Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Belz...]

"It is patently ridiculous". No, you're not mean bitter or angry. My mistake.

Imagine Spock saying that, and you'll find your mistake , indeed.

As for your point about logic, no it absolutely does not seem ridiculous to me in the slightest. Why would anything in the universe be "evil"?

Why would anything be "good" ?

 

[Belz...]

How would you or anyone know that the "universe doesn't care"?

Evidence.

 

[Antiquehunter]

@Nicole - why this passionate desire to be labelled as 'agnostic' when it is clear that you are not (at least, not as how I understand the term.) Is it really that important?

Clearly, the trappings of religious belief are important to you - you have said so yourself in a number of areas. Nothing wrong with that.

To summarize what I understand of your belief system having read this thread, you:

- Consider yourself to be Jewish
- Hold dear many (but not necessarily all) cultural/religious tenets of that faith
- You have some ambiguous question about whether or not god exists as you understand him in the context of your Jewish faith. You are personally hopeful that god does indeed, exist.

If these statements are accurate, then you simply are Jewish - perhaps a 'Questioning Jewish' person, or some other description. But I don't think 'agnostic' fits here. (Not that I'm the ultimate keeper of the agnostic label).

No one on this forum is going to make you unwelcome because you are 'Jewish' in some regard. If you are compelled to discuss aspects of religious belief, then you certainly will find people who disagree with your point of view, and perhaps some who are passionately 'anti' religious. However the issue of labelling yourself as agnostic is a bit silly.

My encouragement to you would be to wrap up this thread and move on. If you're motivated to discuss aspects of your faith that you find particularly compelling, or aspects that cause you to question them, then lets look at those specifically as topics of discussion.

This whole debate is getting needlessly personal.

 

[FattyCatty]

How so ? Complexity correctly notes that the use of "g-d" either indicates religious belief, or unreasonable respect of religious beliefs. Complexity (and myself) is (are) well known for his (our) contempt of religion, so his post was honest.

As I have stated previously, saying about someone that "Interesting intelligence and/or integrity is not to be expected in people who use 'g-d'" is arrogant, no matter what one's views are on religion. Saying that "Someone who uses 'g-d' rather than 'god' is either exhibiting or catering to superstitious beliefs, neither of which is acceptable to me" is arrogant in its assumption that what is acceptable to him is important or matters to others. And I didn't say it wasn't honest; it was honestly pretentious and arrogant.

No. Opinions are not all equal.

I disagree. An opinion is just what someone believes about something. What you believe carries no more weight than what I believe, except to the believer.

If you are saying opinions are not equal because some people have more knowledge than others, then maybe we have a semantics problem. I would agree that some arguments carry more weight than others because they are more valid or have more truthful premises. But opinions are just your belief. And as this subforum demonstrates, there frequently is little respect for belief here, either belief in something, or belief in not something.

 

[Dani]

As I have stated previously, saying about someone that "Interesting intelligence and/or integrity is not to be expected in people who use 'g-d'" is arrogant, no matter what one's views are on religion. Saying that "Someone who uses 'g-d' rather than 'god' is either exhibiting or catering to superstitious beliefs, neither of which is acceptable to me" is arrogant in its assumption that what is acceptable to him is important or matters to others. And I didn't say it wasn't honest; it was honestly pretentious and arrogant.

I agree with you that it's arrogant, but that doesn't follow.

 

[tsig]

As I have stated previously, saying about someone that "Interesting intelligence and/or integrity is not to be expected in people who use 'g-d'" is arrogant, no matter what one's views are on religion. Saying that "Someone who uses 'g-d' rather than 'god' is either exhibiting or catering to superstitious beliefs, neither of which is acceptable to me" is arrogant in its assumption that what is acceptable to him is important or matters to others. And I didn't say it wasn't honest; it was honestly pretentious and arrogant.


I disagree. An opinion is just what someone believes about something. What you believe carries no more weight than what I believe, except to the believer.

If you are saying opinions are not equal because some people have more knowledge than others, then maybe we have a semantics problem. I would agree that some arguments carry more weight than others because they are more valid or have more truthful premises. But opinions are just your belief. And as this subforum demonstrates, there frequently is little respect for belief here, either belief in something, or belief in not something.

So when your mechanic tells you you need a new fuel pump that's just his opinion?

When a scientist says evolution occurred, that's just his opinion?

 

[slingblade]

I'm sorry but I didn't realize that a skeptics forum, a place where you're supposed to be open-minded is closed off to any opinions but your own. I apologize for disturbing your cat.

People so often throw this at us that I simply have to wonder:

Do they all think we just stepped off the bus and have never given any of their questions or positions plenty of critical thought before they arrived, spouting exactly the same things we've already critically examined and found wanting?

Being "open minded" has never meant "entertaining the same ideas over and over and over and totally disregarding any conclusions you may have formed, by whatever means, in the past, so you can re-examine it again and end up coming to exactly the same conclusions, only to do it yet again and again and again in future, every single time it comes up, because you still have learned nothing."

Most people here display admirable capability for open-minded consideration of new information, and plenty still examine the same-old same-old to make certain they've evaluated it properly in the past.

But just because you came late to the same party doesn't mean we all need to leave and come in again, with every new person that shows up.

We already did our "open-minded" examinations of your claims and assertions, long before you arrived. That doesn't make us "closed-minded." It means we have the benefit of having considered such things, and could pass that benefit onto you, provided you are open-minded enough to even listen to us and consider what we have to say.

You appear unable, unwilling, both, or other.

 

[tsig]

People so often throw this at us that I simply have to wonder:

Do they all think we just stepped off the bus and have never given any of their questions or positions plenty of critical thought before they arrived, spouting exactly the same things we've already critically examined and found wanting?

Being "open minded" has never meant "entertaining the same ideas over and over and over and totally disregarding any conclusions you may have formed, by whatever means, in the past, so you can re-examine it again and end up coming to exactly the same conclusions, only to do it yet again and again and again in future, every single time it comes up, because you still have learned nothing."

Most people here display admirable capability for open-minded consideration of new information, and plenty still examine the same-old same-old to make certain they've evaluated it properly in the past.

But just because you came late to the same party doesn't mean we all need to leave and come in again, with every new person that shows up.

We already did our "open-minded" examinations of your claims and assertions, long before you arrived. That doesn't make us "closed-minded." It means we have the benefit of having considered such things, and could pass that benefit onto you, provided you are open-minded enough to even listen to us and consider what we have to say.

You appear unable, unwilling, both, or other.

^^^^^^^
THIS

I don't know how many times I've been asked about something that I investigated decades ago and found wanting yet the questioner acts like he's just discovered singlehanded sex and is sure that the rest of the world is just waiting to hear about the new discovery. When told that it's old news, hostility, taunting and deliberate misunderstanding ensues.

 

[Belz...]

As I have stated previously, saying about someone that "Interesting intelligence and/or integrity is not to be expected in people who use 'g-d'" is arrogant, no matter what one's views are on religion. Saying that "Someone who uses 'g-d' rather than 'god' is either exhibiting or catering to superstitious beliefs, neither of which is acceptable to me" is arrogant in its assumption that what is acceptable to him is important or matters to others. And I didn't say it wasn't honest; it was honestly pretentious and arrogant.

I know what you said, and I didn't ask you to repeat it: I asked you to explain it.

I disagree. An opinion is just what someone believes about something. What you believe carries no more weight than what I believe, except to the believer.

So if I believe the earth revolves around the sun and you think the sun is actually a reflection in the sky-mirror of a deep-sea glowing jellyfish that travels the oceans in a day, your belief is just as good as mine ?

 

[Complexity]

I'm sorry but I didn't realize that a skeptics forum, a place where you're supposed to be open-minded is closed off to any opinions but your own. I apologize for disturbing your cat.

'cats' - plural.

I'm quite open to a variety of new and interesting ideas. I've learned a great deal on this forum. I have to wade through a lot of muck to find the good stuff, but it is well worth the effort.

The ideas that you have been espousing are ragged, boring, and wrong.

To leave my mind 'open' to garbage like that, once I have lived it, examined it, found it wanting, and thrown it out, would be wrong. Why go through all of that nonsense again?

I was quite religious for over twenty years. I got better. Been there, done that. It is my pleasure these days to help to ward people away from those treacherous shores.

Your mistake, ma'am, was claiming to be agnostic while using 'g-d' - I have little tolerance for intellectual dishonesty and am talented at detecting it.

Nice misuse of 'skeptic', by the way.

 

[Complexity]

Speaking only for myself, I'm open minded, but not so open that my brain may fall out. You asked firstly, if you thought the forum was welcoming of agnostics. The answer to that question is absolutely yes. Indeed, this forum is welcome to 'believers', as well.

What I am intolerant of, is people who claim to be one thing yet are another. I am completely unconvinced that you are indeed an agnostic - at least an agnostic as I understand the term.

I don't understand why you want to lay claim to this term. You clearly are passionate about many aspects of your Jewish culture, so just call yourself Jewish. Maybe your belief system isn't 'typical' of any particular type of Judaism, but you clearly are not agnostic.

- If you truly didn't know whether or not god existed, you wouldn't care whether or not you typed his name.
- Your defense of circumcision wouldn't be founded in religion.

No need for all the animosity and vitriol - I welcome anyone who is genuine.

I very much agree.

 

[Piggy]

The concept of God invented in the mind of men, I suppose.

Are you honestly trying to convince me that you're talking about something which no one has ever imagined in any way whatsoever?

 

[Piggy]

I do not spell God "G-d" out of fear but out of respect for something incredible that I sincerely hope is out there.

Do you ever write home to "M-m" and "D-d"? Or do you not respect them enough to address them that way in print?

In other words... what in the world does omitting a vowel when writing have to do with respect?

 

[Daald]

Nice analogy, yes all I am saying to piggy is how can you know there are no big foots out there. Piggy is trying to side step this issue by saying that we can't define the wookie, by our definitions of big foot, in a meaningful way.
I don't accept this as a wookie has attributes which resemble big foot.

Ok let me stick to this analogy and hopefully we can get clear on this point and not torture the analogy.

Your position could be correct. There could be a race of wookies out there that resemble big foot closely enough and saying there is no big foot is completely wrong. The problem is here. You don't know either. There could be millions upon millions of species out there that resemble big foot in some way. To have to take them all into consideration would be asinine. We must have some standard and that standard is non-belief until proof.

We will believe in big foot or a wookie when we run into them. Doing so before is useless, wasteful and could lead us in the wrong direction.

 

[The Norseman]

So when your mechanic tells you you need a new fuel pump that's just his opinion?

When a scientist says evolution occurred, that's just his opinion?

Yes, and it's just as valid as a six year olds' opinion on the subject.

 

[Piggy]

Because the G-d that I hope exists is one of good, not evil.

Which means, I suppose, that it has a very small realm of authority in this world, which is mostly made of energy and matter that is neither good nor evil, and in which the human realm has a huge slathering dose of evil in it.

 

[Leumas]

You post makes absolutely no sense. Aside from the strictly orthodox, most Jews I know, my rabbi included do not take the Torah literally. If you knew anything about Judaism, you would know that it is considered vastly more important to be a good human being to others than to obey any commandments towards G-d.

Excellent.....very good......but then you have just ANNULLED the Torah and most of the Mitzvot.

What STANDARD are you using to DEFINE "being good to other humans"???

What is the MEASURE of your "good" and how did you determine this measure???

For sure IT IS NOT the Mitzvot nor the Torah......in other words it is not Judaism. It is NOT Judaism that is dictating for you how to be good if, as you said, being good to others takes precedence over the commandments of G-d.

You then can see and accept that this G-d has commandments that ARE NOT GOOD......right?


And if you can see that some commandments are not good and that being good is the priority.....THEN HOW DID YOU DETERMINE this "GOOD"???? Why would you continue to worship a g-d that is not good????


Your version of "?Judaism?" is NOT Judaism......Why not call it Humanism....or Secularism......or DEISM......


What you are trying to do is to say that the Torah is RUBBISH and that YHWH is not as is depicted in the Torah -- a blood thirsty megalomaniacal tyrannical bigoted monster.

What you are saying is that YOU know G-d better than he has described himself in his own book.......oh...what is that you say....you do not think that the book is his own book and it is rather humans who wrote it???? VERY VERY GOOD......so now I ask you......how did you get to know about this g-d of yours the way you think you know it???? Why not Zeus or Vishnu???

HOW DO YOU know that those other gods are not G-d??? Why is it Judaism that is the way to G-d despite you avowing the fact that it is FULL OF VILENESS or at the least commandments that contradict "being good to other human beings"????

Is it just because you were INCULCATED or Married into it?


If YOU knew anything about Judaism you would know that THE most important thing about Judaism is the Mitzvot….. almost all Jewish prayers start with

ברוך אתה 'הוה אלוהינו מלך העולם, אשר קדשנו במצותיו...
Blessed are You, LORD, our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with His commandments…

Do you know what the Shema and Mezuzot and tfi’lin are….if you don’t then see the verses below and note sentences in blue.

Deuteronomy 6

1 These are the commands, decrees and laws the LORD your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, 2 so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the LORD your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life. 3 Hear, Israel, and be careful to obey so that it may go well with you and that you may increase greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey, just as the LORD, the God of your ancestors, promised you.

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.[a] 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

Also notice the "good" being done to "other people" in the last two phrases highlighted in yellow below.....goodness abounds in those....no?

Deut. 11

16 Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. 17 Then the LORD’s anger will burn against you, and he will shut up the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land the LORD is giving you. 18 Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, 21 so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land the LORD swore to give your ancestors, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth.

22 If you carefully observe all these commands I am giving you to follow —to love the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to him and to hold fast to him— 23 then the LORD will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations larger and stronger than you. 24 Every place where you set your foot will be yours: Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the Euphrates River to the Mediterranean Sea. 25 No one will be able to stand against you. The LORD your God, as he promised you, will put the terror and fear of you on the whole land, wherever you go.

By the way.....are the settlers in the Occupied Palestinian lands being "good to other human beings"? Are they not Jews? Or are they not good Jews?

 

[The Norseman]

I am "using a definition of knowledge" that includes what is beyond human perception. Not to consider such a realm of knowledge in discussing this subject is rather short sighted.

You do not have the capacity nor capability to rationally discuss what is outside the realm of human knowledge.

Ok, yes I am saying there is an intelligent manipulator therefore there may be a god.

There is not enough information for anyone, including you and Limbo and all the other mystics, to make such a comparison or speculation.

It gives me a rational reason for considering the possible existence of a god.

It's nonsensical as you have so far put forth.

You have not given a rational reason for why you do not consider the possible existence of a god(by my definition). It is irrational to deny that things exist which are beyond humanity's perception. Even if they may be undefinable or inconceivable to humans, they may exist regardless.

You have not given a rational definition of your god. Do that first and then we'll talk. By the way, all of your posts have described what are called secondary characteristics, so repeating them won't make it any more coherent or clear. You first have to describe and define what precisely it is that holds these secondary characteristics for you to have any legitimacy with your claims.

You seem to think that it's deep and meaningful to say the word 'entity' as if that gives enough information to allow others to either agree or disagree that it is even capable of having the ability to 'create' or having 'intelligence' in the first place.

 

[slingblade]

So when your mechanic tells you you need a new fuel pump that's just his opinion?

When a scientist says evolution occurred, that's just his opinion?

Yes, and it's just as valid as a six year olds' opinion on the subject.

Norseman, please explain. How is the opinion of someone with expertise in a subject equally as valid as the opinion of a small child with no expertise whatsoever? Bearing in mind, of course, the logical meaning of "valid?"

 

[Piggy]

Nice analogy, yes all I am saying to piggy is how can you know there are no big foots out there. Piggy is trying to side step this issue by saying that we can't define the wookie, by our definitions of big foot, in a meaningful way.

I know there's no bigfoot out there b/c we've overrun this country and we have no actual sightings, no bones, no fossils, no poop, no roadkill... and this is supposed to be a large land mammal.

If it were real, we'd have something by now.

And no, I'm not sidestepping anything.

It's you who are avoiding this very issue you say I'm trying to duck.

I've asked you repeatedly to say what it is you're talking about. All you'll say is something like "I'm not talking about myths".

That's like saying mastodons aren't extinct, and when given the explanation of why we know they are, responding with "But I'm not talking about the extinct mastodons".