I am a bit bewildered why under the religion section one sees atheist and agnostic thread together on the same thread.


As far as I understand :

Atheist is for those who believe there is absolutely no god

Agnostic is for those who are uncertain that there is a higher identity, power, or spiritual form in existence.


Why are they grouped together? Shouldn't they be separated threads?

General Religion is for anyone who wants to speak about religious issues. This might very well include atheists, because religious issues affect everyone (kind of like politics). Especially considering religions that are being highly proselytized as the "only true word of God". From a social perceptive that's encroachment on society in general.

Also, a non-believer in a religious doctrine should be free to express why they do not believe in that doctrine. Especially if that particular doctrine is claiming to speak for the creator of all humanity that automatically gives all humans the right to comment on it, whether they believe in it or not.

After all, if a doctrine claims to be making statements about you and your creator, you should have a right to question their authority to speak on your behalf, as well as on the behalf of any creator that may or may not even exist.

So in the case of religions that claim to speak on behalf of the creator of all humans, then all humans should be permitted to comment on the merit of those religions. It's intrinsic in the accusations that they are making.

However, having said that, there is a separate thread for atheists, as well as several other religions. I don't know if there is a thread for "agnostic" or not.

Thank you for the clarification.

I have joined as a agnostic and the thread available for me is "Agnostic/Atheist".

If I would have joined as a Buddhist then there is a "Buddhist" thread.

The general religion is for everyone. I understand that now. :)

I am just wondering why the agnostic thread is with the atheist together. I guess you would have to join as an agnostic to see what I am talking about.

Anyway it isn't a big issue...I just wondered why the owners or inventors of this site chose to loop both atheist and agnostics together.

I agree, the atheist forum isn't very exciting.

You can actually visit other forums that you didn't join as. You can even post to them as long as you don't start a lot of trouble.

The Buddhist/Taoist forum is here:

http://mingle2.com/forum/forum/191

I'm sure no one would mind if you posted there. Just save the link to your favorites. But there isn't much activity there. Most Buddhists are probably either meditating or off enjoying life rather than posting to internet forums.

There's also the "Other Religions Forums" that typically been used for Wicca and Pagan threads here:

http://mingle2.com/forum/forum/194

It has slightly more activity. It was going strong at one time but has kind of died down.

There are others too. There's an actual "Christian" forums too. I never go there myself, but I will explain on these general religion forums why I'm not interested in the Abrahamic Religions. The Christians come here all the time to proselytize Christianity anyway.

I consider myself to be a,... ready for this?

Eclectic Eastern Mystical Faery-following Wiccan Shaman.

At least intuitively and "spirituality".

Intellectually I consider myself to be an agnostic like you.

However, I like to qualify that term. I use it to mean, "Without absolute knowledge" and of course I'm speaking in terms of spirit here.

So in other words, intellectually I confess that I cannot 'know' the true nature of reality. My spiritual intuitions are precisely that. Intuitive. I feel called to philosophies associated with some of the labels I've listed above.

Do I firmly "believe" in any of them? Intuitively yes. Intellectually no. And I personally have no problem with that.

That's just me being honest with myself and with any spiritual entities that may or may not exist.

The only thing I believe for sure is that I AM.

And that if I don't pay my taxes I'll get in trouble with the law.

Wow that is a big title! I never heard of a Eclectic Eastern Mystical Faery following Wiccan! Hey if that works for you then that is all that counts! :)

I usually get along with atheists very well but I have a problem that they absolutely know that there is no god or higher being of somekind. I mean if that works for them that is great, but I grow skeptical of that absolute conclusion because that would mean that we shouldn't even provide effort in finding out. It just cuts off the whole idea of wondering what is beyond. It is almost like saying there is no alien life or other living planets in other universes. How can one be so sure just because we don't see them or have the technology to find out yet? These absolute answers may sound logical but they just don't seem to be the definite answer in my book.

Buddhism as a philosophy is beautiful and logical in my world, yet there is the problem with reincarnation that keeps me busy. How can a buddhist know that if you live a bad life in sense of doing bad things with a conscience that you will reincarnate into a life that provides hardships as oppose to one that tried to live a good life. In other words if I follow the eightfold path then I should be pretty safe right? My problem is how do they know one reincarnates in the first place. I see no evidence but people claiming it is so. For me that isn't enough so would that make me a Agnostic Buddhist? lol

Don't worry I will add maybe some more titles to that soon. Agnostic Buddhist Idealist...there two more and I will catch up. ha ha

So yes in my opinion ((if)) every human truly is honest with themselves about how they don't know how it all started and why then I believe they are giving a good answer. The logical answer is to say " I don't know", yet for many that is not good enough and rather enjoy a idea in which they believe as a fact when reading some scripture from ancient text.

To me that isn't very honest to blindly believe in written text as facts only, yet for some that is enough to live by.

So in my opinion being "agnostic" sounds like the only logical conclusion. The problem with mentioning you are agnostic to anyone leads many to believe and even categorize you as someone who doesn't know anything about religion at all. One then gets throat fed automatically pages of bible, koran, or even torah writings.

I remember reading a survey on testing the various religious believers as of atheists and agnostics on basic questions about how certain religions started, their beliefs, and history thereafter. It was concluded for this survey of over 3000 members that the agnostics ended up with higher average on knowledge about religions then those that practice it on a daily bases. Why is that? One astonishing discovery is that 67% of those of the Christian faith that live in America didn't even know who Martin Luther was and what he did at the time he was alive.

Anyway it would have been nice to know in my lifetime if there is such thing as a god, goddess, or somekind of energy. It would have been nice to have known if there is such thing as a soul and provide evidence for everyone on this planet to alleviate anymore doubts or skepticsm. It would have been nice to have had absolute answers to a myriad of questions we pose, but perhaps it is better we don't know. Perhaps the information is too much for us to handle sanely and if so then I am good with not knowing them although my curiosity gets the best out of me. I am sure many feel the same way or they wouldn't be participating in these religious threads. The main thing is one can find a way to enjoy life regardless.

Well I suppose this is too deep of me to mention and I probably posted it in the wrong thread or something, but thank you for letting me elaborate my feelings on the matter even if it may sound ridiculous to you. I just don't think I will find common ground with anyone when I chat about it and understand why most people keep their affiliations or ideas private.

So I guess I am a Agnostic Buddhist Skeptical Plato type Idealist that practices primarily as a Free Thinker (yes freethinkers did exist at one time and was a movement also). If anything I am one messed up dude right! ha ha

I feel the very same way. I have absolutely no problem with someone who is an atheist and isn't interested in spiritual ideas. That's perfectly fine with me and I respect their views on that 100%.

But if they start getting obnoxious about it to the point where they act like it's stupid to even consider the possibility and they demand that there "can be no such thing as spirit", then they can be as annoying as a religious zealot.



I agree on the Buddhism thing too. It's an interesting philosophy and it makes sense on a lot of levels. I think they overboard on the reincarnation thing. In a way that's kind of hypocritical of their basic philosophy. I mean, their basic philosophy is "Mysticism" meaning precisely that! Life is a mystery and we can't truly know much about it. However they conclude that since we are intelligent beings we must be the essence of the universe perceiving itself.

Fine. That part make a lot of sense.

But then to go on and talk about reincarnation implies that they know the unknowable. Which is what they just said can't be known.

I understand it a little bit though. I mean, if they are looking at it as "we are this universe" then the idea of reincarnation follows automatically from that. In other words, we just transform. If the true essence of our consciousness *is* this universe, then we are just this universe experience itself from many different vantage points. It makes sense in that way.

By the way, I watched a college course on history of Buddhism and it's quite interesting. There are many forms of Buddhism. Far more than I was initially aware of. Siddhartha Gautama (the most famous Buddha) was neither the first first Buddha, nor did he "invent" Buddhism. He simply popularized it. But the idea was a much older idea.

After his popularization of these spiritual philosophy it grew into many various diverging sects. And eventually Mahayana Buddhism was born. Mahayana Buddhism too the essence of all these divergent sects and bought them together into one "Great Buddhism". And it became known as "The Great Vehicle" which is what the term "Mahayana" means. This form of Buddhism was at it's peak about the time that Jesus lived, and is very much in line with the types of moral values that Jesus himself taught. It's my personal believe that a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva actually gave rise to the "Jesus Stories".

In any case, that still a very early part of the history of Buddhism. Buddhism continued on to have many forms, with Zen Buddhism being one of the more modern forms. In fact, Zen Buddhism is almost a glorified form of atheism. It's far more of a "philosophy" than a "spirituality". Whereas Mahayana Buddhism was still deeply entrenched in a more spiritual view of life.

By the way, the course I'm referring to can be found at The Teachings Company, if you're interested in the history of Buddhism. It's an interesting course.

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=687

By the way, this course goes on sale for $69 periodically about twice a year.

Although If you're interesting in watching it check with a library, they might even be able to get it for you through inter-library loan. It's well worth the watch if you're interested in Buddhism.

I'm not sure but I think Netflex also rents some of these courses out.




I absolutely agree. In fact, if there truly is a God would that God want people to pretend to believe in it when they truly don't?

Surely not I hope!

Any God that might exist would surely be far more pleased by a person who is honest enough to tell the truth, and the truth is that they just don't know.

In fact, there's a beautiful Buddhist story about this I just have to share with you. I LOVE this story!

~~~~~

A King's only son died. And there was no one to take over his kingdom. So he sent out to have the children of the kingdom sent in and he gave them each a pot filled with soil. He told them that he had planted a seed of a fig tree in every pot, and he wants all of these children to grow the plants and when they return at the end of the growing season he will choose who is to be king based on their plant.

All of the children took their pots home. And this one child who loved the king very much wanted to impress the king. So he watered his pot every day. But nothing grew. No matter what he did the pot just remained empty without so much as a tiny shoot or leaf.

At the end of the growing season he took the empty pot back to the castle and when he got there he saw all the children with huge fig trees in their pots, so big the children could hardly carry them.

He got in line to see the king with his empty pot and all the other children laughed at him and mocked him. When he finally got to the king he hung his head low in shame for he was the only child there with no fig tree. But as he stared at the floor he heard the King's voice pronounce, "This is your your new King". And he took the child by his hand and led him up to the throne.

Everyone was shocked and some people were arguing that the child didn't even have a tree at all, and that their son's fig tree was far larger. The king turned to the crowd and said, "Every pot I handed out was sterile and without seed. This is the only child who was honest enough to bring back what I had given him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I LOVE that story!

Agnosticism is what we have been given. To return anything else would be a lie.



Absolutely. And it's far better to tell the truth. If agnosticism is the truth then why lie?

I'm not going to lie to any Gods. I don't know whether they exist or not and that's the truth.



I confess that I like to imagine that there is. And I see no harm in that. It's a romantic notion for me, and I enjoy entertaining the possibility. If there is no spiritual essence to life, then I'll never know it anyway.

Also, if there is a spiritual essence to life, either the Eastern Mystics are right "Tat t'vam asi", (You are That), or there does indeed exist some sort of separate "Godhead".

But like the story of the King and the honest little boy. Surely no truly benevolent God would condemn someone for being honest. And clearly agnosticism is the only true honesty. Everything else is faith-based mumbo jumbo.



Well, it's been very refreshing to speak with you sir.



Wow! You've beat my label already!

Thank you for the enlightening reply. I never expected that. I actually learned something today and can go to bed with maybe 1 IQ more then what I started out with this morning! ha ha

I will certainly check into that website. I have a feeling they offer more courses of interest then just Buddhism and the price isn't that expensive either.

Thank you sir for a great chat!

Thank you gentlemen - I thoroughly enjoyed reading your exchange. As a firm believer in God, I appreciate your honesty and firm grasp of spiritual knowledge. A refreshing change - individuals who express their views logically, openly, and with complete acceptance of one another.

Kudos!

not quite right on your definition of an agnostic. we agnostics don't think that the human mind is capable of ever knowing about such things as gods, the afterlife or other supernatural phenomena so we don't give a thought to the certainty or uncertainty, it's a question that cannot be answered.

what you described is more in line with what i call a "weak atheist" who is someone who has seen no evidence of god so he can't be certain that god exists. i do agree that agnostics and atheists are quite different. in fact i think there are more similarities shared by strong atheists and the religious than are shared by stong atheists and agnostics. as you said, an strong atheist BELIEVES there is no got just as the faithful BELIEVES that there is a god. as an agnostic i see that neither can ever prove the other wrong and himself right. agnostics BELIEVE nothing. question everything.

A friendly chat on the "General Religion"/God sucks forum!?

This has got to be a sign of the apocalypse.

I would disagree with your definition of "agnostic".

The root meaning of the word "gnostic" is "knowledge". The prefix "a" means, "without".

So the word "agnostic" means, "without knowledge".

Yet, you're claiming to have absolutely knowledge.

You say, "we agnostics don't think that the human mind is capable of ever knowing about such things as gods, the afterlife or other supernatural phenomena so we don't give a thought to the certainty or uncertainty, it's a question that cannot be answered."

You're claiming to have that absolute knowledge.

I don't believe that. What makes you believe that the human isn't capable of ever knowing about such things? Sounds like a faith-based speculation to me.

To me the term agnostic simply means that in my current state of affairs I am without absolute knowledge of the true nature of reality. It would be rather presumptuous of me to conclude that my knowledge in this matter is complete.

I personally have reasons to believe otherwise. For one thing, I recognize that my understanding and knowledge of the world is not even complete in terms of what is already known. As an individual I do not claim to fully understand all of human knowledge. That would be nice, but unfortunately it's not the case.

Secondly, human knowledge itself is far from complete. We know for a fact that science is incomplete. Do you see any scientist packing up all their belongings and closing down their laboratories to go home because they have finished their work?

No you don't. Science has more unanswered questions that there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the world.

So why should we assume that there is some limitation to what we can know as you suggest?

I think you're taking agnosticism to a level that is simply unwarranted. You can't say with any degree of certainty what we might be able to discover or learn or even realize at any moment. Agnosticism simply means that you don't currently know.

You may personally be convinced that this status isn't likely to change anytime soon, but that's your faith-based assumption.

The bottom line is that you must necessarily even be agnostic about that. You can't know.

You're claiming to be without knowledge, yet you're claiming to possess the knowledge that you can never know, that sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.

Also what do you base this on? Our standard concept of "logic"?

Have you ever thought that this very ideology we call "logic" may not be the epitome of what the human mind is capable of? Perhaps there are other means of knowing things that exist beyond our standardized formal approach to knowledge?

I'd also like to comment on the following statement as well:



But you just said that agnostics BELIEVE that they can never know about things such as God, etc. And you even suggest that they don't even bother to question such things because if their BELIEF:

lookie here:



See? Apparently you BELIEVE that you cannot know things about spiritual phenomena so you don't give a thought to it. Well if you don't give a thought to it, then you're not "questioning everything" anymore. You've already decided that you can make some absolute conclusions, and now you BELIEVE that you possess absolutely knowledge in that sense.

~~~~~

I personally shy away from the term "belief". I reluctantly use the term on occasions, but I much prefer to think in terms of "plausibilities".

And when I ask if something is "plausible" what I'm really asking is, "Can I prove that it's implausible?"

When it comes to a spiritual essence of life, I cannot prove that it is implausible, therefore to the best of my knowledge there exists a chance that it most certainly can be plausible. Thus I must leave it open to the realm of possibility.

So usually when I say that I "believe" in something, what I actually mean is that I believe that it may very well be possible and I have not yet found a reason to rule it out absolutely.

So this is how I view my "agnosticism".

~~~~

By the way, I am not agnostic about everything. There are some things that I believe I can know.

For example, I'm not agnostic about my firm belief that the Bible cannot be the absolute verbatim word of any all-wise, all-powerful, all-benevolent God.

Why? Because after having studied those stories I have come to the very firm conclusion that they are so riddled with contradiction, absurdities, and totally unwise actions performed by their "God" that they simply can't be true. The stories simply contradict the character that the God is supposed to have, IMHO.

So I have absolute proof, and knowledge that the Biblical stories of a God cannot be true (as far as I'm concerned).

So there do exist things that I can have absolute knowledge about, IMHO.

~~~~~~

Having said that, for those who might be interested I'd like to offer the following:

Could the Bible be a story about the will, intent, and actions of a God, but it has become extremely contaminated by the misguided opinions of the mortal men who recorded it?

Yes, that is possible, IMHO.

However, once that is accepted then the story can no longer be "trusted" to be the "verbatim word" of any God, but rather it must be viewed as an extremely contaminated picture of spirituality that may contain far more errors and superstitions than truth. So at that point, it isn't worth much as a religious doctrine, IMHO.

~~~~~~~

Sorry jr, I went off on a tangent there at the end, but I'm like that.

I just wanted to point out that *some* things can be known.

My impressions:

When someone strongly makes a point to say that they are "atheist" my first impression (and expectation) is that they think they KNOW that God does not exist and are prepared to be arrogant and condescending about it and they may argue about it and call people "ignorant."

When someone says they are agnostic it simply means "I don't know."

dictionary definition:

ag·nos·tic   /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled
[ag-nos-tik] Show IPA

–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

your definition, my definition, probably ten different dictionaries, ten different definitions. i use the word agnostic in religious discussions because most definitions relate the word to the unknown and UNKNOWABLE to make clear MY thinking on religious topics. i'd be tickled pink not to name myself anything or put myself in any pigeon hole and simply say that i think that gods, the afterlife and other supernatural phenomena are unknown and unknowable and then let you folks pigeon hole or type me so let's just do that, k? define me as you please, i'll do the same.

sorry but for me to read and respond to the rest of your reply would waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay exceed the time or effor i'm willing to spend reading and responding to one post. i'm retired, here for my entertainment and amusement only and that much work is neither. i gave my thoughts on theists, atheists and agnostics. now you have those thoughts as well as how i describe my position on religion.

i agree, jeanie, that many atheists hold their BELEIF to be the end all to any religious discussion but of course the faithful are often guilty of that as well. but a self described "weak atheist" is someone who says "i don't know" because of lack of evidence. i'm not that because i don't think any evidence can ever be found to even study much less prove the existence of god. so i see god as not only "i don't know" but also "i cannot know."

in my previous post i challenged the op's definition of agnostic, gave how i define agnostic then abracadabra challenged my definition and tossed in his definition and now you offer yours. religious discussions are difficult enough without having to take every word and each of us tell what the word means to them. perhaps a "glossary of terms" at the beginning of every forum might help, i suppose, but i never read such things anyway and my guess would be that we'd all argue meaning there too. so here's a new word that only i know what it means and i offer it here so everybody else who cares will know what i know the word means. i only know what it means because i experienced it. you folks didn't experience it but you did read that i told you in this very post of mine so you know what i told you i know based on my experience. so here it is. the word, "jrbogie" means one person who thinks, not "believes", that anything that i haven't experienced myself is unknown AND unknowable.

One could also say "it is difficult to say" to many of the great questions!

I guess there are different degrees of agnostics and atheism. I never seen myself as a weak atheist, but if there is such a term I guess it would be the first time that I would be categorized as such. I don't mind that term either.

In the end what I am saying is that I wouldn't know if there is a god or not. I know many (probably most) truly believe in a god or somekind of religious figure. I am really happy for them for I know they feel good about it and I support their efforts as long as they don't force their beliefs onto others in the process.

Logically or illogically whatever the reasons we seek for ultimate answers I think what is important is we find a way to find a middle ground to it all so we can live in harmony together. If we can do that then the few years we live on this planet will be more desirable.

Now how can we do this most effectively that we as a people can live more peaceful amongst each other. The current state of affairs around the world really makes one think if there will ever be a time to where all humans can somehow find peace in their hearts and minds even if we don't know all the answers we contemplate on.

I would love to hear from everyone who posted in here about how you feel about it. I realize we have some highly intellectual people in here with a great amount of wisdom off life in here. Go ahead and give it a go on how you feel, what you know, and how you tackle this impending problem as we know it. Thank you for the opportunity to chat here! Very nice!

The gentleman Abracadabra asks this question:


Could the Bible be a story about the will, intent, and actions of a God, but it has become extremely contaminated by the misguided opinions of the mortal men who recorded it?


I have contemplated for many years about how everything could have started. Christianity seems logical for over 2 billion people as of the Koran (Quran) for another 2 billion people. (Give or take on belief systems estimates even though some just check a religion when asked without truly worshipping or believing in it) and the many other religions are logical for each individual. Some folks are raised traditionally these belief systems and others found them later on in life.

For those that find it impossible to believe in a religion because of its imperfections, confusions, contradictions one should actually first ask if God is perfect in the first place.

What are the possibilities that perhaps God is not perfect when he or she created life as of the universe and its many trillions of galaxies in the same manner?

If this is the case then perhaps it is logical to think that life as we know it is not perfect because the one or ones (For those that believe in many gods) weren't perfect leading to such stories we read in these ancient texts. If this is true then yes perhaps any ancient text could be true in what they write, yet how odd that we as a human can conjure up a perfect Utopia. Isn't it odd? Or is it just me? But again that is why people believe in a heaven or higher levels of enjoyment...perhaps Nirvana?

One must also take in account that in those days the very same questions were asked but with less knowledge of what we know today. Ancient philosophers, scribes, teachers, and religious leaders of all kinds of belief systems believed at one time that the planet was flat and one could fall off it landing in a hell. Does any of this have to be accounted for? I believe it does.

Also we must also think about the question the gentleman Abracadabra asks if perhaps these ancient texts are misinterpreted. It is true that they were not originally written in English and therefore the translations could have been misinterpreted at the time. One can also think that we as a human species have the ability to be very imaginative and could have added more exciting stories to the texts to make it interesting in the first place. I mean look how many people read them still today although a small percentage of the population of this planet believe they belong in the mythology vault. Thomas Jefferson even tried to rewrite the bible so the supernatural events would be deleted out of the text to make it sound more realistic. I am not sure how far he got this done, but it must have been a lifetime endeavor if you ask me.

Nevertheless, whatever reasons we believe in we should perhaps ask first if the one (God) , (Goddess), many Gods or supernatural naturalistic energies as some believe in is perfect in the first place. If not, then we have alot to research and ask to find out more of how everything started in the first place.

I personally can only say "I don't know"...but I don't erase the possibility that perhaps we will find out more in the future. Of course for some the answers are right there when they read the bible, koran, torah, verdi, or any other ancient text, yet for others just because they are ancient old it is not enough evidence to lean on. This is why there are so many contradictions in the first place.

With the help of collaborated minds we could perhaps find more answers as time passes by. If the human population will agree together one day ...well that is another question perhaps for another time. :)

any care to give the last two posts a thought? Thank you:)

sure i'll take the first one. i don't think middle ground is possible with different religions. think of how the word is used. "religious in my thinking", "i religiously attend raider home games", i religiously floss my teeth". the word "religious" means a very firm belief to most folks that cannot give way to other beliefs whether the religion be christianity, the nation of islam or the raider nation. the world would be a safer place without any religion. perhaps we should start someplace other than the church or mosque. maybe start at the oakland coluseum ya think?

Start at front door...

Live God as you take each step.

If enough people do this...

Every day will be god filled.