Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[CriticalSock]

So because I have strong cultural ties to my Jewish culture and hope to believe in G-d one day, I cannot say that I'm agnostic... even though I am unsure if G-d exists or not, which is the very definition of agnosticism?

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.

Do you really think that all agnostics can fit into the same standard box? I will even go so far as to say that I go to synagogue every few weeks now- I started last year with my husband, who as I said before is very religious. I actually let my rabbi know before he married us that I was agnostic- I felt it was only fair since he would be conducting a religious ceremony. You know what he said? That agnosticism is perfectly normal. Maybe you think that a "proper" agnostic should never go to church, synagogue or any religious institution, or have any deep rooted cultural beliefs or practices, but life is just not always that simple. And in case you're wondering why I or anyone else who claims to be agnostic would bother going attending religious services, the answer at least for myself is that I do not want to remain in a state of limbo. I'm giving myself to expose myself to spirituality, something that I have never really done. I'm hoping that it will cause me to lean more towards belief in G-d, or at least to strengthen my ties to my culture, but who knows? For the record, I exposed myself to the "other side" for years; I used to subscribe to Skeptic Magazine for years.

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?

 

[Naive1000]

I would know that there was a reason and purpose to all of life and to my existence.

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.

 

[Dani]

It's the way many practicing Christians see God.

I wouldn't call them practicing Christians if they don't practice anything different from a deist. Aren't you referring to just Christians? Maybe I'm confused on what you mean by practicing. It's true, though - or at least that's my experience in my cultural context -, that many people declare themselves Christians while believe in something closer to deism.

 

[Belz...]

I did, and no, it's not or why would I care?

So regular intelligence is not enough. Why not ?

 

[Belz...]

I really can't answer all of your questions. All I can say is that if there anything out there, I'd be much happier. I would know that there was a reason and purpose to all of life and to my existence.

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 ?

I would have hope that there may be something after this life, and that there may be a possibility that I will be with my husband and future children afterward as well.

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.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Bolding mine.

I think you meant "theist". "Agnostics" don't claim to know that there is a god (which is nonsense to me. You either believe or you don't). A "deist" could consider the other options you mention, I think.

 

[jdp]

Well, seeing as there have been many, many more religions with multiple gods than there have been with only one, I would say the definition of 'god' certainly is not limited to one.

Why do multiple gods not make any sense? Why is the Judeo-Christian god more likely, in your opinion, then the Greek pantheon of gods? If anything, I would think a pantheon of petty, jealous gods fits better with the spectrum of good and bad things that happen in this world.

I can't remember where I heard it, perhaps a stand up routine, where it was pointed out that the world had gone from largely poly-theistic to largely mono-theistic. Which basically means we're getting closer to the true number of gods.

 

[Dani]

I really can't answer all of your questions. All I can say is that if there anything out there, I'd be much happier. I would know that there was a reason and purpose to all of life and to my existence. I would have hope that there may be something after this life, and that there may be a possibility that I will be with my husband and future children afterward as well.

Welcome to the forum.

After reading your posts, I have the impression that you're asking if it's ok to wish there is a God.

I can't discuss your hope because there's little to argue there. You're entitled to it, it's a personal thing. However, whenever you want to discuss about the truth, anyone will be entitled to disagree and argue.

Since you even admit to have an unscientific bias, I have little to say about your statements. That's your choice. I can only point out the obvious: that only an unbiased viewpoint can be consistent, and science - and this forum to a great extent - is a lot about searching unbiased views of the world. If you admit your bias, you're saying something like "I'm not playing in this game". Ok, you're fine. You're not obliged to discuss about what you believe. Feel free to play in other games if you feel like.

The only thing that I find worth discussing from your OP is this:

(snip)
even Einstein believed that there was something behind all of this(snip)

Something is anything. All of this is vague. I can't agree nor disagree. I just don't know what you mean exactly.

 

[punshhh]

Really? Why is that?

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.

Because actually, it's not presumptuous at all.

Please explain?

If you define it as something which we cannot detect in any way by any means we have or may devise, then it cannot be "real".

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

If you say that it does indeed have some effects on us and this world, that it does indeed have some sort of qualities and behaviors, then we don't need to be able to comprehend the whole thing to be able to detect it... we only need to be able to detect some of its effects on us and the world.

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.

The arrogance argument is a fallacy.

Please explain?

 

[Hokulele]

That may be the case but if so they are not following one of the major denominations of Christianity in existence today. (This is not me defining what their god is or should be, it is the religions themselves who define their various gods.)

If we go by the definitions provided by the the Christian bible(s), there are no "True Christians" at all, given the many direct contradictions found therein. I do not agree that in order to be considered a member of a religion, one must follow every tenet espoused by that religion. Granted, it may label them a non-mainstream whatever-they-claim-to-be, but to say that they should not be considered Christian doesn't follow for me.

 

[punshhh]

Yes, my comments were in agreement.

From the human perspective.

 

[Naive1000]

I think you meant "theist". "Agnostics" don't claim to know that there is a god (which is nonsense to me. You either believe or you don't). A "deist" could consider the other options you mention, I think.

No, I think I have it right. By definition a deist and theist have already decided there is a god and by being a god is without question. An agnostic is unsure of the existence of a god and thus can freely question the motives of this hypothetical existence. In fact, I think that asking these questions can help one choose what they really believe.

My father is an agnostic now (was a Christian as I was growing up) and does not believe in the benevolent god existence -- just a power that created and set the laws of the universe. An unknowable unfathomable force that perpetuates existence. He believes that the universe had to be created, thus his agnosticism. I think he came to this conclusion based on our religious debates. He's a very smart man willing to listen to his heretical atheist son and question his own belief systems.

 

[kerikiwi]

Why ? Isn't the lower intelligence enough ?

No it is not.
And with this wishful thinking, once we get our higher intelligence, we will want a higher than higher intelligence,
It's not turtles all the way down...

 

[FattyCatty]

Well... I tend to go with agnostic, but that is a simplification.

To begin with, I tend to have a historian's point of view of religions. There have been many and they are all fascinating. Few things tell you more about a people than their beliefs, be it Gods, Spirits or unicorns. From a personal standpoint, I find the philosophy behind the religions also interesting. I am a big fan of Norse religions because of the philosophical basis behind them. That does not make me a believer... just a fan.

Yes, fascinating and revealing both of cultures and of individuals.

Secondly, I really don't think that we are anywhere near the scientific level at which we can start answering the big questions. There are some pretty impressive theories about the beginning of the Universe etc, but not a lot of definitive answers.

I also agree with you here. And I don't know that we ever will have answers to some questions. I believe that science can't address questions about some things; I also believe that science will not be able to answer all questions about those things it can address.

So...

I wonder what is so wrong about saying "I don't know".

Are atheist right or are theist right? I don't know.

Do Unicorns exist... somewhere? I don't know.

What I do know is that, based on the lack of evidence concerning unicorns, I am not buying that unicorn horn that shady looking dealer is trying to sell me.

You're right. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." But with unicorns, even though you don't know, you have decided to act in your life on your belief that unicorns don't exist. In a similar way, even though I don't know, I have decided to act in my life on my belief that (my) God exists.

The list of things that we don't know as a race is likely pretty large. However, in every time period, in every country, people rush to decide things based on little to no evidence. Why not just wait and see what turns up?

In general, I agree. However, sometimes we need to decide what we believe before we act, whether or not we know. That's why you won't buy the unicorn horn.

In the meantime, base your life on what you do know, don't sell all your stuff hoping to be raptured before you starve... and keep an eye on what we do find evidence for in the future.

I am willing to bet that whatever it is, no one has a clue.

Well, it is possible to draw more or less probable conclusions about some things. But, as you say, there may be things we will discover that no one has a clue about now. That's the exciting stuff -- the unknown possibilities.

PS... on the other hand, there are people who I really hope aren't correct in their beliefs. I can't prove it... but if those tv evangelists are right, I am going to be very disappointed.

A very nice post, and I agree with a lot of it (especially the PS). I used to agree with all of it (i.e., the "we don't know" part especially) but am shifting/have shifted from agnosticism to theism. So my change goes from "we don't know and so I won't believe anything either for or against" to "we don't know, but I believe."

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Why on Earth would the All Knowing, All Powerful Creator of the Universe care that you wrote or typed "G-d", rather than "God"?

Surely He must be smart enough to figure out it's Him that is being spoken about?

Somepeople^TM must think He is an idiot.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seriously, what is your point? If it makes ME more comfortable, why can you possibly care?

This^.

Come on fellow forumites. You are all making us look bad dwelling on this ad hom that is off topic. Asking her questions about it is one thing. Pointing out problems with logical conclusions is one thing. But a lot of these posts border on ridiculing her answers and/or position and are uncalled for.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I wouldn't call them practicing Christians if they don't practice anything different from a deist. Aren't you referring to just Christians? Maybe I'm confused on what you mean by practicing. It's true, though - or at least that's my experience in my cultural context -, that many people declare themselves Christians while believe in something closer to deism.

Go to church, believe in God, take communion. There isn't much to 'practicing' Christianity. Most I've met with that belief are Christian. I've met a few Jews who hold similar beliefs (without Jesus), but I've never completely understood why Jews consider God to hold anyone under judgment for roughly the same reason -- that isn't traditional Judaism from the Temple days. I'm not here to tell people what to believe. I was asked if anyone actually believed in a God like that (closer to Deism, though most of those folks believed that God was more active in the world in the past just not any longer after Jesus showed up).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

My father is an agnostic now (was a Christian as I was growing up) and does not believe in the benevolent god existence -- just a power that created and set the laws of the universe. An unknowable unfathomable force that perpetuates existence. He believes that the universe had to be created, thus his agnosticism. I think he came to this conclusion based on our religious debates. He's a very smart man willing to listen to his heretical atheist son and question his own belief systems.

Have you ever asked if this unfathomable power is a big fish. Maybe white? Big teeth and a really nasty disposition?

 

[Naive1000]

I'm pretty sure he does not think it's Jaws .

As far as he's said its more an energy force (being of energy maybe).

 

[Trent Wray]

This^.

Come on fellow forumites. You are all making us look bad dwelling on this ad hom that is off topic. Asking her questions about it is one thing. Pointing out problems with logical conclusions is one thing. But a lot of these posts border on ridiculing her answers and/or position and are uncalled for.

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 ?