Everyone is agnostic

originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
a reply to: ketsuko
So are your experiences god given, spiritual or just unexplainable to you?

My experiences are fine to me, but to anyone else, from the outside looking, they are going to be simple testimony. I have no way to prove what I experienced in any tangible way.

I was addressing this from the angle of the OP. From his point of view looking in, anyone can give testimony, but he is the only one who can judge the truth or validity of such. He calls us all agnostics. For him, my experiences and any you might have had are only that -- empty testimony. Since we cannot do more than share that testimony and have no tangible proof, he chooses to call us agnostics and say that we cannot know. In other words, he presumes that he knows better than you or I might.

a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

By me "elaborating" or explaining the sensations i felt while filled with the spirit, or explaining anything that i was personally going through in life will NOT all of a sudden make people beleive in my experiences.

And how does where a person come from define who that person is and on how believable they are? That makes no sense to me lol

Anyway if you want to know my experiences of what happened the moment i was filled with gods spirit and every detail of my life situation and the sensatiins i felt while having this experience then you will be willing to look into it on a post made by a member called pacific on here. Was made a few weeks ago, im on a mobile and dont know how to link it for you but if your willing to know the answers to your questions then by all means look it up. I beleive pacific only made 1 thread or 2 so shouldnt be hard to find.

originally posted by: CapstonePendulum
a reply to: intrptr

Even the bible has my god is better than your god type arguments when it comes to the spoils of war taken by the Israelites and the request of its return.

The reply is something like, " You keep what your god gives you, so we are keeping what our god has given us."

Made me think of scenes like Moses and his staff, where they wage wizard battles, god on god with snakes and stuff. Makes for better movies, I guess, but doesn't sound very realistic.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: polyath

I agree. He's absolutely correct in what he's saying. Agnostic means not knowing. It's the opposite of Gnostic meaning to know.

Yes, correct from a literalist perspective. I think there has been a movement (not sure how long it's been going on), primarily from the atheist camp, to redefine terms - or at least bring terms to a more literal definition. Growing up, these were the basic definitions:

theist = believes in God and is not open to the possibility that He doesn't (actually open, but since you can't prove a negative...)
atheist = does not believe in God and is not open to the possibility that He does (technically IS, but any sort of proof would actually disprove God's existence, so there you go...)
agnostic = doubts God exists, but is open to the possibility that He does (doesn't care either way and generally thinks less attention should be paid to religion and more to helping fellow human beings)

I'm not saying those were the definitions for everyone - but they were for me, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Now, however, there seems to be a general trend towards:

agnostic = everyone
Agnostic theism = believes in God
Agnostic atheism = doesn't believe in God

So, in which way is the term "agnostic" more commonly used today?

Have experienced things I thought was God because I didn't have a better explanation for it. I still don't know for sure but it was needed and very welcome at the time.

a reply to: polyath

Good grief, there is a certain class of people who just love all their labels don't they?

This is exactly the same impulse that brought us 50 different gender classifications on facebook.

a reply to: ketsuko

Personally, I prefer to think of myself as human. Whether or not God exists doesn't matter - at least it shouldn't for atheists and all those (i.e. Catholics) who believe faith=action.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: CapstonePendulum

Which is the most honest approach one can take because none of us actually know if God exists, or if there are multiple gods. We know only what mythology tells us. History is silent. Science offers no proof either way of God. Everything is faith. And trust in humans to accurately report unbelievable events.

First Science is not quite nor is Philosophy.

List of Arguments leading to some God:

1. Kalam Cosmological Argument based on a theory of time. Uses Science to prove premise 2 of the argument is sound.
2. Fine Tuning Argument. Uses Science to show the state of the universe is to fragile to be product of chance.
3. Ontological Argument based of S5 modal logic system developed by Alvin Plantinga, proves via deduction that maximal greatness is exemplified.
4. Moral Argument - shows the need for a God to explain the moral realm we observe in reality.



The idea that no one knows anything about God is an argument from Omniscience fallacy. You would have to know every persons situation and thoughts to make this claim. History is not silent. Pretty strong case can be made for the resurrection . Take 1 Corinthians 15 "3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. "

Scholars, including skeptical ones, date this portion of the text to 3-8 years after Christs death. The majority of scholars accept that he lived, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, buried in the tomb of Joseph Arimethea in Jerusalem, that this tomb was found empty 3 days later by a group of his women followers, and many of his followers believed they saw him after his death and died for this claim. These facts along with the fact that Christianity spread from Jerusalem, imo, give a good reason to accept that Jesus actually rose from the Dead. So we have plenty of reason to believe there is a creator then we get to the idea of the Resurrection with good historical reasons to believe that Jesus was who he said he was and really rose from the dead.

So your belief is based on the beliefs of "the majority of scholars" and the fact that Christianity spread from Jerusalem to the world.

And this is your standard of proof for a man resurrecting from the dead?

It really doesn't matter when the myth was added to the story of a righteous teacher who was crucified that he ressurected on the third day.

Because it is an allegory for the movement of the sun.

And many things about this myth are inconsistent including the Gospel accounts which all differ on one point or another.

So that is not proof of God. It is a myth that you believe actually happened the way it is reported. But you probably believe Jesus was God in the flesh too. That isn't in the bible and is a result of a decision made hundreds of years after he died in the Nicene creed. Before that he was just the Son of God.

So not every belief Christians have is bible based. How reliable is the belief that he was God in the flesh when it is not decided to be doctrine until 300 years after he died?

Christianities spread was often by force of the Roman or Holy Roman empire. It was forced into conformity within the bounds of the Roman empire to a set of politically agreed upon texts and all non orthodox sects were stamped out as heretics, even the Ebionites.


Now Gnostic Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls have reawaken an interest in the truth about the myth of Christ. The existence of extra Gospels shows that we myth was varied and the takeover by Rome put the movement in the hands of the enemy.

So how reliable could the myth be? The hidden teachings of Jesus are only learned when you drop the history angle and learn the esoteric meaning of the story.

ive held he same viewpoint as the op until i had a near death experience and encountered my own supernatural experiences and now i believe. actually i wasnt just agnostic, i used to lean more towards aethiesm.

a reply to: mOjOm

I saw it mid way through my posting so had to correct the tour term to apply to anyone sharing the objective stance you took. I noticed you were just giving the other side for debate reasons.

a reply to: ketsuko

But accurate decriptions of these experiences will help us non believers understand what you experienced, possibly leading us to a different/greater truth.

If you were to describe this experience in detail and the surrounding factors we may be able to help identify what happened. To you it may be enlightenment, to a doctor it might be a nervous system response, to another it might be a form of shakra, to other they may have had a near identical experience which would help validate the experience.

Accurate reporting of these sensations will help us relate and value your experience as opposed to those that shroud their experience with silence and fanciful sentences they have read from a book.

Adleast you would display signs of wanting to get to the bottom of it rather than reside in whatever god your mind has manifested,(applies to everyone, not just you).

a reply to: mOjOm

True. . Those who know the caress of the divine know it.

If my God is something like Quantum Energy then maybe I actually do know my God exists. Although that would have nothing to do with Your God existing.

It is because that some souls like to define god as unknown/mystery that knowledge/knowing becomes impossible and even logical for them.

I do not know all things on all levels of creation but I do cheat a little bit allowing the unconscious to bring information that I need to the conscious mind testing it giving new insights.

originally posted by: Belcastro
ive held he same viewpoint as the op until i had a near death experience and encountered my own supernatural experiences and now i believe. actually i wasnt just agnostic, i used to lean more towards aethiesm.

Near death experiences are a known and repeatable experiment.

A big percentage of fighter pilots have NDE's
When they take enough G's to make them pass out. It's a blood flow issue with the brain. The only difference is, that with NDE's "in the field" they are usually paired with a really traumatic experience. Which causes people to assign more credit to it then normal. In their mind making it a life changing event.

a reply to: CapstonePendulum

But since agnostic literally means to not know, by definition when it comes to God we are all agnostic.

Huxley defined "agnostic" as a position of no belief, as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim. He also attached, and described, an "ism". A belief in the scientific method, or the process of justification used to arrive at knowledge. Being a scientist, it all amounts to a form of demarcation. No objective/testable evidence = a subjective/unfalsifiable claim. Results: inconclusive. No belief, either way.

His agnosticism is not compatible with theism. It is not compatible with atheism (narrow definition). Everyone is not an agnostic.

a reply to: CapstonePendulum

It's true that no one knows the truth of his beliefs regarding the existence of God, the survival of consciousness and similar matters in the same way he knows his Ford is sitting in his garage. Every honest person must admit this fact and thus is "agnostic" in this limited sense. (Some people, of course, believe they have had direct experience with the unknown and do in fact know the truth in the same way they know their Fords are sitting in their garages. I've had a number of After Death Communications from relatives and friends that were very persuasive to me and that I regard as direct evidence of the survival of consequence; even with these, however, I have to admit they have evidential value only for me and that other explanations are at least possible.)

I have a friend who is truly agnostic; if you raise any issue relating to the unknown, his response is simply to shrug and say, "What difference does it make what I think? I'll find out when I die." His agnostic position is, "We can't really know the answers, so why even bother asking the questions?" (One reason, of course, might be that the answers we derive during this lifetime are important. If (for example) Christianity or Islam should happen to be true, my friend may "find out" in a very unpleasant way when he dies.)

As opposed to just throwing up our hands like my friend, I believe we can at least decide what seems most probably true and live our lives accordingly. Over decades, I have constructed a belief system on the basis of my experiences, observations, studies and intuition. I live my life as though this belief system were true, while acknowledging it might not be and that new evidence might require me to revise or tweak it. I thus am "agnostic" in a much more limited sense than my friend. (I am really not agnostic at all; I am a committed believer who acknowledges his beliefs could ultimately prove to be partly or wholly incorrect.)

If you took five people who had put forth the same effort that I have but who had arrived at equally strong beliefs in the truth of Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam, I don't believe it would be accurate to say "They are all agnostics" except in the very limited sense in which I'm an agnostic. Certainly the most frustrating (and delusional) people are those who refuse to acknowledge even the possibility their beliefs might be wrong; this is equally true of New Atheists, Christian Fundamentalists and True Believers (fundamentalists) of all types.

a reply to: TheHuxleyAgnostic

I think we just have to try to learn as much as you can and get out. The further back in time something happened the closer to the gods and more mysterious.

It used to be you would have to be someone important to get scripture and not every culture would share their secrets.

When I have doubts I just think of the great pyramid. We could not make that today. That means a secret unknown technology was used. It is older than the Egyptologist are allowed to say and there is an enormous underground complex underneath.

Something exists and I could never not try and figure out what it is.

originally posted by: Parazurvan
a reply to: TheHuxleyAgnostic

I think we just have to try to learn as much as you can and get out. The further back in time something happened the closer to the gods and more mysterious.

It used to be you would have to be someone important to get scripture and not every culture would share their secrets.

When I have doubts I just think of the great pyramid. We could not make that today. That means a secret unknown technology was used. It is older than the Egyptologist are allowed to say and there is an enormous underground complex underneath.

Something exists and I could never not try and figure out what it is.

We could do any of the wonders of the anchient world today. That is not to down play their achievements, just for context.