Agnosticism

[Guest Zenda]

Kia Ora,

You might be agnostic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Metta Jendar

[Guest GoldenKirbichu]

I'm an agnostic atheist, which means that I don't think there any deities of any sort, but I admit I have no way of knowing for sure. I prefer to lean toward the "no" side, however.

[Guest lisa49]

That would be like saying I am not sure but I think I am a Christian.

Depending on the meaning to the person giving the label I could be considered an agnostic. However I have no spiritual feelings, so even if God appeared before me it would not be a divine experience probably more like meeting an alien. I would have more questions.

[Guest Zenda]

Kia Ora Lisa,

So you're a 'determinist' agnostic????

Metta Jendar

[Guest lisa49]

The more facts and answers you have the more information to ask better questions. Is that not infinite? It is the journey not destination = life.

[Guest Joanna Phipps]

The more facts and answers you have the more information to ask better questions. Is that not infinite? It is the journey not destination = life.

However you can research a subject to death, sooner or later you have to make a stand based on the intel you do have. Faith is not something which can be proven scientifically. I could just as easily say, that if you show me the proof that there is no supreme being I will then believe that there isnt. 

I cannot prove there is any more than you can prove there isnt, so we kind of have to agree to disagree.

Peace

[Guest MissAmy]

I consider myself agnostic. I dont' think any other religion is pure anymore, I believe that most of the original stuff was changed by mistranslation, and people who wanted to control others by changing or adding rules in their religion.

[Guest Joanna Phipps]

I don't have a religion I have a faith, a faith that allows me to believe in the innate spirituality, the innate holiness of all things. I have long since given up the dogma, hate, legalism and the it's my way or He.ll of the mainstream orthodoxy. I am pagan, but on a spiritual trail that is purely my own, one which borrows from many traditions to forge something that gives me the comfort and solace I seek.

I begrudge no one their choice of spiritual path, even if that path is one of constant seeking and questioning; the only thing I ask in return is that no one begrudge me my choice. There is a point from which spirituality springs and to which it returns, all our paths will meet there in the fullness of time.

[Guest Nelly]

I could just as easily say, that if you show me the proof that there is no supreme being I will then believe that there isnt.

I cannot prove there is any more than you can prove there isnt, so we kind of have to agree to disagree.

I can not agree to this logic.

If you can "not prove the none existing of something" than this is not the same as "prove of the existing".

This is the trick of religious people to prove that god exist. The people who do not believe must prove that god not exist. Until they do it succesfull all the religious people say that god exist. The reiligous people must prove that god exist not the others. So please prove it in a way that everybody can follow the argument and check it by their own. Something like "god exist because I believe in god" does not work. If something exist their is no need to believe. If it exist you know it with certainty.

For me I only aceppt proved thinks. So I am someone who knows and do not need to believe.

God is as good provable as the monsters under the bed or as Richard Dawkins said "the spagetti monster".

So until the existing of god is proved sucessfully, god is not existing.

Greetings

Nelly

P.S.: A person is not a murderer until it is proved. Just believe that he/she is a murderer is not enough.

[Guest Joanna Phipps]

So until the existing of god is proved sucessfully, god is not existing.

Greetings

Nelly

I'd like to point out that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. It merely means we don't have the right instruments to do the measuring. This is one of the basic doctrines of science and what keeps us exploring and searching for answers.

[Guest Joanna Phipps]

The problem I am seeing with where this discussion is heading is that people are asking, as often happens, for concrete scientific proof of something that is a matter of FAITH not fact.

As the saying from paranormal research goes.. to a believer no proof is necessary, to a skeptic no proof is possible. There is no proof to the mind of what exists only in the heart; one may as well ask for concrete, scientific, proof of a concept such as love or the existence or nonexistence of the devil. For if you deny the existence of the creator, and the ultimate embodiment of good they you have no need for the ultimate embodiment of evil and the world as well as all of the multi-verse, having lost the essential duality formed by good and evil, follows the principle of entropy and will tend to increasing disorder until it ceases to exist all together.

[Guest gwenthlian]

Joanna I think you may be wandering off topic with your post. No one here is questioning the validity of faith itself. One can believe in the unproven, that is religions foundation. One angle of Agnosticism however is the belief that there may be a concrete deity that is yet to be found. Whereas I agree that faith needs no evidence, proof of course does. For many faith is not enough, they require proof. That is also a valid sentiment.

says the atheist

[Guest Joanna Phipps]

I cannot prove that life exists on other planets, however i believe that it is so. This has nothing to do with religion.

Since I cannot prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of God or any other creator spirit, then how do you prove to me that the creator doesn't exist?

Remember Steven Hawking once asked if once the universe had evolved to a certain point if the creation of some form of "God" wasn't inevitable

[Guest Nelly]

So you believe in speaking ducks?

If you say that ducks can speak than the person who says the opposite has to start to check all ducks of the world for the hole lifetime of the ducks and the chlidrens of the ducks and the childrens of the childrens of the ducks till the end of the universe to check if all ducks of all time are not speaking. This of course is not possible. But this make the statement that ducks can speak not right because this muss be also checked the same way. So somebody would say we have a 50:50 chance that ducks can speak. But this is also not true. You can make some nice research about speaking and the thinks you need to speak. Does the ducks have a proper brain to create word in their mind, does the throat of a duck can form noise to create words? If you find that ducks does not have this ability, than it will be more and more unpossible to ever find a speaking duck. The chance to find a speaking duck is not 50:50 anymore. It will be more like 1:invinity.

The same process you can make with god. Some say god exist some say god does not exist. So we start with 50:50. But than we must take a look to the abilities of god or better what people says about hie abilities. Than we can check each single point if it is possible or not. We also must check who create god. Than after you did it you get one result: 1:invinity that god is existing. So the chance that he really exist is near zero.

On the other hand, if god exist and he create everything, why did he so many things wrong or not perfect? This sounds for me like no inteligence creation in progress.

Greetings

Nelly

[Guest Joanna Phipps]

before I bow out of this conversation I feel that you can no more prove to me the nonexistence of a creator than I can prove to you the existence of one and as such we are, for now, bound to disagree. As long as we can disagree while respecting the other's opinion then all is ok

[Sally]

If I were to identify with the original definition of agnostic, I would be a theistic agnostic - I believe in a supreme being and an after life based on faith alone because I cannot prove nor disprove this I just believe, however I do not have much use for organized religions any more - they were designed for political reasons and therefore have little or nothing to do with worship.

Love ya,

Sally

[Guest Nelly]

As long as we can disagree while respecting the other's opinion then all is ok

I can totally agree to that. This is the important part of life. Respect to the others also if you have a different opinion.

Greetings

Nelly

[Guest Robin Winter]

I don't have a religion I have a faith, a faith that allows me to believe in the innate spirituality, the innate holiness of all things. I have long since given up the dogma, hate, legalism and the it's my way or He.ll of the mainstream orthodoxy. I am pagan, but on a spiritual trail that is purely my own, one which borrows from many traditions to forge something that gives me the comfort and solace I seek.

I begrudge no one their choice of spiritual path, even if that path is one of constant seeking and questioning; the only thing I ask in return is that no one begrudge me my choice. There is a point from which spirituality springs and to which it returns, all our paths will meet there in the fullness of time.

100% what she said.

[Guest Robin Winter]

I can not agree to this logic.

If you can "not prove the none existing of something" than this is not the same as "prove of the existing".

This is the trick of religious people to prove that god exist. The people who do not believe must prove that god not exist. Until they do it succesfull all the religious people say that god exist. The reiligous people must prove that god exist not the others. So please prove it in a way that everybody can follow the argument and check it by their own. Something like "god exist because I believe in god" does not work. If something exist their is no need to believe. If it exist you know it with certainty.

For me I only aceppt proved thinks. So I am someone who knows and do not need to believe.

God is as good provable as the monsters under the bed or as Richard Dawkins said "the spagetti monster".

So until the existing of god is proved sucessfully, god is not existing.

Greetings

Nelly

P.S.: A person is not a murderer until it is proved. Just believe that he/she is a murderer is not enough.

I started to reply to several different points here, but it sounded too much like arguing to me, and I don't want to argue. I WOULD like to point out though, that Joanna's logic IS sound logic. Which means not believing in god(or anything that can't be proven to exist) is in itself an act of faith

As to the ducks, well, like you said, it's scientific fact that ducks can't speak, due to how they're build. But...from a scientific point of view, humans (or rather their ancestors) were also once unable to speak, so it would be silly to assume that ducks will never speak, scientifically speaking

[Guest ChloëC]

The duck example and the murder example are not at all the same thing as determining the existence of God (or any god). A duck can be measured, tested, dissected. Evidence supporting a murder can be found that (if accepted by the court) can be irrefutable - dna, fingerprints, credible witnesses - and for a suspect brought to trial he/she can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have commited the crime. (ok, that last is open to subjectivity, and the perpetrator is actually on trial for violating some statute - state or federal - and not the actual act of murder, but that's another issue)

God on the other hand, can't be measured, nor can any of the above irrefutable evidence be presented. Claims can be made, witnesses can testify, but none can be shown at this moment to be irrefutable.

The real problem is in trying to scientifically measure God. Of course, it can't be done (and if it could, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would probably come into play which would put it all as suspect anyway). And since there is really nothing that can be measured, the claim that God (or any god) doesn't exist is just as unsupportable.

Mostly the claims are based on our everyday experience. So, for some, looking around them, they don't see God 'working', therefore God doesn't exist, in their everyday experience. For others, they look around and see God 'working', therefore God exists, in their everyday experience. Both basically are totally wrong about it. Neither are really proving anything except how they interpret their everyday existence. Proving the existence or non existence is a lot harder then one would think. That's why it's faith, until a proof can be shown, one way or another. So, for now, it's faith in a god, or faith in no god.

Chloë

[Guest Joanna Phipps]

I stand by the doctrine that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Just cause you cannot prove somethings existence doesn't mean you have disproved that thing's existence.

[Guest Joanna Phipps]

Ok to stir the pot further, may be we needed God only once. That was to initiate the big bang, a concept so difficult to imagine and currently impossible to test and verify. That means ALL forms of spirituality are human constructs with a singular God, embodying all that we can know and touch or multiple Gods embodying individual aspects of all that we can know and touch.

When it comes right down to it, what is it we know and agree on about spirituality? Is there any common ground or is everything going in 5000 different directions with every group saying Mine is the right and only way.

[Guest Zenda]

Kia Ora,

Now I find this just about sums up what agnostic actualy means….

Gordon Stein wrote in his essay “The Meaning of Atheism and Agnosticism”:

Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean “neither affirming nor denying a belief in God.” Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley’s definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic.

As Robert Flint explained in his 1903 book Agnosticism, agnosticism is:

...properly a theory about knowledge, not about religion. A theist and a Christian may be an agnostic; an atheist may not be an agnostic. An atheist may deny that there is God, and in this case his atheism is dogmatic and not agnostic. Or he may refuse to acknowledge that there is a God simply on the ground that he perceives no evidence for his existence and finds the arguments which have been advanced in proof of it invalid. In this case his atheism is critical, not agnostic. The atheist may be, and not infrequently is, an agnostic.

Quote from resource site…

It is a simple fact that some people don’t think that they know something for sure, but believe anyway, and that some people cannot claim to know, and decide that that is reason enough to not bother believing. Thus agnosticism is not an alternative, “third way” going between atheism and theism: it is instead a separate issue compatible with both.

As a matter of fact, a majority of people who consider themselves either atheist or theist might also be justified in calling themselves agnostics. It is not at all uncommon, for example, for a theist to be adamant in their belief, but also be adamant in the fact their belief is based on faith and not on having absolute, incontrovertible knowledge.

Moreover, some degree of agnosticism is evident in every theist who considers their god to be “unfathomable” or to “work in mysterious ways.” This all reflects a fundamental lack of knowledge on the part of the believer with regards to the nature of what they claim to believe in. It might not be entirely reasonable to hold a strong belief in the light of such acknowledged ignorance, but that rarely seems to stop anyone. End of quote…

From an 'atheistic agnostic' and loving it...

Metta Jendar

[Guest Joanna Phipps]

I have a problem with "Christians" being agnostic since the pretence is God exists, I cannot prove it to your satisfaction, but I know God exists. Making them very much gnostic even if the existance of the deity cannot be scientifically proved.

Let us not prove, beyond resonable doubt, that the divine exists... the world and man need mysteries

[Guest Nelly]

God on the other hand, can't be measured

Please tell me why god is the only thing that we can not measure? You can measure everything that exist. Does it mean you can not measure him because he does not exist? If his influence to life is so big than their must be something that can be measured. If the people who believe in him are right and he create everything (also if it is only the big bang) than we must be able to find something. But up to know everytime somebody found something that prove his existing or his influence, some scientiest found something to explane it without god.

The real problem is in trying to scientifically measure God. Of course, it can't be done (and if it could, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would probably come into play which would put it all as suspect anyway).

Again, why is it not possible?

So, for some, looking around them, they don't see God 'working', therefore God doesn't exist, in their everyday experience. For others, they look around and see God 'working', therefore God exists, in their everyday experience. Both basically are totally wrong about it.

That is a good point. If I only want to see what I want to see, I only can see what I want to see. Here we have the big different between scientific work and believe. If you prove a scientist that he/she is wrong and the thing can be explained on a different way, than he/she will accept it and figure it out and than use the new explanation. This happen everyday in the scientific life.

Neither are really proving anything except how they interpret their everyday existence. Proving the existence or non existence is a lot harder then one would think. That's why it's faith, until a proof can be shown, one way or another. So, for now, it's faith in a god, or faith in no god.

That maybe right but the people who says that he exist must prove it not the people who says he does not exist. Until it is not proved you can only say that it is maybe right. But again here we have the big different between scientist and people who believe. A scientist allways says that this theory know is the best theory to explain the real world. He never says that theory is the only thing that works. People who believe in god says that he is the only right thing. Than their are a lot of people who believe in god who try to kill different thinking people. E.g. Galileo Galilei was nearly killed because he shows that earth is not the center of everything.

If people would keep their religion private and would not influence the life of other people, than I would says that is is no big deal to believe in different things. But in real life it is not so easy. Their are people who kill other people because they are believe in different thinks. Major problems of our comunity are based on the faith of other people.

Also if they do not want to kill me their is still influence in my life I do not want. E.g. aircrash investigator who analyze the cockpit voice recorder found out, that pilot of a crashing arplaines are acting different based on their faith. Pilots from western countries try to fight till the end to save everybody life on the plain. But pilots with an islamic background do not fight till the end. They start praing to Allah. This is not compatible to that what I want him to do in that moment it has a big influence to the rest of my life and I do not believe what he believe.

Everybody should be free to believe what he want. But this does not work in real life. It is strange, as more the people believe as more ignorant they are to different solutions. Also if you born in a religious family you will get the religion of your parents. Normally the parents should give their children the freedom to choose what ever they want to believe in, but they do not do it. In the first day of the life of the children they maybe cut off some body parts without asking the child if it is okay for him based on faith. A lot of children die after that or lose their sexlife forever.

A lot of nonsense was done based on faith and a lot of people must die. Is this the way it should work? I think no and to find out that god exist or not is the first big step to clear the view.

Greetings

Nelly