What does it Mean to be Agnostic ?

[Lynn]

What does it mean to be Agnostic ?


Is this a true religion ?

I would have to say honestly since it is a path I started down at the age of 13 when I first started to rebel from the family Anglican Church that it is . it’s a faith based on the existence and or knowledge of any God. The term “Agnostic” means no knowledge.


What I recall from me path there that went on for many year’s is that I had is that there was NO such thing as God and for that God did not have knowledge based in being known at all. Simply did not exist at all in any form or teachings.


I have over the year’s met one’s that feel God is known but they do not walk that path of God. That would be me. I though so do not go to be called Agnostic now I do not feel that the tern “NO Knowledge” would fit to me. I do not walk with God but I do not say he not be real I can prove or disprove in his existence is all.


We could say that anytime one that is of God falls from their faith in times of crisis ext that they have become Agnostic and that I do not feel would be the case one has simply lost one’s footing on the path of life for a time is all.

I quote here from The Profit by Kahlil Gibran


“ And an old Priest said, ‘Speak to us of Religion.’
And he said :
Have I spoken this day of aught else ? Is not religion all des and all reflection, and that which is neither deed nor reflection, but a wonder and a surprise ever springing in the soul, even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom?
Who can separate his faith from his actions, or belief from his occupations?
Who can spread his hours before him, saying ‘ This for God and this for myself; this for my soul, and this other for my body?’

All your hours are wings that eat through space from self to self. He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked. The wind and the sun will tear no holes in his skin. And he who defines his conductor by ethics imprisons his song-bird in a cage.

The feast of song comes not through the bars and wires. And he to whom worshipping is a window, to open but also to shut, has not yet visited the house of his soul whose windows are from dawn to dawn.

Your daily life is your temple and your religion. Whenever you enter into it take with you your all. Take the plough and the forge and the mallet and the lute, the things you have fashioned in necessity of for delight. For in revery you cannot rise above your achievements nor fall lower than your failures.


And take with you all men:

For in adoration you can not fly higher than their hopes nor humble yourself lower than their despair. And if you would know God be not therefore a solver of riddles. Rather than look about you and you shall see Him playing with your children. And look into space, you shall see Him walking in the cloud , outstretching His arms in the lightning and descending in rain. You shall see him smiling in flowers, then rising and waving his hands in trees.”



　
Now even if on does not hold God in one’s heart one can take from the words here the feeling of peace in knowing we can all stumble at times on that path of life and loose in us our faiths and beliefs for a time but I so feel we are all connected to each other as Man and to the Universe and beyond by the LIGHT that is around each and everyone of us. To some we are all God’s children to me we are all children of the LIGHT.


We are not Religious or Agnostic maybe we just are US.
　
Lynn

[Lightbringer]

Hello Friend,
I enjoyed reading that passage from "The Prophet" once again. Since The subect matter was gnostic may I quote a passage from the Gnostic Bible - Apoocalypse of Peter.
"And there shall be others who are outside our number who name themselves Bishop and also Deacon, as if they have received their authority from God. These people are dry canals. They do business in my word. They praise the men who propagate falsehood."
Make of it what you will.
Peace.

[pre-dawn]

Agnosticism is not a religion, and it should also not be confused with atheism.

An atheist denies that there is a god. An agnostic says that nothing whatsoever can be said about god, not even whether he/it exists or not.

[sprinter]

The Romans had another term for agnostic,, the latin equivalent is ignoramus.

[BahaiRaelian]

Generally, in theistic epistemology, an agnostic is a person who either does not presently know or does not believe it is possible (either incidentally or in principle) to have knowledge of god or gods.
Interestingly enough, agnosticism is not an alternative to theism and atheism. Agnosticism is a belief about knowledge, not existence. A person who does not believe knowledge of god or god's existence is possible still either believes or does not believe in a god, and thus is either theist or atheist.
Atheism is not denial of god. That's one form of atheism, but atheism is simply the lack of a belief in god. Whether you believe god does not exist or are just a little baby who has never been introduced to the concept, you are an atheist.

[pre-dawn]

The Romans had another term for agnostic,, the latin equivalent is ignoramus.
Maybe you are an agnostic yourself?

[sprinter]

Maybe you are an agnostic yourself?


Na, I'm not ignorant enough to say that 'nothing whatsoever can be said about God existence,,,,,,,' particularly while I'm offering the view on a religious forum where plenty is said both ways on the matter.

From the Greek , Agnostic A-Alpha meaning the negative, and ginosko- to know.
So a more accurate definition would be,,, one who doesn't know.

[psychoslice]

Agnosticism is not a religion, and it should also not be confused with atheism.

An atheist denies that there is a god. An agnostic says that nothing whatsoever can be said about god, not even whether he/it exists or not.
Yes and I believe that Agnostics are the most honest of all belief systems.

[pre-dawn]

Na, I'm not ignorant enough to say that 'nothing whatsoever can be said about God existence,,,,,,,' particularly while I'm offering the view on a religious forum where plenty is said both ways on the matter.
Saying something and believing that that something is a provisional truth, or believing that that something is an absolute truth, are two different things.

[Greenslade]

The Romans had another term for agnostic,, the latin equivalent is ignoramus.

Of course they would. But then, in two thousand years attitudes haven't changed that drastically.

[sprinter]

Of course they would. But then, in two thousand years attitudes haven't changed that drastically.

You know thats worth thinking about, throughout history attitudes deemed to be of no general value to society are phased out and yet the one described remains firmly entrenched all these centuries later. Could there be something in it perhaps?.

[Greenslade]

You know thats worth thinking about, throughout history attitudes deemed to be of no general value to society are phased out and yet the one described remains firmly entrenched all these centuries later. Could there be something in it perhaps?.

That's one for you to think about, Sprinter :-) A gentle stroll through threads on God, the Bible and religion can be very enlightening when you take a step back from it.

I believe that religion started off as a way to explain the Universe and everything in it. If you can imagine being back in Sumerian times where science was pretty much non-existent compared to what it is today, perhaps they needed questions like "What's up there?" answering, or "Why does the wind blow?" From there, they formed a set of beliefs that made as much sense to them at that time as it could. Then suddenly one of them worked out that you could use that as control. You could become a guru if you said these things and if someone didn't agree, you rallied the masses against them and called them heretics. Constantine figured that one out, and now we have Christianity as it is today. How little things have changed.

I don't think it's so much God that people are trying to get away from but the religious controlling influence of what is perceived as God. Look at what's happening today, you have fanatical fundamentalists rioting and killing in the name of God. It's not God that's the problem here but what people do in the name of religion. Maybe agnostics have it more right than the religious, at least they admit they can't make up their minds. I believe some religious people think they have something they can never really hope to understand nailed down. If God is all that people say he is, how can any human mind possibly comprehend that? If they don't understand the world around them - and themselves - how can they possibly have God all worked out?

[Kapitan_Prien]

Being one of the Agnostics on the board...I'll at least say, it gives me some 'wiggle room'.

There are many different types of Agnostics:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FTruth_value) of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FDeity), but also other religious and metaphysical (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FMetaphysics) claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FAgnosticism%23cite_note-0) Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FSkepticism) approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FBelief) and knowledge (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FKnowledge), rather than about any specific claim or belief.
Thomas Henry Huxley (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FThomas_Henry_Huxley), an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869. However, earlier thinkers and written works have promoted agnostic points of view. They include Protagoras (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FProtagoras), a 5th-century BCE (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FBefore_Common_Era) Greek philosopher,[2] (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FAgnosticism%23cite_note-1) and the Nasadiya Sukta (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FNasadiya_Sukta) creation myth (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FCreation_myth) in the Rig Veda (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FRig_Veda), an ancient Hindu religious text.[3] (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FAgnosticism%23cite_note-patri-2) Since Huxley coined the term, many other thinkers have written extensively about agnosticism.


Types of agnosticism

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Recently suggested variations include:
Agnostic atheism (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FAgnostic_atheism)Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[15] (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FAgnosticism%23cite_note-AtheismVsAgnosticism-14)

Agnostic theism (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FAgnostic_theism)The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.

[15] (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FAgnosticism%23cite_note-AtheismVsAgnosticism-14)Apathetic or Pragmatic agnosticism (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FApatheism)The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FWikipedia%3ACitation_needed)]

[16] (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FAgnosticism%23cite_note-15)Ignosticism (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FIgnosticism)The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FTheological_noncognitivism) view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.[17] (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FAgnosticism%23cite_note-16) A.J. Ayer (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FAlfred_Ayer), Theodore Drange (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FTheodore_Drange), and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.[18] (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FAgnosticism%23cite_note-17)[not in citation given (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FWikipedia%3AVerifiability)]

Strong agnosticism (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FStrong_agnosticism) (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FWeak_agnosticism) (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."

[Kapitan_Prien]

If someone asked me whether or not I believed in the Christian God - I would say no...that would make me an Atheist of course.

I think it all boils down to what God is to people...

[sprinter]

That's one for you to think about, Sprinter :-) A gentle stroll through threads on God, the Bible and religion can be very enlightening when you take a step back from it.

I believe that religion started off as a way to explain the Universe and everything in it. If you can imagine being back in Sumerian times where science was pretty much non-existent compared to what it is today, perhaps they needed questions like "What's up there?" answering, or "Why does the wind blow?" From there, they formed a set of beliefs that made as much sense to them at that time as it could. Then suddenly one of them worked out that you could use that as control. You could become a guru if you said these things and if someone didn't agree, you rallied the masses against them and called them heretics. Constantine figured that one out, and now we have Christianity as it is today. How little things have changed.

I don't think it's so much God that people are trying to get away from but the religious controlling influence of what is perceived as God. Look at what's happening today, you have fanatical fundamentalists rioting and killing in the name of God. It's not God that's the problem here but what people do in the name of religion. Maybe agnostics have it more right than the religious, at least they admit they can't make up their minds. I believe some religious people think they have something they can never really hope to understand nailed down. If God is all that people say he is, how can any human mind possibly comprehend that? If they don't understand the world around them - and themselves - how can they possibly have God all worked out?

Religious claims are essentially truth claims Greenslade, thats the inescapable bottom line so when somebody starts telling me what they believe by employing phrases like "try to imagine, perhaps they, then suddenly, " I know we are sliding away from any truth and into some possibly fanatical religious fantasy.

I'm also confused, how is it that any Agnostic be "more right" by choosing to deliberately avoid finding any answer to the question it seems a rather incoherent thought and, what standard are you using there to judge something more or less right, is it your personal feelings by any chance?

I do tend to agree with your statement that "some religious people think they have something they can never really hope to understand nailed down" but would add that total avoidance of the issue hardly solves anything in fact it leaves no possibility whatsoever of even the slightest understanding.

[Greenslade]

Religious claims are essentially truth claims Greenslade, thats the inescapable bottom line so when somebody starts telling me what they believe by employing phrases like "try to imagine, perhaps they, then suddenly, " I know we are sliding away from any truth and into some possibly fanatical religious fantasy.

I'm also confused, how is it that any Agnostic be "more right" by choosing to deliberately avoid finding any answer to the question it seems a rather incoherent thought and, what standard are you using there to judge something more or less right, is it your personal feelings by any chance?

I do tend to agree with your statement that "some religious people think they have something they can never really hope to understand nailed down" but would add that total avoidance of the issue hardly solves anything in fact it leaves no possibility whatsoever of even the slightest understanding.

No belief system, I believe, is more right than any other. We all have our chosen Paths whether that be religious or not. While I am an Atheist, I can see where what may be termed as God's work abounds. If that makes some of you wonder then at least think about it. If it horrifies you, then it's a reflection of what you have inside. I can understand another's viewpoint in being a Christian/Buddhist/any other religion, but I would ask how many Christians have chosen to understand Atheism? Is Atheism the work of the devil or another Path to the God you believe in? I don't believe in right and wrong and even less when it comes down a a person's chosen Path. All Paths are valid, and that includes all belief systems - or your own version of the Truth if you have one.

For me, not having a belief in God/religion (to get back to the original post) frees me from the thought shackles. So many times I have seen the writings of people who have chosen their religion and defend it without the least bit of Enlightenment of what they are defending it against. Know thy enemy. Being free of the thought shackles means I am free to have my own, to find my own Truths without someone telling me what to believe. To a devout Christian, I was known as the spawn of the devil because I was never afraid to express my Spirituality. Then one day, I was sitting discussing religion with a devout Muslim when the devout Christian joined in. It turned out that apart from jargon there was little difference in the three 'sets' core beliefs.

I often wonder if having religious beliefs that people entrench themselves in excludes them from that kind of dialogue (either with other people or with themselves) and excludes them from true Enlightenment?

[sprinter]

No belief system, I believe, is more right than any other. We all have our chosen Paths whether that be religious or not. While I am an Atheist, I can see where what may be termed as God's work abounds. If that makes some of you wonder then at least think about it. If it horrifies you, then it's a reflection of what you have inside. I can understand another's viewpoint in being a Christian/Buddhist/any other religion, but I would ask how many Christians have chosen to understand Atheism? Is Atheism the work of the devil or another Path to the God you believe in? I don't believe in right and wrong and even less when it comes down a a person's chosen Path. All Paths are valid, and that includes all belief systems - or your own version of the Truth if you have one.

For me, not having a belief in God/religion (to get back to the original post) frees me from the thought shackles. So many times I have seen the writings of people who have chosen their religion and defend it without the least bit of Enlightenment of what they are defending it against. Know thy enemy. Being free of the thought shackles means I am free to have my own, to find my own Truths without someone telling me what to believe. To a devout Christian, I was known as the spawn of the devil because I was never afraid to express my Spirituality. Then one day, I was sitting discussing religion with a devout Muslim when the devout Christian joined in. It turned out that apart from jargon there was little difference in the three 'sets' core beliefs.

I often wonder if having religious beliefs that people entrench themselves in excludes them from that kind of dialogue (either with other people or with themselves) and excludes them from true Enlightenment?


Greenslade, I come across those ideas regularly ( there is no right or wrong,, all beliefs are equally valid,, having no religious system= real freedom) and respectfully, even though in the past I myself have previously held to similar ideas, I have to disagree. I'll explain why.

We all know there is right or wrong otherwise we would not bother to protest anything at all. Example, you are forwarding your views here because you think they are right and other views are not. We have a justice system across every type of culture because all people believe in right or wrong(regardless of the interpretation). Sorting right from wrong is an integral and undeniable part of human behaviour.

I don't hold with the idea that "all beliefs are equal" for reasons of basic logic.
It would be like saying all cars are equal, or all work careers are equal, or all athletes are equal,, it's simply not true. This error comes about by concentrating on similarities and deliberately forgetting about the differences between things. When it comes down to finding truth the differences matter, arsenic and aspirin both come in little white tablets but there are some very serious consequences if we don't differentiate properly between the two.

I wonder if you realize that your idea of "not having belief in any God/religious system freeing you from the shackles" is actually a religious belief system that you (could easily be) shackled by.
All you have done is replace the religious truth claim that there is a God, with the religious truth claim that there is not a God,, both claims are purporting to be the truth about ultimate reality and both ideas hold natural consequences.
The only 'freedom' I can see in this view might be the perception of lowered personal responsibility levels. Ok, I'm done.. :-)

[Animus27]

I don't know!

[Chrysaetos]

I don't hold with the idea that "all beliefs are equal" for reasons of basic logic.
It would be like saying all cars are equal, or all work careers are equal, or all athletes are equal,, it's simply not true. This error comes about by concentrating on similarities and deliberately forgetting about the differences between things. When it comes down to finding truth the differences matter, arsenic and aspirin both come in little white tablets but there are some very serious consequences if we don't differentiate properly between the two.Makes sense.
I wonder if you realize that your idea of "not having belief in any God/religious system freeing you from the shackles" is actually a religious belief system that you (could easily be) shackled by.
All you have done is replace the religious truth claim that there is a God, with the religious truth claim that there is not a God,,Atheism is just a label for people who don't believe in deities. It isn't a belief system, it's absence of belief. both claims are purporting to be the truth about ultimate reality and both ideas hold natural consequences. Not quite. Religions claim to have the absolute truth. No atheist or agnostic will claim to know the ultimate truth about reality.
It's up to the believers to prove their point. They are the ones who say there is a deity, so they are the ones who have to provide justification.

[Greenslade]

Greenslade, I come across those ideas regularly ( there is no right or wrong,, all beliefs are equally valid,, having no religious system= real freedom) and respectfully, even though in the past I myself have previously held to similar ideas, I have to disagree. I'll explain why.

We all know there is right or wrong otherwise we would not bother to protest anything at all. Example, you are forwarding your views here because you think they are right and other views are not. We have a justice system across every type of culture because all people believe in right or wrong(regardless of the interpretation). Sorting right from wrong is an integral and undeniable part of human behaviour.

I don't hold with the idea that "all beliefs are equal" for reasons of basic logic.
It would be like saying all cars are equal, or all work careers are equal, or all athletes are equal,, it's simply not true. This error comes about by concentrating on similarities and deliberately forgetting about the differences between things. When it comes down to finding truth the differences matter, arsenic and aspirin both come in little white tablets but there are some very serious consequences if we don't differentiate properly between the two.

I wonder if you realize that your idea of "not having belief in any God/religious system freeing you from the shackles" is actually a religious belief system that you (could easily be) shackled by.
All you have done is replace the religious truth claim that there is a God, with the religious truth claim that there is not a God,, both claims are purporting to be the truth about ultimate reality and both ideas hold natural consequences.
The only 'freedom' I can see in this view might be the perception of lowered personal responsibility levels. Ok, I'm done.. :-)

Perhaps that little old lady Loves that tiny, little wreck of hers. It's not as equal as a five-litre with fancy spray job when it comes to the racetrack but she can drive her little one easily and it doesn't guzzle the fuel. It's right for her and that's what counts. But then, consequences work both ways and until they stick a meter on the end of God his existence is a matter of belief.

Anyone could be shackled by any belief system - but I don't have a system. I tell it like it is and I look, without judgement or prejudice, at whatever the Universe cares to throw past my eyes. I don't look at anything form any particular context other than my own - which is all any of us can do unless you choose a belief system to shackle you. As for the perception of lowered personal responsibility levels, how well do you know me?

As Chrystaetos says - "Atheism is just a label for people who don't believe in deities. It isn't a belief system, it's absence of belief." It's easy to label people - Christian, Atheist or whatever - and put them in nice, neat boxes where we can deal with them. I'll say it again, so many people have put their own views on this across, which is fine, it's what a forum is for. Nobody has asked what Atheists believe. If it was me, I'd be curious and it's one of the first things I would do. That's not having shackled beliefs.

[sprinter]

Makes sense.
Atheism is just a label for people who don't believe in deities. It isn't a belief system, it's absence of belief.Not quite. Religions claim to have the absolute truth. No atheist or agnostic will claim to know the ultimate truth about reality.
It's up to the believers to prove their point. They are the ones who say there is a deity, so they are the ones who have to provide justification.

Hi Chysaetos, I don't quite accept that atheism is merely the absence of belief as I have heard many (not all) Atheists affirm their 'positive belief' that there is no God.
I agree that Agnostics aren't claiming to know the ultimate truth about reality, but Atheists make many claims about the nature of reality, every religious counterclaim they make implies a superior knowledge of ultimate truth, but then they too have to have a responsibility to "show us all exactly how they know that"
Thats why I opt out of Atheism because for me it's explanatory power fails to account for so much about the world and the nature of the people in it, eg origins, suffering, meaning, values, etc..

[sprinter]

Perhaps that little old lady Loves that tiny, little wreck of hers. It's not as equal as a five-litre with fancy spray job when it comes to the racetrack but she can drive her little one easily and it doesn't guzzle the fuel. It's right for her and that's what counts. But then, consequences work both ways and until they stick a meter on the end of God his existence is a matter of belief.

Anyone could be shackled by any belief system - but I don't have a system. I tell it like it is and I look, without judgement or prejudice, at whatever the Universe cares to throw past my eyes. I don't look at anything form any particular context other than my own - which is all any of us can do unless you choose a belief system to shackle you. As for the perception of lowered personal responsibility levels, how well do you know me?

As Chrystaetos says - "Atheism is just a label for people who don't believe in deities. It isn't a belief system, it's absence of belief." It's easy to label people - Christian, Atheist or whatever - and put them in nice, neat boxes where we can deal with them. I'll say it again, so many people have put their own views on this across, which is fine, it's what a forum is for. Nobody has asked what Atheists believe. If it was me, I'd be curious and it's one of the first things I would do. That's not having shackled beliefs.

I think we'd all like to think we tell it like it is Greenslade but who among us can confidently say they have all the facts (myself included of course). Looking at what the universe cares to throw past our eyes is a good start but it's also highly subjective. 'Lowered personal responsibility' was not a shot at you, merely an observation of an obvious advantage.
I'm guessing nobody asked about what Atheists believe because a couple of earlier given definitions stated they have no belief, so there seemed to be no point in asking. end transmission........ :-)

[stormdancer]

I think we need to expand our parameters of what we believe LIFE is. I also think that most people who claim to be atheists are not really atheists, I believe that they would open their minds to say " you know what, I don’t know what god is I don't believe he lives on a throne in the clouds or whatever people think but there is something else going on beyond what I understand"...and if that’s what you feel about things you are not an atheist you are an agnostic.. This means that you do not know what god is, you do not know what LIFE is or consciousness is..to me all of the three words are the same....you don't know what it is but you are willing to know there is something going on that you don't understand.. a grander scheme...So if you consider yourself to be an atheist.. which is fine.. I don't care if anyone is an atheist or not this is not a debate on whether their is a god or not....that is not what this is about...But I would like you to think about what you believe.. because if you believe in LIFE...in LIFE.....self awareness etc you are not an atheist.

Storm xx

[Greenslade]

I think we'd all like to think we tell it like it is Greenslade but who among us can confidently say they have all the facts (myself included of course). Looking at what the universe cares to throw past our eyes is a good start but it's also highly subjective. 'Lowered personal responsibility' was not a shot at you, merely an observation of an obvious advantage.
I'm guessing nobody asked about what Atheists believe because a couple of earlier given definitions stated they have no belief, so there seemed to be no point in asking. end transmission........ :-)

None of us have all the facts, Sprinter, although there are many that would stand and say they had - and persuade others to believe that. As an Atheist I'm quite happy to discuss any and all beliefs with those that would do the same, but then again I'm just me and curious to the point of being nosey :-) But then, sometimes it's easy to put everything into a nice, neat little box and deal with it accordingly. There should be every point Sprinter, and if people don't bother asking what does that say about them? That only perpetuates the existing differences - the ones people make. Give definitions then move on because there is no point in asking? Sorry, but that doesn't sound too Enlightened to me.

Sorry Storm, but I don't believe that believing in Life means belief in God.

[Summerkat]

I am somewhat of an agnostic. I believe there is a Divine Being but that it can't be proven (not scientifically, can't be measured but can be spoken of anecdotally) and that none of the religions have it right. I think it is bigger, vaster, grander than we can ever imagine. And that we don't really know a thing about it. Agnostics can hold that there is a God and hold that the God is largely unproven and unknowable. I think religions shoot arrows in the dark. Which is not to say that I feel they have no value. They help but I don't really think that God is something our little human brains can really define and that what most religions say about God is not true.

[Greenslade]

What if religion is not what it's cracked up to be? What if there's a very different answer to all of this?

Religion started with the Sumerians, at least in that area of the world. They talk of the Annunaki, who are depicted as spacemen who came in flying ships. Put yourself in Sumerian shoes at that time, you come out of your mud hut to see a spaceship flying through the clouds and landing on your front lawn. Wouldn't you consider them gods? There is also what's called Alternative Genesis that puts a different translation on the Bible that essentially says the earth was terraformed by aliens. In many cultures according to a book called Fingerprint of the Gods there are influences that are extraterrestrial in may cultures, usually called 'Golden Ones' or 'Shining Ones'. These Shining Ones are known by different names according to the culture they appear in but their roles are very similar, even to cultures who had - according to history - never even met.

[Dude111]

I think we need to expand our parameters of what we believe LIFE is. I also think that most people who claim to be atheists are not really atheists, I believe that they would open their minds to say " you know what, I don’t know what god is I don't believe he lives on a throne in the clouds or whatever people think but there is something else going on beyond what I understand"...and if that’s what you feel about things you are not an atheist you are an agnostic...Wow what an excellent reply on such a strong thread!!

I know several Athiests/Agnostics and they are some of the nicest people..... Probably cause they arent thinking/living the way a religion says they should live??

[Redchic12]

Yep. I totally agree with you Dude.

[FallingLeaves]

There is also what's called Alternative Genesis that puts a different translation on the Bible that essentially says the earth was terraformed by aliens.

yeah one of the stories I heard is that 'eden' is on another planet entirely. This place being part of what was created when we were kicked out and had to move on. So no matter where we go on this planet, and say 'this is eden', we'll never get it right? We'll always be unsettled, always looking for something more?

[Molearner]

. We'll always be unsettled, always looking for something more?

We will always be unsettled as long as we have an ego……

[sky]

We will always be unsettled as long as we have an ego…… As long as it's 'unhealthy'....:smile: Love your individuality/uniqueness, nurture it and find balance....

[Dude111]

Yes indeed....no one should care what others think..........

[Rah nam]

We will always be unsettled as long as we have an ego…… And as long as you are within this reality, you have an ego.

[HITESH SHAH]

What does it mean to be Agnostic ?

We are not Religious or Agnostic maybe we just are US. Dictionary meaning of Agnostic is one without definite belief in God . In that sense there are more skeptic and doubters and not necessarily theist or atheist . With this definition even when a person apparently may be professing to be religious or a believer , he/she may not really be so . So a substantial segment of human population falls in this category . Depending on circumstances , conviction levels and orientation , agnostic oscillates from believer to non-believer. While being agnostic for some time some day may be ok , remaining so lifetime forever may lead to wasting power of conviction /belief in one's life.

Pantheist with firm conviction in universal/cosmic power , one is believer and not agnostic .