect when not believing or showing disrespect for not bowing.

 

[Mister Agenda]

And yet you responded.

People are condescending here for several reasons: because theists are usually nonresponsive to evidence, reason, and polite discourse; because they are themselves condescending; because they come here claiming to be agnostics although they are really fundamentalists or creationists. You know, that kind of thing.

It's worth bearing in mind that there's no contradiction between being an agnostic and being a fundamentalist or creationist. The only thing that would make them 'not an agnostic' is believing it's possible to know if God exists or being certain that God does or does not exist without any doubt. The deception is in identifying as agnostic when there's such a strong connotation of not having a serious committment to a particular religion. It's as possible to be an agnostic theist as it is to be an agnostic atheist; and by extension one could be an agnostic Baptist or somesuch. In fact, you have to be agnostic to believe in God by faith.

 

[Naive1000]

Don't go to church with people you care about. Otherwise you might find yourself bowing your head out of respect when not believing or showing disrespect for not bowing.

I just don't go to church: solves all those problems .

 

[Mister Agenda]

You're probably right. The more I read posts by atheists on here, the more I want to believe in God:} It's funny; I don't think it's even the competitive spirit in the spirit of the debate- something is touching a nerve with me. I'm not there yet though as I have too many doubts and questions; therefore I'm still an agnostic. I never took agnosticism to mean that you need to be "exactly in the middle". I think that it's only natural for a person to alter their beliefs throughout their life.

If you go to a board like ChristianForums, it might help you swing back toward wherever your normal balance point is.

I can sympathize with not wanting to be counted amongst the very snippy, and having taken the journey from the other side myself, I can remember a period of sensitivity somewhere between putting the odds of God at 50/50 and putting them at less than 1%. Even though I strongly doubted in the existence of God, it bothered me when people seemed contemptuous of the idea. I definitely wasn't sure I wanted to be counted on the same side as people who seemed to be unable to actually type the word 'God', having some sort of compulsion to type 'sky fairy' or 'dog' instead.

To be fair though, judging a group by its representatives on discussion boards is probably not the best way to arrive at the best approximation of the truth.

Snippiness and mockery are not requirements to be an agnostic atheist or a rational skeptic. Those traits do carry a little cache' on the interwebz, however, so they will always be with us.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Of course the situation here is not you as an outsider in someone else's church respecting their traditions but rather Nicole 'respecting the traditions' of someone else's church in a completely different place unconnected with that church and where she is not surrounded by those who share that tradition and belief.

If you bow your head and faux pray in a church to fit in with everyone else then fine. If you come to my house and do the same then you're not doing it just to fit in, you obviously feel there is some importance to it.

When I visit a Muslim home, I take off my shoes before walking on their prayer carpet. When I visit a Japanese home I take off my shoes by the door. I don't feel there is any mystical importance to these actions, it's enough that I know that in their culture, it's considered rude to wear your shoes in certain places and as a gentleman I am willing to make the small concession being asked. Although I don't usually bow my head during prayers, I would be more likely to do so in someone's home, not less, because there's more to being a guest in someone's home than there is to being a guest somewhere anyone can be expected to walk in. My notion of courtesy, such as not creating a situation likely to result in an unwelcome theological debate when vistiing friends, family, or colleagues; may be old fashioned, but I regard it as an indication of courtesy and respect to my hosts, not of theism.

 

[kerikiwi]

I bow my head out of respect for the people I care about. To show I respect them not their beliefs. I would never bow my head in a church if I didn't believe in what they were saying. I think that shows a total lack of respect, acting like you believe when you don't. The people I care about know I'm doing it for them.

I detect a contradiction here: you say you bow your head out of respect etc, then that you would never bow your head if you didn't believe.
Which is it?

 

[Nicole Friedman]

The tone was not condescending: it was descriptive of the Disney version of the unicorn.
How could you possibly take offence at that?
You say you want to believe in God, that you are open to the possibility, but are very vague about what the god you want to believe in is.
Are you open to the possibility that unicorns exist? ... either the original version or the cute Disney version.

Here's the problem; you're thinking that you're asking a legitimate question- basically saying that if I'm open to the possibility of God then I must be open to anything that we we cannot prove with science, be it unicorns or anything else. The reason I see this as a condescending remark is that it seems so illogical to me that you can even begin to compare the two. Unicorns are obviously man made inventions. As for God- maybe it is, but there is a chance it isn't. Because I believe in the possibility of a higher power or intelligence does not mean that I have to be open to the possibility of unicorns.

 

[Trent Wray]

The African unicorn was obviously a man made invention. Until it was discovered by Westerners in the 20th century.

I think the idea that saying someone is open to the possibility of God and so they must be open to all things is actually fallacious ... because the filter of "open to all things I want to be open to and closed to things I want to be closed to" hasn't been applied. It's called cherry picking and basing what you believe based on your personal preference. In some areas, this involves evidence. In others, it involves likes, dislikes. Still in others, it involves fanciful thinking. Etc and so forth.

"It's possible because I like it. It's not possible because I don't like it. It's possible because I like your friend, but it's not possible in your case because I don't like you."

 

[Nicole Friedman]

If you go to a board like ChristianForums, it might help you swing back toward wherever your normal balance point is.

I can sympathize with not wanting to be counted amongst the very snippy, and having taken the journey from the other side myself, I can remember a period of sensitivity somewhere between putting the odds of God at 50/50 and putting them at less than 1%. Even though I strongly doubted in the existence of God, it bothered me when people seemed contemptuous of the idea. I definitely wasn't sure I wanted to be counted on the same side as people who seemed to be unable to actually type the word 'God', having some sort of compulsion to type 'sky fairy' or 'dog' instead.

To be fair though, judging a group by its representatives on discussion boards is probably not the best way to arrive at the best approximation of the truth.

Snippiness and mockery are not requirements to be an agnostic atheist or a rational skeptic. Those traits do carry a little cache' on the interwebz, however, so they will always be with us.

I appreciate your reply and everything that you said makes sense. I do realize that not all atheists are rude and condescending, just as not all theists are trying to brainwash people. However, people should realize that acting in such a way is not going to attract people to your side. That being said, the feelings I'm having when reading this thread go beyond just a gut reaction to nasty remarks. The legitimate arguments for atheism just don't seem to be making much sense to me; I simply cannot see how we have to prove in God's existence with our limited human capacities. The only honest answer I do see is that we just don't know.