Agnostic = Nonsense

reply to post by adjensen

To the OP -- being an Agnostic is not nonsense, it's a perfectly reasonable position to have. Admittedly, it's not a strong position, but there's nothing wrong with that.

Being a former agnostic, i see it as a position of cowardice. Riding the fence for fear of offending any deity, just incase you have the wrong one. Jesus said hot or cold, but the lukewarm (fence riders) get spat out.

lone

Being a former agnostic, i see it as a position of cowardice. Riding the fence for fear of offending any deity, just incase you have the wrong one. Jesus said hot or cold, but the lukewarm (fence riders) get spat out.

Being a current agnostic, I don't ride any fence. I live standing on my feet, as agnostics typically do, according to a robust categorical finding that the evidence and argument available about the question of God is insufficient for me to entertain an opinion one way or the other.

It is possible that some god somewhere is ofended by my finding, or by my standing up for it. Nevertheless, that is my finding. In fact, no god has yet expressed to me any concern about my viewpoint. In contrast, there seem to be plenty of human bigots who accuse me of cowardice, often with an allusion to some fence that exists only in their head.

So, here's the deal. If you differ with my finding, then stop fantasizing about my butt, and get off your own. Develop some persuasive evidence or argument for your view. Act quickly, little wolf, beofre you change your mind again.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Riding the fence for fear of offending any deity, just incase you have the wrong one. Jesus said hot or cold, but the lukewarm (fence riders) get spat out.

I'm not riding any fence nor am I in fear of offending any deity. I see no evidence that proves the existence of any deity nor is there definite evidence against any deities.

To me it is just one big unknown and those that proclaim complete belief seem to be doing so more out of fear than an agnostic. Don't want to be sent to the "bad place" do they?

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

 

Being a former agnostic, i see it as a position of cowardice.

This is to suggest that there are three types of Gods:

1) Creator God, who created Everything (including himself/itself)
2) Person God, who has preferences and reacts to the deeds of humans (such as the Christian God)
3) Energy God, which is not perceived as an entity but as a force, power or spiritual energy.

The Energy God is mostly what Eastern religions are about. Western religions use the Person God to explain/rationalise observations of phenomena that are not understood in order to impose morals that are considered beneficial for their society.

Both, coming from a scientific frame of mind or a religious one, the Creator God is not tenable. For example, the Big Bang may have created OUR universe but does not explain what caused it or what came before it. If you believe in a God who created, not just humans and the earth etc - but Everything, then who or what created this God?

The mystery of existence itself cannot be answered. Agnosticism speaks to that fact correctly but may not be useful for offering a sense (or illusion?) of knowing. Agnosticism may also not be useful for providing firm morals or concepts for practical living but leaves the door open for other approaches to do so.