Post

I Am Agnostic, Not Atheist And Not Confused!

It seems being agnostic is the one and only theological stance that people still widely assume is a fair target. Telling people you are agnostic is often like painting a bull's eye on yourself. Evangelical New Atheists consider religion the root of all evil and insist that either agnostics are with them or against them in their fight. They even spout endless political doublespeak and try to redefine the dictionary to support their cause insulting agnostics everywhere and harassing them online. I've had fundamentalists insist there is no such thing as an agnostic, assume that I must be confused, and try to proselytize me even in my own home. Get a life people! Take your hate filled agenda, your disrespect for anyone not like you, your endless head games, and stick them where the sun doesn't shine because I want nothing to do with you. Frankly, I'm amazed anyone wants anything to do with you.


wuliheron wuliheron 51-55 10 Responses Apr 7, 2012

Your Response

Cancel

I'm also an agnostic... but if you're not an atheist then you're also a theist. And being an agnostic is irrelevant to that.

So are you saying you're an agnostic theist? (If youre... fine. If you're not then yes... you are confused. About what agnosticism means at the very least)

Call me ignorant if you can't use a standard dictionary definition of the term agnostic. Either stop spouting militant atheist propaganda or I'll just delete this post.

I simply stated a basic logical fact. If that's upsetting you I would suggest you figure out why.

Dude, there is NO SINGLE LOGIC proven to apply to everything existence. I have no clue what you call logic, much less a fact, since you can't agree the dictionary! A lot of people are paranoid of dictionaries believing they're some kind of mind control conspiracy, but all they contain are the most popular definitions of words.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with logic... because it actually does apply to everything. Logical formulations are effectively mathematical statements which apply under any conditions. (And the dictionary definition of your choice has no relevance to what I told you in my initial post. If you would like to understand why read your own last sentence that you just typed there)

1 More Response

I like the idea of not caring whether there is a God or not. It is better than having a brlief that causes hypocrsy. As for me, had an experience that brought me a higher level.

I'm sincerely happy for you. I think it's vital for people to learn to laugh about themselves, laugh about religion, and learn how to just be OK with themselves whatever they believe.

I'm agnostic also, to a great extent. I find hardcore atheists to be even more annoying than most believers.

Me too. It's the legacy of militant atheists from the Soviet Union who first promoted doublespeak as a way to bring agnostics into the fold. In the US especially it's turned into a nightmare thanks to our culture already being influenced by professional wrestling style trash talking fundamentalists. It used to be atheists were famous for being intellectuals, but these days they're increasingly low brow trolls. Ironically I prefer British atheists like Pat Condell for his blunt honesty and lack of interest in mincing words to American atheists who've come to represent the worst in Evangelical atheists.

Most American atheists remind me of the people who feel smug about not owning a TV or knowing anything about pop culture, or the people who make a big deal about not knowing anything about hiphop or country, only about obscure bands or classical music, or the people who are ever so proud of not eating meat or wearing leather shoes.

Religion has a nasty side. It also gave us Bach, classical art in all cultures, gospel, and common cultural understandings across national lines. not having a tv means you may read more, but if you don't have any interest in any popular culture, you are essentially a willful cultural illiterate. Most 'classical' music was once pop, and nobody cares about most obscure bands for a reason. Not having to eat meat is a luxury for people in a protein-rich society, and leather goods tend to last a lot longer than do ones made out of fossil fuels.
The truth is, there is a certain type of person who takes up these positions out of a desire to show some kind of moral/ethical superiority, and in that case, it's essentially narcissism. One can not watch tv and still know what's going on. One can choose to not kill animals and not make a big deal about it. One can choose to not believe in God and not call people who do 'morons.' I understand why people believe in God. It gives a sense of fellowship and community that atheists and agnostics tend to lack. It acts as a moral and cultural shorthand. It provides a framework for things as diverse as creating art to raising money to help a bereft neighbor. And yes, it acts as a shaming device - but let's face it. Some people deserve to be shamed for not caring about the poor, the sick, the hungry, the widow, the orphan, the prisoner.
I really wish I had that level of faith in something that exists outside of me and that I could share it with others in such a way that we would all want to join together as one and help one another in a visible way, and help others, too, and to have a straight-up set of guidelines that would help me out when times got rough or confusing. I wish I could believe someone loved me so much that he always watched over me every minute of the day, and took care of me when I wasn't looking, and carried me when I didn't feel strong. But I don't. Nor do I think it's ignorant to believe such things, or to interpret the beauty in the world as a gift from God. It's just another way of looking at things.
I admit that I do believe that there are things I cannot see, even with human-made optics, that may very well exist. It's not like I think stem cells magically came into being, or that atoms didn't exist when people couldn't see them. I believe there may be perfectly rational but odd explanations for certain super and preternatural things. If prions exist, vampires might exist in some form also. Maybe 'saints' are simply what we call people who exemplify the greatest cultural ideals, and we make them real because none of us want to feel alone. Maybe some Buddhists are right in feeling that the supreme being is a construct made up of all of us. I feel more comfortable with ideas like these than with a idea that God doesn't exist at all simply because he refuses to indulge me by appearing in a form I can immediately recognize.

According to some psychologists religion provides "resilience" or the ability to bounce back quickly from adversity. As governments provide a certain standard of living and comprehensive safety net people simply lose interest in religion altogether. The growing majority of the thriving democracies today are overwhelmingly secular as a result. That's the thing I find most objectionable about American atheists and people like Richard Dawkins is that the evidence that religion is supported by economic conditions is overwhelming, and the one thing they avoid discussing like the plague.

As you say. People aren't stupid if they believe in a supreme being. People who fight adversity without a supreme being are, we'll, maybe not stupid, but certainly bereft.

We all want and need to be loved. Atheism is as much a privilege as is giving up meet for ethical reasons. But we're in danger too if we rely too much on outside structures like government to save us, without having inner resilience.

When I am in bad periods, I imagine a loving supreme being who protects and cherishes me. I keep that idea with me, even in the good times. In the bad times I suspect that being is as real as I am. In good times I believe it's a mere construct, but a good one. And no matter what the times are like, I try to live as if there is a supreme being watching over me, guiding me, and even scolding me when I need it. It makes my life more bearable and gives me a connection to something. It's why, even though I don't believe Jesus is my savior, I attend an episcopal church in my neighborhood and have a nodding relationship with the pastor who hears my confession. I use the church to use as a 'hotline' to Saints Mary, Teresa of Avila, and Catherine of Siena. I don't care if some people would find this silly or ignorant. It provides me with comfort, and it grounds me. Do I think people who 'know' god exists and want others to know it too are foolish? In some ways, yes. But I only dislike them for it if they try to convert me. Meanwhile those three saints nestle comfortably in my head with The Buddha, the goddess Athena, Kwan Yin, and incarnations of the Great Mother. And depending on what's going on in my life, they are all divine or just constructs to guide me.

If Dawkins, et al. Talked about economics and religion, or how they have ideas to fill in the charitable gaps that would be left if all the houses of worship close, or what inspiring music they would like to offer in place of hymns, or what great art they will patronize once we put Michaelangelo and other artists in a dustbin, I might be willing to buy what they are selling. But they offer nothing.
I love science. It far outstrips nonsense like ghosts or tarot cards or Kim Kardashian. But science in and of itself can't replace the weigh of several hundred years that I felt when visiting Notre Dame, or the even heavier weight I feel when looking at a carving of the Buddha. The universe is divine and so is the Higgs Boson, but people working in a lab? No. And in my admittedly meaningless opinion, I believe the reason why so many people of European descent are always trying to poach the spiritualities of other ethnic groups is because spiritually many of them have a hole that cannot be filled by a sterile god who has no form and doesn't marry, and whose followers seem to loathe and fear the feminine essence that make the earth and universe fertile. The science that Dawkins worships is a sterile one. He doesn't even have a grasp of the simple idea that spirituality can exist without religion, and that spirituality is at the heart of what makes a culture alive and vibrant. I grew up Catholic and despite the grim work of the Catholic Church's collared minions, the feminine divine principle is still embedded in the culture, and it isn't sterile. It's one of the reasons why the orthodox Chistianities still have such a compelling draw on people's hearts, regardless of who the nominal heads might be.

1 More Response

Kewl Post. I myself consider myself Agnostic and there by been in same situation. Its so stupid. But I encourage people to talk about it to me. you might get a light from a random people. I have seen almost all Atheists verbally hostile. and all religious people are like Im doomed or acting on evil's effect. Lol I laugh and enjoy talking. But slowly Im also trying to find answers myself. Good Luck to u too

i am spiritual

Agnostic means not knowing. It is very honest and is the best till or experiences tell us otherwise.

The problem is that atheists and theists argue opposite sides of the same coin. "There is no god" and "There is a god". But it is not an agnostic coin. This argument has nothing to do with agnosticism. We are not sitting in the middle or "on the fence" neither are we "wishy washy" as I have often been accused of being. I have also read all kinds of crap that tries to categorize beliefs as "Agnostic Atheists" and "Agnostic Theists" along with more crap that defines each of these categories. If you want wishy washy have a look at these categories.
The general argument goes like this:

Theist: A person who believes in the existence of God.
Agnostic: A person who isn't sure whether God exists or not (that is the definition used by the other two groups).
Atheist: A person who doesn't believe in the existence of God.

The disagreement between Theists and Atheists is one of religion and because it is a religious, primarily Christian, argument it is shallow and very narrow. If I am a firm believer in the Homeric Gods and no other am I a Theist? If I don't believe in fairies am I an Afairy? If I am a Buddhist am I a Theist or an Atheist?
An Agnostic's argument has nothing to do with religion. It is an argument based on knowledge or more accurately, the lack of it and our inability to gain that knowledge.
I am an Agnostic. But that doesn’t mean that I am unsure whether or not the creator of the universe was an elderly man with a beard who looks like my grandfather sitting on a cloud.
I am not at all unsure about that. I think that belief is completely ludicrous.
But move the argument away from religion and ask if I believe that some entity/power had a hand in the creation of the universe then the answer is that I haven't got the foggiest idea because I simply don't have the capability to comprehend something that could do that.
Does it bother me that there may be things around that I cannot now, or in all likelihood, ever comprehend? Not at all. I am sure the universe is full of things I will never be able to comprehend.

I will remind this audience the proper definition of the agnostic. <br />
<br />
An agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively, and that in the strict sense agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of rationally justifying the belief that deities do, or do not, exist.

Words don't really have "proper" definitions, but that is a nice summation of the most commonly used definitions. Dictionaries merely list the most commonly used definitions almost always in order of how commonly they are used. Militant atheists frequently promote their own definitions of the terms in what is obviously an attempt at doublespeak, that is, to obfuscate the issues in order to promote their anti-religious agenda.

I actually never experienced this as an agnostic, since in the circles I'm moving trough agnostics and atheists stick together. It's actually the fact that merely 0.5% in my country aren't religious (are agnostic and atheist), but I can imagine that debate being held somewhere else.

It's sad really. Atheists in the US and Britain used to have a reputation for being intellectuals, and now that is being replaced with a reputation for merely being reactionaries. Being reactionary and xenophobic has become the new party line. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Wuli.......I noticed a post you did some time earlier. You seem to be confused about some things. ........<br />
<br />
<br />
Posted by wuliheron Apr 9th, 2012 at 10:01AM<br />
<br />
My father was an atheist who seldom talked about his beliefs because religious people did not tolerate atheism. My mother was raised fundamentalist by her mother who was so caustic she decided to adopt any religion other then fundamentalism. In my experience the problem is mostly religious people being intolerant of anyone who doesn't agree with them and vanishingly small percentage of atheist who fight back. I believe in tolerance myself, but I don't mince words about who is the major cause of all the intolerance today<br />
<br />
<br />
....................On one hand you show great animosity for Atheists, and on the other, want them to fight back against "religious people". It seems you have an identity issue regarding your religious preference. Are you Agnostic or Atheist? Or possibly Theist? Its hard to tell with what you have given so far. It does indeed seem that you are confused.

I am not fighting battles for atheists. Putting the blame squarely on the religious for all the intolerance is just acknowledgement of reality.

I don't see anything that comes across as confusing in both this and the above quoted story. If anything, it is you, Kindasorta, who is confused :P