@spazmaster666: I did not claim it was written by Romans. I claimed it was written by the Eastern Roman Empire. Which, admittedly, is not entirely correct, it is more accurate to say it was compiled and edited by the Eastern Roman Empire. (And of course the version to which English speakers refer today was re-edited by the commission of King James I.
But you made a far more outrageous claim, that the belief in the resurrection is justified historically. There is no documentary evidence of that, only The Bible. The Bible cannot contain proof of the resurrection for the same reason Newton's Principia Mathematica does not contain proof of gravity. They're just words on pages. Principia Mathematica on the other hand does contain documentation for how Newton arrived at the conclusion known as the law of gravity, and his methods are laid out in such exhaustive detail that they can be replicated. Whereas the new Testament tells us that on the third day, Jesus is risen. That is a fable, that is not evidence of anything.
@adam_grif: Great post, other Adam. Though if we're going to be talking about the impossibility of agnosticism, we also need to talk about the impossibility of God itself. God by definition is an impossibility. One can harbour unfounded beliefs about things that happen, have happened, or will happen within the universe, but to posit a belief of something outside of the universe (i.e., supernatural) has any semblance of validity is blasphemous in a religious sense and intellectually dishonest in from the standpoint of sentential logic.
As I said earlier:
Agnosticism is indeed a contradiction, spazmaster666 is right about that. Gnosis is knowledge. Sure, those who claim agnosticism are right that no one can honestly claim to have knowledge of something supernatural (like a God, for example) but the logical conclusion of that clause is not "I have no knowledge" -- which is logically what you are saying when you say "I am agnostic" -- the logical conclusion of that clause is actually "There is no God".
I used to be an athiest, and while I still dont really believe in the whole Jesus, Adam and Eve stuff, I think that there probably is something out there.
It's between Agnostic and Atheism. I'll go with E, because I don't believe in a god. I'm pretty much in the middle of the two, though. I think that there is a good chance there isn't a "god" out there. Perhaps it's recently being heckled for not believing in a god that has made me choose E so suddenly.
Whatever man, although the two are different, when it comes down to the ultimate question, you either don't think there is a god or you just don't know.
See, what I don't get is why Confucianism is even on there. Confucianism is a secular philosophy wholly separate from religion.There can be Jewish Confucians, Muslim Confucians, Atheist Confucians, etc. But I don't think anyone would put Confucianism before any of those.
" @spazmaster666: I did not claim it was written by Romans. I claimed it was written by the Eastern Roman Empire. Which, admittedly, is not entirely correct, it is more accurate to say it was compiled and edited by the Eastern Roman Empire. (And of course the version to which English speakers refer today was re-edited by the commission of King James I.
But you made a far more outrageous claim, that the belief in the resurrection is justified historically. There is no documentary evidence of that, only The Bible. The Bible cannot contain proof of the resurrection for the same reason Newton's Principia Mathematica does not contain proof of gravity. They're just words on pages. Principia Mathematica on the other hand does contain documentation for how Newton arrived at the conclusion known as the law of gravity, and his methods are laid out in such exhaustive detail that they can be replicated. Whereas the new Testament tells us that on the third day, Jesus is risen. That is a fable, that is not evidence of anything.
You claimed that the New Testament was not written by Jews, which of course is incorrect as many, if not all of the original writers were in fact Jews (as I've said before, the first Christians were Jews). You are correct in saying that the version of the New Testament as it exists today was decided upon by early Christians in the third and fourth century. (Though you make it sound as if they actually modified the text which is not the case, they simply got rid of questionable documents that had little to no connection to the original apostles)
Also there is actually plenty of evidence that points to Christ's resurrection as an actual historical event. Of course if you're going down this road then we can say that nothing in history is truly "provable" as history as we know it is made up of the various historical texts from each time period, of which we have determined to be reliable. I never said that the Bible "proves" the resurrection (how do you "prove" history?), merely that the New Testament is as reliable as it gets when it comes to events that occurred in first century Palestine. Historians have put far more faith in much older texts with much lower reliability than the New Testament. Yet just because some aspects of the New Testament may contain "supernatural" events, it is discounted as being fictional. Scholastic dishonesty at its best.
If you want to claim that the New Testament is not a reliable historical document then fine. It's just that the majority of scholars in the field would disagree with you.
Claiming you have no knowledge is not necessarily the implication of being an "agnostic". Agnostic does indeed literally translate to "not-knowledge" or similar things, but it is generally referring to degrees of certainty and things like that. Everybody here "has knowledge of God" in the sense that they have declarative knowledge about a concept that as the name "God". What nobody here has, however, is certain knowledge of a specific aspect of this concept, which is "does it exist?"
Since nobody here has certain knowledge of just about anything (an inevitable consequence of philosophical skepticism), the term agnostic would be a meaningless descriptor unless it is further narrowed. Thusly, we say one is agnostic if they believe that they do not have knowledge of God's existence, believe that nobody has or that nobody can. One who believes that they themselves are God thusly believes they have "certain knowledge of God's existence", and would not be agnostic. One who has claimed to directly experience miracles is in the same boat with them.
By contrast, "agnostics" consists of people who do not claim to have certain knowledge one way or the other, which turns out to be most people. "Gnostic" Atheists (I hesitate to use "gnostic" as the inverse of "agnostic" because there is a religion that has adopted the name gnosticism, "gnostic" thus has dual meanings in this regard) exist, but not in numbers as great as "gnostic" theists.
Agnostic Atheism may be seen as the "default position" for the reasonable person. It is inoffensive, makes no claims (and thus has nothing to substantiate, does not suffer from burden of proof) and is open to anything as long as you back up your claims with evidence and good reasoning.
Well i do believe in a god, a god who forgives all and loves all.. I'm not entirely sure whether i see him as an old guy in the sky or something else, but he's more of a force whose presence can be felt if you're looking for him.. I believe that meditation is a way of communicating with him and it opens all doors to seeing all his powers and all (cuz my father meditates and man.. he can see stuff) Mostly i feel his power in nature and the universe, and i think that a human needs to only do a few things in his/her life : -Always remain happy, avoid anger, depression sadness etc. , - see life as an awesome gift, -don't harm other living beings, -TRY to love all, -Never take tension, -always believe in yourself ( you are awesome and can do ANYTHING), - don't get involved with alcohol etc., -have faith in a higher power(will keep u stabilized in tough times) , -meditate(if you really want some answers and wanna see some magic in life.. will also help in following the other mentioned steps), -and just do what you love and enjoy life under all circumstances. These are the basic things i follow, and there's a lot more that i don't remember right now, and a lot more i've got to learn.. I kind of chose G , cause some of my things coincide with their beliefs and also cause i find them awesome.. (but they don't believe in a god i think...) Anyway, everyone's beliefs are cool, you just gotta have fun.. Thing is i don't believe in some astrological crap and stuff like future predictions and lucky stones and whatever people use to make money..
" I think both A and E are dumb choices. You can't know if there is a god or if there is not a god. That's why I go with C. But by the modern definition, I'm an atheist. The definition in this poll is wrong, because not all atheists claim there is no god. They just simply have no reason to believe in one. "
@diz: True enough, but in North America which is where I am most familiar my statement was true and globally it remains true as well. There is no denying that in specific regions agnostic atheism is increasing, but as a whole more people tend to believe in "something."
Our god might have been an alien who scattered living microbes into the oceans many millions of years ago that evolved into what we are today. Then again, his god probably had to make suns and planets across infinite space. So I'd say the creation of everything was as a result of one crafty individual.
There is no strong evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a god, so they way I see it: we humans just don't fucking know. So it isn't my place to judge.
" @diz: True enough, but in North America which is where I am most familiar my statement was true and globally it remains true as well. There is no denying that in specific regions agnostic atheism is increasing, but as a whole more people tend to believe in "something." "
Your introspective nationalist view is quite common. What's the percentage of Americans that don't own a passport?
Actually, athiesm is on the rise globally, including the States. You may also consider Buddhism an atheist belief, since there is no central deity.
Christianity is pretty fractured, with many diverse groups (JW, Catholic, Mormon, Gnostic, Calvanist, etc) calling themselves Christian, while accusing the others of not being. In terms of Global beliefs, there are nearly as many Muslims (21%) as there are Christians (33%) The non-religious and Buddhists combined would make an up 22%. I think that means there are more people that disagree with the idea of Christianity than agree with it.
Also, as an agnostic atheist, I do believe in something - just not religion.
@diz: Yes, but I never singled out Christianity as the predominant faith, I only said that most people believe in some sort of higher power. In fact, I never mentioned Christianity at all. Nor did I ever disparage atheism in any of my replies.
While you certainly make some excellent points, I think perhaps your forgetting the idea that these terms have taken on a life of their own. As much as their social application might be at odds with strict definitions, the fact that they have that social application imbues them with alternative meaning. 'Atheism', 'Agnosticism', and 'Theism' are taken to refer to general viewpoints. 'Theism', quite simply, being anyone with a religious belief, 'Atheism' being anyone with a belief that there is no God, and 'Agnosticism' to refer to those who feel they are unable to make a concrete decision either way. The poll is basically asking: 'What kind of general viewpoint do you most closely associate yourself with?'
I agree with you that, technically, 'Agnostic' is not at odds with either 'Athiest' or 'Theist' - in terms of how they were traditionally defined. However, consistent use of them in the way I referenced above has altered what they mean. The error has become so widespread that it has ceased to be error. The fact that so many people in this thread quite happily associate themselves with Agnosticism, in opposition to both Theism and Atheism, seems to evidence this. It seems that you also feel such a change is underway. Like it or not, language alters and mutates and that's exactly what's happening with these terms.
D: strong agnostic, because I am 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% percent sure there isn't a God, and whilst I still class myself as an atheist, I think it would be foolish to categorically say there isn't a God as a factual claim as no one can make that claim... yet.
" @diz: Yes, but I never singled out Christianity as the predominant faith, I only said that most people believe in some sort of higher power. In fact, I never mentioned Christianity at all. Nor did I ever disparage atheism in any of my replies. "
Sorry - I took an inference that you thought atheists don't believe in anything, since you said "more people tend to believe in something".
I am trying to point out that there really is no dominant global belief system, but many competing ones. Since atheism isn't a faith, but a rational belief system, I find it interesting to note the global decline of faith and rise of rationalism and scientific thinking.
"Don't know" ain't a very good description of an agnostic, even though it's the most likely description you'll hear. I'd rather say it's "Knows you can't know".
For example, I don't believe in god or heaven or hell, but that doesn't make me an atheist. If you're an atheist you know there is no god, just like monotheists know there is a god. Now, as an agnostic, I believe there is no god, but I can't prove it and thus can't know it.
" There's always an enormous amount of atheists on video game forums. A "
My same exact thoughts. But that's okay since in the regular world, most people claim to have a belief in some sort of higher being. "
"But that's okay since..." Wait.. so lots of atheists on a video game forum would be a BAD thing if that weren't the case? Huh? Because religion really matters when it comes to discussing games...?
From my own experiences with friends and family I've noticed many people when asked personally will answer atheist or agnostic, but they'll still go to weddings, celebrate religious holidays, etc. I'm the same. Perhaps that gives the impression that we all believe in some sort of higher being on a surface level, but the fact of the matter is we do those things because they are community or family events, not because they are religious. I have no problem with exchanging gifts with friends and family on Christmas, for example. I'm certainly not going to be thinking of Jesus Christ in any capacity while doing so (except perhaps to say something like "Christ, I really don't like that Away in a Manger song", but I think holidays such as Christmas are great times.
In any event, I went with Strong Agnostic, thinking it to be the closest to Agnostic Atheist the poll offers, but I've got to agree with the people who said "oh em gee! agnostic doesn't really belong here blah blah blah". Some of them were practically foaming at the mouth as they were denouncing the poll... it was sort of scary. Gods above and below, it's a friggin' poll on a video game site. Get over yourselves.
Log in to comment