The Agnostic Religion

[OMEGA]

(Igothisoffthenet)

If there is anything as misunderstood and misrepresented as atheism,
it must be agnosticism. There are many misconceptions about
agnosticism, agnostics, and the reasons why anyone would adopt a
position of agnosticism in the first place. This is unfortunate,
because whether agnosticism is conceived of as a philosophy or
simply an isolated position on the existence of gods, it is
eminently reasonable and defensible.
The definition of agnosticism is one of the more contentious issues
- even many agnostics continue to hold to the idea that agnosticism
represents some sort of "third way" between atheism and theism. Not
only evidence from standard dictionaries but also a careful
comparison between agnosticism and other ideas like theism and
atheism reveal that calling oneself an agnostic by no mean excludes
being either an atheist or a theist.
Limiting oneself to discussing agnosticism as an isolated position
fails to do it justice. It was originally conceived by Thomas Henry
Huxley as a methodology for approaching religious questions,
particularly the existence of God. Even before he coined the term,
however, basic agnostic principles had existed for a long time and
they have always posed serious challenges to basic premises in
theology and religious philosophy. Agnosticism is a skeptical
challenge to the notion that any religious conclusion can really be
"known" in the first place.


Defining Agnosticism
To understand why agnosticism is both reasonable and plays an
important role in the philosophy of religion, the first step is to
get a better grasp of just how the concept is defined. There are
quite a few different definitions of agnosticism, but the
definitions presented here are the most basic, the broadest, and I
think the most reasonable of the lot. Defining agnosticism isn't all
that difficult because the broad understanding of it is well
supported by most standard dictionaries.
Highlights:
• What is Agnosticism?
• Strong Agnosticism vs. Weak Agnosticism
• Standard Dictionary Definitions of Agnosticism

An atheist does not believe in a God.

An agnostic believes it is impossible to know God either exist, or does not exist......at least at the present time.

An Agnostic is not an atheist.

An Agnostic obviously does not believe in God. How can you believe in God if your religion is based on needing proof?

The only reason an Agnostic is not refered to as an atheist is because they are not willing to say there is no God.

An atheist does not believe in God. Nor does an Agnostic.

So I would have to say an agnostic is an atheist.

 

[Granite]

So, Omega, are you gonna provide a link or pretend this is original?

P.S. Agnosticism is not a religion. :dunce:

 

[Balder]

Omega regularly quotes outside sources without a link or any attribution.

Tut-tut, Om!








P.S. Here's one possible source for his article.

 

[PureX]

If there is anything as misunderstood and misrepresented as atheism,
it must be agnosticism. There are many misconceptions about
agnosticism, agnostics, and the reasons why anyone would adopt a
position of agnosticism in the first place. This is unfortunate,
because whether agnosticism is conceived of as a philosophy or
simply an isolated position on the existence of gods, it is
eminently reasonable and defensible.
The definition of agnosticism is one of the more contentious issues
- even many agnostics continue to hold to the idea that agnosticism
represents some sort of "third way" between atheism and theism. Not
only evidence from standard dictionaries but also a careful
comparison between agnosticism and other ideas like theism and
atheism reveal that calling oneself an agnostic by no mean excludes
being either an atheist or a theist.
Limiting oneself to discussing agnosticism as an isolated position
fails to do it justice. It was originally conceived by Thomas Henry
Huxley as a methodology for approaching religious questions,
particularly the existence of God. Even before he coined the term,
however, basic agnostic principles had existed for a long time and
they have always posed serious challenges to basic premises in
theology and religious philosophy. Agnosticism is a skeptical
challenge to the notion that any religious conclusion can really be
"known" in the first place.


Defining Agnosticism
To understand why agnosticism is both reasonable and plays an
important role in the philosophy of religion, the first step is to
get a better grasp of just how the concept is defined. There are
quite a few different definitions of agnosticism, but the
definitions presented here are the most basic, the broadest, and I
think the most reasonable of the lot. Defining agnosticism isn't all
that difficult because the broad understanding of it is well
supported by most standard dictionaries.
Highlights:
• What is Agnosticism?
• Strong Agnosticism vs. Weak Agnosticism
• Standard Dictionary Definitions of Agnosticism

An atheist does not believe in a God.

An agnostic believes it is impossible to know God either exist, or does not exist......at least at the present time.

An Agnostic is not an atheist.

This is all true.

An Agnostic obviously does not believe in God. How can you believe in God if your religion is based on needing proof?

This is nonsense.

"An agnostic believes it is impossible to know God either exists, or does not exist......at least at the present time." This does not mean that an agnostic does not believe that God exists. it only means that he does not know if God exists, and he believes that he can't know this at the present time.

The only reason an Agnostic is not refered to as an atheist is because they are not willing to say there is no God.

This is also nonsense. An agnostic is not called an atheist because he does not share the same beliefs as an atheist, and is therefor not an atheist.

An atheist does not believe in God. Nor does an Agnostic.

Repeating this same nonsense over and over will not make it true.

So I would have to say an agnostic is an atheist.

You would be wrong.

 

[OMEGA]

Boy are you guys Picky.

So, Why are Agnostics on this Forum ?

Do they want to Convert to Christianity or just to learn about GOD.

 

[Balder]

Here's a guess: maybe some believe that there is likely an intelligence of some sort behind the universe, and they would like to know what Christianity says about the nature of that intelligent being or Source, to see if it's a worthwhile, reasonable, and intelligent worldview to adopt.

 

[OMEGA]

Balder,

God is easily described in the Bible .
He is an Light Being who sits on a Throne and Rules over many Angels.
He looks like a Man and walks and talks to His Angels and Jesus .
He is a very kind and compassionate and wise individual.
He has the power to give a bit of his Life-giving Spiritual Energy to
the Angels and Men that He and his Angels have designed.
What more do you want to know ?

 

[PureX]

I'm interested in what makes people "tick" spiritually speaking. I'm curious about how people think about and relate to "God", and how this effects them.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Read the Bible.

 

[David2]

I'm interested in what makes people "tick" spiritually speaking. I'm curious about how people think about and relate to "God", and how this effects them.

everybody is spritual, otherwise you would not exist. Eze 18:4 all souls are created by Me, and for my pleaure Rev 4:11. It remaind the age old question, what side of spritual do you want to be?. God is spirit and he" Kill sand makes alive" 1Sam 2: 6,7,8,.9,10
Now in these veses , you can find that God is the cause of all causes
.
So whether you decide to live in the spirit with Him or you choose to live in sin without Him . You will receive your just reward, but know for certain if you choose the path of sin life then your reward is death which is another condition in famine , life of war ie sword or in pestilence ie disease of the body and the mind not knowing God and living amonst heathens.
Born in sin ie hell , The devil runs your sin mind, therefore you are living, ie born into hell and you are in one of the conditions above , war torn society, eg Iraq, famine eg Africa or pestilence eg America.
You have choice, the OT repeats IF you choose to not follow My statutes, then you will die ( walking dead , jesus called them) if you choose to follow them , then you will have eternal love, ie life. __________ for support read the rest of Eze ch 18

peace and good day
from your friendly resident messiah :king:

 

[BChristianK]

Here's a few question for the agnostics?

Is agnosticism inherently stable or unstable? In other words, does one's skepticism exist for the purpose of propelling the imagination and intellect toward discovery? Realizing, of course, that once discovery has been achieved, skepticism is abandoned in order to embrace the knowledge one has discovered.

Or does one cling to skepticism almost as if one begins to have an immovable commitment to the concept that all forms of knowledge are essentially unreliable. This would be, of course, more stable, but it would also mean that there is, at least, one maxim not subject to skepticism, the one that provides the foundation for one’s dedication to the unreliability of absolute knowledge, the one that claims that unknowability permeates our epistemology (lets call that maxim permeating unknowability). The issues of self-contradiction aside, does placing such confidence in the maxim of permeating unknowability constitute a kind of "faith." Does this set up a normative system where individuals actually "strive" to uphold doctrines of permeating unknowability in order to hold fast to their skepticism?

When does one go from an existential skepticism that says, “I don’t know for sure but I’m open to suggestion.” to becoming an advocate for skepticism saying, “I’m not open to suggestion anymore, of one thing I am sure, we ought not claim to have any certain knowledge about God.”?

Does this steadfast adherence to the precepts of skepticism end up actually creating a "religion?" One that seeks to proselytize and to feed the skepticism of its adherents?

 

[PureX]

Here's a few question for the agnostics?

Is agnosticism inherently stable or unstable? In other words, does one's skepticism exist for the purpose of propelling the imagination and intellect toward discovery? Realizing, of course, that once discovery has been achieved, skepticism is abandoned in order to embrace the knowledge one has discovered.

This is a standard absolutist's fallacy, in that it pre-supposes that the opposing extremes are all that exist.

The discovery of new information does not mean one must abandon skepticism. Nor does one's skepticism deny him the ability to hold to a given truism. We are all quite capable of both holding on to what appears to be true at this moment, while remaining skeptical of it's truthfulness as we move into the future and continue to seek new information.

Or does one cling to skepticism almost as if one begins to have an immovable commitment to the concept that all forms of knowledge are essentially unreliable. This would be, of course, more stable, but it would also mean that there is, at least, one maxim not subject to skepticism, the one that provides the foundation for one’s dedication to the unreliability of absolute knowledge, the one that claims that unknowability permeates our epistemology (lets call that maxim permeating unknowability). The issues of self-contradiction aside, does placing such confidence in the maxim of permeating unknowability constitute a kind of "faith." Does this set up a normative system where individuals actually "strive" to uphold doctrines of permeating unknowability in order to hold fast to their skepticism?

I don't think so.

Accepting the limitations of human knowledge, and the constant probability of error that comes with these limitations is not a religion, or a theology, or a philosophy. It's simply an observation based on personal and collective experience, and an intellectual response based on this observation. Such an observation would require faith only in the same way that all observations would require one to have faith in the mechanisms of one's own ability to observe and reasonably assess what has been observed. If I observe that my dog cannot speak latin, I am trusting in my ability to observe that he has never spoken latin until now, and in my ability to reason that he is unable to do so. I am also keeping in mind that I could be wrong in spite of my trusting these faculties and living as if I am correct.

I don't see this as any extraordinary act of faith, however. It's the same degree of faith that any human being employs regarding any experience with, and response to reality.

When does one go from an existential skepticism that says, “I don’t know for sure but I’m open to suggestion.” to becoming an advocate for skepticism saying, “I’m not open to suggestion anymore, of one thing I am sure, we ought not claim to have any certain knowledge about God.”?

"I don't know for sure, and I'm sure that you don't know, either" does sound like a contradiction, but in reality it's just poorly stated, I think. The first "I don't know for sure" is about a completely different proposition than the "I'm sure that you don't know either" part of the statement. The former half of the statement refers to the existential unknowable that you referred to, while the latter part of the statement refers to our "collective" human experience, knowable at least to some degree by virtue of our being human ourselves. Understanding this, the statement is not so contradictory as it might originally appear.

Does this steadfast adherence to the precepts of skepticism end up actually creating a "religion?" One that seeks to proselytize and to feed the skepticism of its adherents?

It could, I suppose, but I haven't run into anyone that could be described as practicing a "religion of skepticism". I think that for most human beings, skepticism does not come as a "default" position. We have to actually work at doubting our own suppositions.

 

[freelight]

all are agnostic and gnostic in relativity

all are agnostic and gnostic in relativity

One aspect of agnosticism that posits one cannot know if God exists or more pointedly cannot know God is relatively true. While we can claim to recognize proofs of Gods existence all around or within us......the general notion of this 'God' being so great, infinite, awesome, all-pervading, transcendent keeps a dimension of God always obscure/unattainable to us. Also our knowledge of God is relatively limited in our own finite human comprehension.....so our claims to know God intimately or personally are subjective and only qualified within a certain perspectal context whether from a personal or collective school of mind.

On the other hand those of us of a more gnostic persuasion acknowledge certain aspects of agnosticism yet include the essential necessity of the knowledge of God to afford the progressing soul enlightenment or salvation along its journey towards the Infinite. In general as an ascending mortal or progressing spiritualist.....one can never have the full knowledge of God at once in a relative perspective....but receives light/gnosis each step of the Way in its path to higher perfection/fullness.

The soul appears to exist in both states of ignorance(agnosis) and knowledge(gnosis) at any given time as long as it is in time/space as a progressing or dynamic entity.


paul

 

[David2]

One aspect of agnosticism that posits one cannot know if God exists or more pointedly cannot know God is relatively true. While we can claim to recognize proofs of Gods existence all around or within us......the general notion of this 'God' being so great, infinite, awesome, all-pervading, transcendent keeps a dimension of God always obscure/unattainable to us. Also our knowledge of God is relatively limited in our own finite human comprehension.....so our claims to know God intimately or personally are subjective and only qualified within a certain perspectal context whether from a personal or collective school of mind.

.

On the other hand those of us of a more gnostic persuasion acknowledge certain aspects of agnosticism yet include the essential necessity of the knowledge of God to afford the progressing soul enlightenment or salvation along its journey towards the Infinite. In general as an ascending mortal or progressing spiritualist.....one can never have the full knowledge of God at once in a relative perspective....but receives light/gnosis each step of the Way in its path to higher perfection/fullness.

The soul appears to exist in both states of ignorance(agnosis) and knowledge(gnosis) at any given time as long as it is in time/space as a progressing or dynamic entity.


paul

This could not be further from the truth. Your personal opinion reveals that your are not able to discern God as God is cleary understood by the Holy Prophets. You fail to recognize what is understood by God when he says Job 33:14 " For God speaketh once , yea twice, yet man perceiveth not.15 " In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed"16 " then He openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction." Freelight , there are distinctions here that you don't address b/c yo are too busy making some long elaborate, expression which amounts to nothing b/c it is void of God's Word , from the Bible.
This is why i keep telling you that your efforts are in vain, unless you can point to scripture to back up your proposed concepts of oneness or enlightenment with God

. Therefore, the conclusion is you are putting forth " impersonal philosophy" which lacks love, compassion and kindness, caring and sharing in truth.

I have seen elsewhere when you try insert the word "love " beside God, but , you do not fool the perceptive , intuitive realized soul such as one who is quickened in spirit, who is a discerner of thought and intents of the heart, b/c the twoedged sword which is 'the Word' which can divide the soul and spirit, and the joints and marrow. Heb 4:12.

hear carefully ,
i hear yor intent, with some refinement it can be rounded and you too can not have to speculate or write criptically.
David2

 

[allsmiles]

Balder,

God is easily described in the Bible .
He is an Light Being who sits on a Throne and Rules over many Angels.
He looks like a Man and walks and talks to His Angels and Jesus .
He is a very kind and compassionate and wise individual.
He has the power to give a bit of his Life-giving Spiritual Energy to
the Angels and Men that He and his Angels have designed.
What more do you want to know ?

how is this not considered myth? :think:

 

[freelight]

the topic at hand

the topic at hand

. Therefore, the conclusion is you are putting forth " impersonal philosophy" which lacks love, compassion and kindness, caring and sharing in truth.

The topic of this thread is 'agnosticism'. It is this that I addressed bringing up valid perspectives upon it. That is the topic David2.

I have seen elsewhere when you try insert the word "love " beside God, but , you do not fool the perceptive , intuitive realized soul such as one who is quickened in spirit, who is a discerner of thought and intents of the heart, b/c the twoedged sword which is 'the Word' which can divide the soul and spirit, and the joints and marrow. Heb 4:12.

Indeed God is Love.



paul

 

[angelfightfire]

(Igothisoffthenet)

If there is anything as misunderstood and misrepresented as atheism,
it must be agnosticism. There are many misconceptions about
agnosticism, agnostics, and the reasons why anyone would adopt a
position of agnosticism in the first place. This is unfortunate,
because whether agnosticism is conceived of as a philosophy or
simply an isolated position on the existence of gods, it is
eminently reasonable and defensible.
The definition of agnosticism is one of the more contentious issues
- even many agnostics continue to hold to the idea that agnosticism
represents some sort of "third way" between atheism and theism. Not
only evidence from standard dictionaries but also a careful
comparison between agnosticism and other ideas like theism and
atheism reveal that calling oneself an agnostic by no mean excludes
being either an atheist or a theist.
Limiting oneself to discussing agnosticism as an isolated position
fails to do it justice. It was originally conceived by Thomas Henry
Huxley as a methodology for approaching religious questions,
particularly the existence of God. Even before he coined the term,
however, basic agnostic principles had existed for a long time and
they have always posed serious challenges to basic premises in
theology and religious philosophy. Agnosticism is a skeptical
challenge to the notion that any religious conclusion can really be
"known" in the first place.


Defining Agnosticism
To understand why agnosticism is both reasonable and plays an
important role in the philosophy of religion, the first step is to
get a better grasp of just how the concept is defined. There are
quite a few different definitions of agnosticism, but the
definitions presented here are the most basic, the broadest, and I
think the most reasonable of the lot. Defining agnosticism isn't all
that difficult because the broad understanding of it is well
supported by most standard dictionaries.
Highlights:
• What is Agnosticism?
• Strong Agnosticism vs. Weak Agnosticism
• Standard Dictionary Definitions of Agnosticism

An atheist does not believe in a God.

An agnostic believes it is impossible to know God either exist, or does not exist......at least at the present time.

An Agnostic is not an atheist.

An Agnostic obviously does not believe in God. How can you believe in God if your religion is based on needing proof?

The only reason an Agnostic is not refered to as an atheist is because they are not willing to say there is no God.

An atheist does not believe in God. Nor does an Agnostic.

So I would have to say an agnostic is an atheist.

I have always considered an agnostic anyone who simply is not decided.

Quite frankly, often agnostics are people who will believe, but they have been
confused by some contact with false Christians in the past. (That is, in the West.)

Generally, simply reading the whole Bible tends to change their whole life.

 

[Granite]

I have always considered an agnostic anyone who simply is not decided.

Quite frankly, often agnostics are people who will believe, but they have been
confused by some contact with false Christians in the past. (That is, in the West.)

Generally, simply reading the whole Bible tends to change their whole life.

Been there, done that, still happily undecided.

 

[PureX]

Generally, simply reading the whole Bible tends to change their whole life.

No, not really. Lots of people become agnostic from being raised Christian after finally "reading the whole bible". And even moreso, after actually considering what they've read.

 

[allsmiles]

No, not really. Lots of people become agnostic from being raised Christian after finally "reading the whole bible". And even moreso, after actually considering what they've read.

i couldn't agree more. an honest reading and appraisal of the contents of the bible is very often all it takes to turn someone away from the christian faith. that's what happened to me, once i began to read the bible in the light of historical events surrounding and motivating it's construction, i couldn't help but cease to take it literally.