Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[laca]

I should have asked about this long ago.

Agnostic isn't a middle ground between theist and atheist, is it? Isn't it its own dimension of philosophy?

Theist vs Atheist refers to belief.
Gnostic vs Agnostic refers to knowledge.
Pathy vs Apathy refers to concern or care.

Yes. I meant that at most, Nicole's an agnostic theist, closer to gnosticism than agnosticism.

 

[laca]

Respect for someone else's tradition doesn't fit agnosticism?

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.

 

[Fascination]

With a lot of folks, I think it's a combination of stubbornness (i.e. this is how I grew up, this is how my parents believed, and this is how a good person is 'supposed' to be) and not being able to handle the idea of an uncaring universe where nobody's tending the light at the end of the tunnel...and the light itself may just be a supernova about to consume your world.

The old 'being necessary to invent him' thing. I think this is how a lot of people come to the Christian faith after being non-committal or not really thinking about god. If you've ever had problems in your life, if you've ever felt like you've hit rock bottom (i.e. everyone on this planet ever) and your kindly friend says "Come to church with us" and you have a tale spun around you of a being powerful enough to fashion the universe into being, but that still cares about you and wants to have a relationship with you, it's very powerful - especially backed up with the everything the church is good at. The pageantry, the cadence of the voice the message is delivered in, and then the peer pressure of seeing other people answer the altar call. You feel like you just want to break down and scream out at this invisible being to help you, and then there's a hand on your shoulder that guides you through talking to this being. Then later that day there might be a dinner. Then there might be a study or a singles group later on that week. It's a great deal of human reinforcement built up around an idea.

That's what many people are afraid of, I think. Not losing their belief, but losing the church and the fellowship that grows out of it as it becomes entwined inextricably with the believer's life. Their kids go to the Sunday school and make friends, they have a softball team they're a part of.

This is something that most atheists and agnostics just don't do well. Our ideas may be more based in science and reality, but we don't really come together that well. Sure, there's SITP in most larger cities, but if you're in the Bible Belt like me, there's not that much to choose from. You can spit and find a church full of nice people, but when it comes to atheists the whole "herding cats" analogy applies.

So that's what we're up against when we ask someone to think critically about their beliefs. We're asking someone to risk losing a whole chunk of their social lives. We're erasing an entire line of their "Mazlow needs."

That's what they refer to in the business as a "hard sell."

I agree about the community/fellowship aspect as a big reason many people attend church services. As a community (skeptic/Atheist) we are sorely lacking this. When I lived in Clearwater, Florida (no jokes about the "famous" Mother Mary watermark or the prevalence of Scientologists in my hometown please! LOL), the Center For Inquiry had a chapter in Tampa close by me. I was a member and attended a lot of their meetings and get togethers. They had a great Winter Solstice dinner/party with all the free wine you could drink!
There was also an active local Atheist's group. However, now I live near Reno, Nevada because of my husband's job. There is literally NO skeptic and/or Atheist's groups in the area. I'd have to drive to California to go to one of my beloved CFI parties. Yes, there is the Amazing Meeting in Vegas but that's only once a year. I've recently thought about checking out the local Unitarian Universalist church to meet likeminded people. A lot of the members of the local UU church are Agnostic and there are even a few Atheists (from what I hear).
Anyway, this rambling post has just been me bemoaning the lack of Skeptic groups nationwide. I just joined this forum so maybe I'll make a friend or two on here. That would be cool! Anybody from Northern Nevada on here?


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.305244,-119.786200

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Think of this a different way: if you find the claim a god is "loving" and you see the hypocrisy both in the religious text and the practitioners of that religion, it is strong evidence that the claimed god does not really exist.

For the umpteenth time, I'm open to the idea that there may be a higher form of intelligence somewhere in this universe- I am not limiting the possibility to the description of God in the Torah or any other scripture. That being said, I do like the idea that if there is a God, I doubt that we'd be able to completely know it or understand it, which is an idea espoused by Judaism and similarly by Islam.

 

[Fascination]

Reading through many of the threads on this forum, I am honestly wondering how posters on this site feel about agnostics, particularly agnostics with "hope" that there is an intelligent force in the universe.
For the record, I consider myself to be a very rational thinker. I cannot commit myself to saying that G-d exists 100% because I have no tangible proof. However, I refuse to say that G-d does not exist for the same reason. Also, I honestly hope that there is some intelligent, good force in this universe; I admit my unscientific bias but even Einstein believed that there was something behind all of this... which leads me back to my thread topic "Are agnostics welcome here?"

Welcome! I'm a new member also although, I've been lurking here for years.
I understand the hope that there is a loving God and a wonderful afterlife. When asked about an afterlife, Michael Shermer replied, "I'm all for it!". He just doesn't believe in it. I feel the same way. I've lost loved ones and I would want nothing more than to see them again. However, if it sounds to good to be true....lol.
I have never been a "believer" but I called myself an Agnostic for awhile when I was a teenager. I now consider myself an Atheist (I would fall under the category of "soft" Atheism). So, I understand your struggle. I hope you enjoy the forum and I hope it helps you in your journey of self discovery. I for one, care not a wit what you describe yourself as. My only piece of advice would be to figure out what YOU personally think about God(s) or lack thereof. My husband and I don't share the same views on everything. I think it might be boring if we did. We both are Atheists but we were both Atheists when we met. If your husband chooses to believe in God that doesn't mean you have to also. If after serious reflection, you decide that that is what you believe also...then great! If not, great! Again, welcome!!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the umpteenth time, I'm open to the idea that there may be a higher form of intelligence somewhere in this universe- I am not limiting the possibility to the description of God in the Torah or any other scripture. That being said, I do like the idea that if there is a God, I doubt that we'd be able to completely know it or understand it, which is an idea espoused by Judaism and similarly by Islam.

You can 'like' the idea all you want. But when it comes to evaluating the evidence, it's clear there is overwhelming evidence gods are fictional beings people invented.

I'd like to win the lottery.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's her own tradition, not someone else's. She was not asked to respect our tradition. ...

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.

That sounds like someone else's tradition to me, even if wrong.

 

[kerikiwi]

For the umpteenth time, I'm open to the idea that there may be a higher form of intelligence somewhere in this universe- I am not limiting the possibility to the description of God in the Torah or any other scripture. That being said, I do like the idea that if there is a God, I doubt that we'd be able to completely know it or understand it, which is an idea espoused by Judaism and similarly by Islam.

The point was if a loving god is claimed, and there is hypocrisy in the related religious texts, that is evidence against such a god.
If the god you would like to believe exists (despite a lack of evidence) is not such a loving god, the point is irrelevant to your beliefs.
Are you open to the idea that unicorns exist? Not the original, but the modified cute version: that would be really, really nice.

 

[laca]

That sounds like someone else's tradition to me, even if wrong.

She is/was Jewish by religion. That makes the tradition her own, even if shared by others.

 

[Piggy]

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.

1. No, not at all. By definition a god, in its entirety, would be expected to be beyond human comprehension. But that's not the issue. What's at issue is a god that cannot by any potential means be detected... in other words, one which has no connection with our world at all. That god cannot be "real", cannot "exist".

2. Huh?

 

[Piggy]

It is not me, for example, either who is doing this limiting. It comes from the very people who "believe" this stuff. You just cannot have it both ways, on one hand claim you "believe in God", assert that "God exists" or some such, while on the other hand attempt to seek refuge in meaninglessness.

"God" is superficially cast as a positive proposistion. "There is this-and-that and it is like so-and-so." And as such a proposition "God" ought be treated. If that cannot be done, then the statement "God exists" is not just wrong -- it is more than just wrong.

You have a wonderful way of slicing thru the stallmuck.

 

[Piggy]

Yes I appreciate the distinction you are making here. However when I discuss the existence or not of gods I am interested in wether they might actually exist or not irrespective of what humanity has to say on the issue.

You may note that I do not assert that gods exist or that I believe them to exist.

We've both noted that.

And those on the strong atheist side are also interested in whether or not they exist, period.

What we're objecting to, however, is the repeated proposal of gods that, by their very definition, can't be said to "exist" or to be "real", unless we allow that "real" can mean the same thing as "not real" and "exist" can mean the same thing as "doesn't exist".

And that, my friend, is a bridge too far for any reasonable person.

 

[dlorde]

That sounds terribly convenient. But let's see... if God cannot be defined, detected or interacted with, he is by definition non-existent as far as this universe is concerned. How would you claim he is useful, then ?

A security blanket in a random and capricious world? an imaginary friend and father figure to talk to and confide in and whose rules structure your life, and who can forgive your indiscretions - what's not to like

It reminds me of Linus with his blanket, in the Charlie Brown strip.

 

[dlorde]

I repeat I hold no beliefs in anything.

What about mysticism?

 

[dlorde]

Suppose we are merely trapped in a probabilistic causality, but causality in and of itself has no "will". We could then be said to be serving something else's purpose in a limited fashion, as our choices are limited, which itself has no purpose (causality) and furthermore the idea of making our own choices is also limited and thus an illusion.

That's not a definition of 'purpose' that I recognise. ISTM if causality has no will or purpose, then we are serving neither will nor purpose.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Because purpose implies intent, and probabilistic causality has no intention. At least, that is how I understood Nicole's use of "higher intelligence" and "purpose". So to say that I serve the purpose of probabilistic causality is a meaningless as saying I serve the purpose of the grilled tri-tip I had for dinner last night.

What about the purpose of creating civilization, achieving unimagined goals (scientific and otherwise) and simply doing good things; for ourselves, fellow man and perhaps one day life on other planets. That hardly sounds useless to me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

She is/was Jewish by religion. That makes the tradition her own, even if shared by others.

So every Jew has the same traditions?

 

[dlorde]

For the umpteenth time, I'm open to the idea that there may be a higher form of intelligence somewhere in this universe- I am not limiting the possibility to the description of God in the Torah or any other scripture.

Me too - surely in this huge universe there are creatures more intelligent than us. I don't really see what that has to do with the impossible fictional inventions of religious books.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Yes. I meant that at most, Nicole's an agnostic theist, closer to gnosticism than agnosticism.

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.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

The point was if a loving god is claimed, and there is hypocrisy in the related religious texts, that is evidence against such a god.
If the god you would like to believe exists (despite a lack of evidence) is not such a loving god, the point is irrelevant to your beliefs.
Are you open to the idea that unicorns exist? Not the original, but the modified cute version: that would be really, really nice.

Feel free to disagree with me but I do not appreciate the condescending tone to your reply (i.e. "cute), which many others on here seem to feel liberty to do. If you want to debate, do it like an adult.