Agnosticism Is A Way To Stay On The Fence, Until It Falls

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Have you tried a sensory deprivation tank yet? I was reading up on sensory deprivation therapy recently. Apparently its super relaxing. Some even have religious experiences in them. Then once you get out everything is supposed to look brand new again.

The salts are quite refreshing especially if you are low on magnesium.

Had to spend quite along time personally in the tank before my mind started wandering..at least 4.5 hours.

It is expensive and takes many times to get REAL good at letting go.

Worthwhile experience...also try the Lucia Light No.3 if you have a wild imagination like i do you can have truly breathtaking journeys into restfulness.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Good post but i disagree on the dream part.

And fully can see that putting a finger on it is doable.

No more statue time lol.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
It's about being honest about your own beliefs, whether you are capable of standing your ground or not is irrelevant.

At what age?

And remember this is forced on many from birth.

First you have to question what's been forced/ingrained into you from birth. Usually, by your parents.

It is not black and white.

Don't forget every OTHER forms of programming...education TV just about anything affects us.

It is easy to see that the Leaders behind the scenes are programmed as well..which brings up interesting conclusions that lead off-world.

But they are not GOD. Or any other gods but they sure want us to believe they are.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
It's about being honest about your own beliefs, whether you are capable of standing your ground or not is irrelevant.

At what age?

And remember this is forced on many from birth.

First you have to question what's been forced/ingrained into you from birth. Usually, by your parents.

It is not black and white.

Don't forget every OTHER forms of programming...education TV just about anything affects us.

It is easy to see that the Leaders behind the scenes are programmed as well..which brings up interesting conclusions that lead off-world.

But they are not GOD. Or any other gods but they sure want us to believe they are.

Yes, true.

My biggest point is we (most) are assimilated from birth to believe God is our creator.

As we are assimilated to believe the sky is blue. What is blue? It is a man made label.

A conscious choice has to be made to question and move beyond everything you know (have been taught/programmed to believe).

I began questioning at an early age, because it (God) made no sense to me.

Interestingly, I never considered myself Agnostic. I considered myself on a Quest for understanding. The forward motion of a Quest, does not give time to sit on a fence.

Eventually, I stepped completely out of the "God Circle". I now label myself an Agnostic Atheist - - because, that is the true label. Lack of belief in any god - - but, no more proof then those who believe. It simply is not something that can be proven or dis-proven.

For me the question, "Do you believe in God", is simply too
complex to answer with a "yes, no, or maybe."

Are you asking; Do I believe in an afterlife? Do I believe
in a creator? Do I believe in "one" of thousands of
religions?

The only answer I have is that I DO believe in something, I
just don't know what that something is.

Does that make me an agnostic? Or a theist? I don't know.

What I do know is that the only evidence I base my belief
on is the riddle of my own existence.

And my easy answer (in polite company) is, "Well, I came
from somewhere, and that's probably where I'll be going
when I die...or when this monkey suit I'm wearing
ceases to function.....please pass the ketchup."

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Well thank you for your apology, and I non-thank you for your non-apology.

This is actually a good example of the problem with agnosticism.
People are more concerned what other people think about them, than what they actually think.

I would much prefer you be honest with yourself and call me a liar.

It's wrong but at least it's honest.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Define "God."

That's where your premise is lacking.

Which god, whose god, what are *god's* traits?

Define "god" and we can have this conversation.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Well thank you for your apology, and I non-thank you for your non-apology.

This is actually a good example of the problem with agnosticism.
People are more concerned what other people think about them, than what they actually think.

I would much prefer you be honest with yourself and call me a liar.

It's wrong but at least it's honest.

Hmm, I really do think you are taking what I said the wrong way. How is it possible for me to know you are a liar for certain? I can't. I can't know if you are trolling me either. We are both members of an online discussion board, I do not know you personally or vice versa. So yes, the non-apology is necessary because it IS important others can trust that I am being sincere about the things I am saying.

Even if you read a thread that is completely ridiculous in content and far-fetched that you automatically assume the person is insane or trolling, if they come across as sincere or not makes a SIGNIFICANT difference as to whether you will take them seriously and investigate or at least even consider their claims.

I am not going to discuss THAT exact post with you any further. I have now gone way beyond my duty that is necessary to explain why I included the non-apology, if right now you feel I am still being dishonest then that is YOUR perspective. If you want to continue discussing the topic then I am happy to do so, but I am NOT turning this into a thread about whether you think I am "afraid to be honest" when clearly I am not.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
Define "God."

That's where your premise is lacking.

Which god, whose god, what are *god's* traits?

Define "god" and we can have this conversation.

Was your reply meant to be directed at me, or did you click the wrong button?

If it was meant to be directed at me, then I am confused as to why defining God is relevant to the topic of the thread. I could be wrong, but please specify before I can continue.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I replied to you; therefore, it was directed at you.

Define god.

then I am confused as to why defining God is relevant to the topic of the thread

As you said in your op:

So, my dear agnostic friends, whether your agnostic views render you unable to state whether or not you believe in God's existence

Define God. Otherwise there is no way to respond to or argue the premise of your OP about whether "god" exists. As an aside, agnostics believe in a higher...something; therefore, define "god" so we can argue your OP.

Sigh,

What you people think is Agnosticism is actually Atheism!

Jesus christ talk about blindly believing in the church dogma and propaganda.

The religious organisations cannot take a word such as agnostic, change its pronunciation then its meaning to atheism. Then change the meaning of atheism so it does not conflict with there new definition of agnostic.

Heres some education of these words.



Coomba98

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
I replied to you; therefore, it was directed at you.

Define god.

1) My definition of God in this thread is in reference to the generally accepted monotheistic definition of an omnipotent and omniscient (it might be more omni-x characteristics, but those two are the important ones) deity. Nothing more, nothing less.

2) My personal definition of God outside this thread is a divine creator (deity?) who is omnipotent and omniscient at the least.

The reasons I MUST make those distinctions is that the thread was assuming the first definition was the one in question, and the most vehement attackers of both atheists and agnostics are clearly "monotheistic God believing theists".

Personally, I DO believe the existence of God is possible. I believe monotheistic God believing theists (or at least the organised religions they are adherents of) have misrepresented or characterised the nature of God (if he does exist) for purposes of power and control. If God does exist, then God does not need man's help to make everyone else aware that God exists.

As you said in your op: [Dark Ghost's WORDS]So, my dear agnostic friends, whether your agnostic views render you unable to state whether or not you believe in God's existence[Dark Ghost's WORDS]

I was generalising that most agnostics do reject the first definition I used above. I know my personal definition of God is not considered "mainstream" and therefore cannot just be alluded to without first explaining what it is.

Define God. Otherwise there is no way to respond to or argue the premise of your OP about whether "god" exists. As an aside, agnostics believe in a higher...something; therefore, define "god" so we can argue your OP.

As I have just done as you asked, I request that you please return the favour and give me YOUR own definition of God.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I am a person of faith, but I have much more respect for an agnostic than an atheist.

An agnostic is honest and can admit to what they do not know, and seek to learn more. That is an entirely rational position.

Perhaps you should revisit the definition of an atheist? Don't assume you know what it means, read the definition, think critically and then comprehend the words you have just read.

I am unable to tell at this stage whether your decision to hold the views you have just expressed is due to ignorance or wilful ignorance, but it can only be one of those two options. If you are unaware of the definition of an atheist and hold your current views, then you are ignorant. Go educate yourself, don't listen to others, or believe what you would like to be believe about a group of people you have been conditioned to believe are your enemy. In reality, atheists are as much your "enemy" as any theist of a different religion. If you don't consider adherents of a different faith to be your enemies, then you have no logical reason to classify atheists in such a way, unless you want to choose a boogeyman that cannot fight back on equal terms.

If you are aware of the definition of an atheist, comprehended the definition and still hold your current views, then you are wilfully ignorant. This is far more dangerous because you are actively trying not to comprehend what it is you are talking about. If you are going to wilfully misrepresent the views of a group of people and have no intention to change, the people you are misrepresenting will probably choose the most obvious reason to dislike you for refusing to stop doing this: your faith.

Notice how I do not even know which faith you adhere to, but I can still provide a logical and reasonable argument that if you actually reflected upon what I have just said and still refuse to look up the definition of atheism and try to comprehend it, you are actually scared to examine the lie you have sold to yourself.

PS: You can still be honest, admit to what you do not know, and seek to learn more without needing to be an agnostic. Unfortunately, people of faith usually tend to contradict my previous sentence. Ironic, is it not?

What point is there to looking up a definition? Do you assume every atheist adheres to a description in a dictionary?

Most of the atheists I know are really either theophobes, anti-theists or anti-Christian.

originally posted by: coomba98
Sigh,

What you people think is Agnosticism is actually Atheism!

NO.

You can be an Agnostic Atheist or an Agnostic Theist.

I lack belief in a God - - but, I can not prove or disprove God.

I believe in a God - - but, I can not prove or disprove God.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

What point is there to looking up a definition? Do you assume every atheist adheres to a description in a dictionary?

Most of the atheists I know are really either theophobes, anti-theists or anti-Christian.

I understand where you are coming from because once upon I time I was part of a monotheistic religion where I did grow up believing in a single God. I didn't even hear the world "atheist" until I was in the second last year of high school. The person who had mentioned the word, explained after I nodded along as though I knew what they were talking about when they could obviously see that I didn't, explained it was a person that didn't believe in God.

I did not research it any further and didn't feel a need to even think about atheism until after school. Eventually, when I went to university, I was exposed to different student groups, mainly political ones but some were in regard to religion. This got me curious, so I did some research on the internet about belief systems. I learned a lot about other religions as well as non-theist groups such as atheism and agnosticism.

Agnosticism intrigued me greatly and after realising I had not truly been a true believer in religion or God for at least a year before, from then on I decided to identify as an agnostic when I needed to. I didn't just adopt agnosticism for that reason, I would find it difficult to have clear views on many controversial topics. I could think of plausible positive and plausible negative arguments on an issue and be deeply divided within myself. To this day, I do maintain agnostic views on some controversial topics which are still unresolved.

A part of me since leaving school had always been leaning toward atheism, and it seems agnosticism was a convenient way until recently for me to "come out" as an atheist. It is difficult when family and friends who are not religious but are so entrenched in the religion in terms of attending a place of worship, social functions, cultural aspects and your "supposed" obligation to just accept and be entrenched yourself without being allowed to question why any of this is strange, it is not easy to come out as somebody who is no longer part of the group.

Keeping all of what I have just written in mind, some atheists rebel against having to suppress something (their lack of belief in God) that most others do not have to even worry about suppressing (their belief in God) in an extreme fashion that I do not personally support. These include being "militant" in proclaiming whenever they can that they are atheists, finding ways to ridicule people that do have religious beliefs or who do believe in God, and basically being unpleasant people towards anyone who does not identify as an atheist themselves. Which is a ridiculous position that I do not support. You can, however, find this type of behaviour in all groups of people, not just in atheism.

Now, if you are asking why most atheists are so "defensive" or "sensitive" to criticisms about their lack of belief in God, the reason is rather simple: the freedom to be an atheist is pretty decent now in the West, but believe it or not, it is not so pleasant in most places outside of it. People are still ridiculed, looked down upon and in some cases even jailed (in even rarer cases they are executed if they express these views in public places) if their identity as an atheist is leaked into the wider community. I'm sure some theists can relate to feeling ridiculed, mocked and looked down upon for their religious beliefs, which is also unfair. But can you imagine living in 2017 and still being jailed (and even executed) just for believing in God and expressing your religious beliefs?

In addition, most people living in Western countries have not had to, until rather recently, face any criticism (valid or invalid) for their beliefs, while atheists had to always show valid criticism for religion just to be respected as atheists.

I cannot speak on behalf of all atheists, I can only speak as a person who happens to identify as somebody who does not see strong evidence for the belief of God, does not feel compelled to deny he can exist, and would be willing to agree that God does exist if I see strong evidence or have a strong personal experience to confirm such a belief. I do not wish to ridicule theists or agnostics. I actually do not intend to offend or annoy anybody unless they give me a strong reason to do so (or if I am watching other people do so for the purposes of comedy and humour.)

It is a shame most atheists you have met do the things I mentioned earlier, I do not condone or support their actions. But I would urge you to remember there is an extreme fringe within every group of people everywhere, and if mocking, ridiculing and antagonising others is the worst people in atheism do, then I would say it is one of the more tolerable expressions of extremism.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

Most of the atheists I know are really either theophobes, anti-theists or anti-Christian.

Atheist is Lack of Belief in a God - - PERIOD!! It does not mean anything else.

It is the only string that ties atheists together.

Beyond that, are individuals with their own personal beliefs. Their own philosophies and beliefs.

Atheists you know are espousing their own personal/individual "atheist" philosophies.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
So yes, the non-apology is necessary because it IS important others can trust that I am being sincere about the things I am saying.

Exactly, you are too concerned with how people perceive you.

I am not "turning" this into a thread about your dishonesty. The very claim of agnosticism is dishonest in it's nature in the first place.

Does god exist?
Yes.... Your're a theist.
No.... You're an atheist.
Maybe.... You're an atheist.

a reply to: Annee

Your reply confims my point.

Agnostic just mean 'without the knowledge of god'. Full stop. Im agnostic with regards to Hindu, Nordic and Mesoamerican myths. Plus many more.

Im a 'Gnostic' [less the A Greek prefix meaing without or non] in Abrahamic, Egyptian, Sumerian and Greek myths.

Krahzeef_Ukhar response hits the nail on the head.

Watch my video in my previous response to better understand.

Deny ignorance!!

Coomba98

a reply to: ParasuvO

Some of the greatest minds yet born to mortal flesh, even those opposed in principle to the concept of a creator as such, believe that there may be a case for design, which equals or overwhelms the case for the universe being an entirely random thing, a product of chance alone. This is a thinking they have come to while retaining agnosticism and/or atheism, but at least allows for the possibility.

Why then, do you have such an opposition to this possibility? After all, intelligent design is not a concept which requires one to believe in any particular deity, in order to cogitate upon. It merely suggests that something is responsible for the creation of the universe, that the universe is not a creation of mere chance, but a created structure, an idea that something or someone had, a deliberately constructed edifice.

Some believe that this universe is "simulated" in some sense, a program working itself out in some vast computational matrix (not to be confused with the scenario in the film, The Matrix, which was entirely a different kettle of fish all together). Simulation theory also holds that something is responsible for the existence of the program that this universe may represent. These theories, while they have certain possible implications, do not, in and of themselves, require faith in order to consider, nor do they require acceptance of a particular god, or even the concept of godhood. These theories, in fact, make very little mention of the originator of the universe, merely referencing the possibility, given certain aspects of the evidence before them, that something external to this universe, may have been responsible for its creation, or the programming which operates it, that these things are not, in and of themselves, random, that the odd synchronicity that can be found in many aspects of nature from the sub atomic to the macro scales, are not beautiful products of chance, but evidence of something larger at work, beyond our current comprehension.

To paraphrase a great man, sufficiently advanced science is hard to tell apart from magic. This concept is not new, has been broadly examined as an idea and found to be entirely sensible. Why then does the concept of a created universe, in and of itself, bring you out in a rash, even if it is divorced as an idea, from the dogma associated with religion?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Exactly, you are too concerned with how people perceive you.

I have a reasonable, healthy concern with how others perceive me. It is not excessive or irrational. You act as if you are not worried at all about how anybody perceives you, as though you are immune to such a tendency. Well let me tell you this: YOU are dishonest. You are dishonest because if you did not care about how others perceived you, as you seem to imply, then you would not have a job, you would not have a relationship, you would not have genuine friends (you would have followers) and you would very likely be in jail.

I am not "turning" this into a thread about your dishonesty. The very claim of agnosticism is dishonest in it's nature in the first place.

When did I say I was currently agnostic, and where especially did I say I was agnostic in relation to my belief or disbelief in God?

I am an atheist. With my current level of knowledge and experiences, I do not believe there is enough evidence or reason for me to believe God exists. Therefore, I have a lack of belief that God exists. That does not negate the fact that I think God can exist if I am shown in the future either strong evidence or I have a strong personal experience.

Does that infuriate you? Is that not permitted in your worldview? Does that make you think I'm just dishonest? That I refuse to acknowledge what it is you are so adamant I am attempting to suppress?

If so, those are YOUR problems, not my problems. If you cannot accept that others have a worldview or way of thinking that is different to your own then you need to address that yourself. The problem is to do with your mindset, not mine.

Does god exist?
Yes.... Your're a theist.
No.... You're an atheist.
Maybe.... You're an atheist.

In the PC game World Of Warcraft, can the Gnome race play the Hunter class from below level 10?

Yes or no? No going to google and finding out about the game, no time to think or reason what tricks I am trying to play on you? Answer YES or NO. Answer now. I bet you can't answer honestly. I bet you cannot just answer without doing some kind of research to ensure you are giving an informed answer.