There is only one true and irrefutable religious position: Agnosticism

[info being]

From Dictionary.com:

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

Nobody has been able to prove without a doubt either the existance or the non-existance of the supernatural. I'm not saying we cannot be spiritual. I'm also not saying there isn't more to life than the observable. But to confuse faith and religion with truth is just silly and indefensible.

This does seem to be a topic in GD these days, and I will not shy away from pointing out the obvious.

When it comes to religion, Agnosticism is the only sane choice.

[slackmaster]

1. I wouldn't be too sure about that

Or anything.

:D

[info being]

3. Right

The only universal truth is that there is no universal truth...and even that may not be true.

- infobeing

[G_j]

9. the answer is "42"

but what was the question?

[johnaries]

84. "What is 7 times 6". n/t

[MrSlayer]

87. What do you get when you multiply six by nine?

That is the question.

[G_j]

92. actually it's from "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

and I believe the question turned out to be from a Dylan song....
"How many roads must a man walk down...?"

I think we could all use a little Douglas Adams right now! :-)

[MrSlayer]

95. No, that was the question Frankie Mouse made up.

The actual question is "what do you get when you multiply six by nine?". Arthur got it by randomly pulling out scrabble tiles.

If you remember, the mice wanted to dice Arthur's brain to get the question but after he escaped they needed to make something up that sounded good for the talk shows in their dimension. What they made up is the "how many roads?" question. I love these books.

[G_j]

97. duh.. that is right

I used to listen to it on the radio, but I get my 'episodes' all mixed up.
So you really did know the question! LOL

Yea, It would be fun to have Doug around to comment on all this serious philosophical stuff.

[Snotcicles]

89. I would agree......... for now..............eom

[kcwayne]

2. You cannot prove Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny do not exist

But do you still believe in them?

[DireStrike]

4. If someone did, I couldn't tell him he was wrong

Not if I wanted to be 100% correct, anyway.

[info being]

8. But you could tell him he can't be so sure

[info being]

5. I'm not 100% sure whether they exist or not...

but I know it is a silly question to ask. That's the position of Agnosticism.

[cestpaspossible]

12. Maybe not, but I'm keeping the presents AND the chocolate bunny.

[Larkspur]

66. I believe in the Easter Chick!!!!

On Easter Sunday, my girlfriend and I were shopping in our local Stop & Shop and my girlfriend found 2 packages of Perdue Game Hens priced at $0.89/lb. They normally go for $2.49/lb.

This had to be the work of Easter Chick rewarding us for feeding the birds all winter long.

My girlfriend quickly scooped up those 2 packages, and there were only 2, and we'll have them for dinner this weekend.

:9 :9 :9 :9

[gollygee]

6. These are two different issues

I just posted this in some other thread.

Atheism and theism mean that either you believe in god or you don't.

Agnosticism and gnositicism mean either you believe it's possible to know or it isn't possible to know.

An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god and thinks it isn't possible to know for sure whether or not there is a god. A gnostic atheist doesn't believe in god and feels absolutely that god doesn't exist.

An agnostic theist believes in God but doesn't think it's possible to know for sure whether God exists. A gnostic thesit believes in God and is positive that God exists.

One is about whether you think there's a god or not, and the other is about whether you think it's possible to know for sure.

[info being]

11. But how can you think there is or isn't...if you can't know for sure?

That's kind of silly.

Personally, I think there probably isn't...or that our creative force and the only truth about life on this planet is that we are all governed by the laws of evolution.

But, first and foremost, I humbly cling to Agnoticism because I recognize that I am human and can be wrong.

[cestpaspossible]

14. I might not be able to know for sure if she had an orgasm

but I still like to think she did.

[gollygee]

15. Some people think they do know or can know

It boggles my mind too, but I've gotten into debates with them right here at GD. "God exists and I KNOW he does because it says in the Bible. I don't believe, I KNOW." I've also talked to people (not here but elsewhere) who feel it's scientifically possible to prove there isn't a god. I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe there's a god, but I don't know and honestly don't really care that much.

[gollygee]

30. I never really answered your question

"But how can you think there is or isn't...if you can't know for sure?"

It just seems less likely that there is a god than that there isn't. But I'm pretty strongly agnostic. Not only do I recognize that there's no way I can ever know, but I don't think it would make any difference in the world or my life if there were a god.

[info being]

35. I'm totally with you

It is really interesting how so few people see the obvious.

[gollygee]

38. I think the problem is

that you see atheism and agnosticism as being in conflict. I'm strongly agnostic, but I'm still an athiest. I don't see any conflict.

[info being]

56. Maybe I'm the first true Agnostic that ever walked the earth

But I doubt it.

[gollygee]

60. or maybe you don't understand the definition of the word

or you have made a new definition?

[info being]

73. I'll stick to the dictionary.com definition I started with

Are you saying that definition should not exist?

[gollygee]

74. Dictionaries just report common usage

they don't make any judgements on whether a word is used properly, they just describe how people are using a word.

The dictionary this year just accepted the phrase "Partial Birth Aboriton." I'd argue that word is meaningless and was made up by political activists to re-define something inappropriately. It doesn't matter to a dictionary. People are using the phrase "Partial Birth Abortion" to mean something and they just report on it.

Did you see my post directly below this?

Edited to add: obviously we're using different definitions - I put the post below with the link to show you the definitions I'm using.

[gollygee]

64. Would you please read this linked article and tell me your thoughts?

if you have time?

thanks

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

[info being]

79. I disagree with this paragraph:

"Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

For all the reasons I've pointed out in every post on this thread. This author tries to trick the reader into skipping over the Agnosticism to get to the good stuff..something like, "so anyway, what do you really think about God."

A true Agnostic wouldn't bite. An agnostic atheist is somewhere in the middle of the two.

[gollygee]

80. thanks for reading it

I think we're using different definitions but that's OK. I'm coming from the point of view of that article. I see where you're coming from now.

[mmonk]

7. actually, agnosticism

is intellectually honest.

[sui generis]

10. has anyone here seen Highlander?

they keep running around saying "there can only be one" and then another one bites the dust. And another one's down, another one's down, another one bites the dust.

:evilgrin:

[Az]

13. Oh shucks. You have no idea what you just started

Ok. Agnosticism addresses what we can know. I can well agree that neither side truly knows whether their position is the right one. Not in the absolute sense of the word know.

But this tells us nothing about what a person believes. So do you actually believe there is a god or gods? I mean specifically do you currently believe there is a god or gods. This is not a question about whether you think they are possible or not. It is a very specific question asking whether you currently believe.

Belief and knowledge are different things. To know god exists or not is an entirely different issue from whether you believe. If you believe there is a god or gods then you are by definition a theist. And due to the prefix 'a' meaning without if you are without a belief in god or gods then you are for the moment an atheist.

Now since agnosticism and theism/atheism address differing issues (knowledge vs belief) it is quite possible for individuals to be both agnostic/gnostic and theist/atheist. In any combination except the exclusionary positions. That is one cannot believe and not believe in gods at the same time. just as one cannot know and not know at the same time.

Suffice to say that it is arguable that everyone is an agnostic. The only group that could be potentially a true gnostic is someone that has directly met and experienced god. But since the possibility of mental delusion enters the picture it becomes just shy of absolute certainty which is the criteria necissary to be gnostic.

[info being]

17. You ask:

"Do I believe..."

My answer: no

I am careful NOT to BELIEVE or practice any form of FAITH. I am a devout Agnostic.

"Do I think it is possible..."

My answer: no. Actually I think it is IMPOSSIBLE to know.

So the real issue, in fact, *is* knowledge vs. belief. That's why Agnosticism is the only true alternative to the cancer of religion.

Indeeed, everyone is agnostic...and the extent to which we accept that fact is the extent to which we live rightly, according to nature. Faith of any form is an insult to our creative force and our nature.

[gollygee]

18. Atheism means a lack of belief in a god

so if you believe in a god, you are a theist.

If you don't hold that belief, you are an atheist. Atheist isn't about actively believing anything, it simply means you don't hold one particular belief. It has nothing to do with what else you might believe.

[info being]

23. I hope that language is useful to you as a label.

I don't see any other purpose for it actually.

[gollygee]

24. You don't see any other purpose for language?

I don't understand your point. How about communication?

[Az]

26. Then discard the labels for the moment

Do you actively believe there are gods in the universe? This is not a question of whether you know there are gods. It is a question of whether you suspect or think there may be gods.

Labels mean nothing if we do not gain knowledge from them. And agnosticism on its own simply does not convey enough information about the thoughts of the person.

[info being]

28. It is so fucking simple what I'm saying:

Do I believe there are gods in the universe?

I BELIEVE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO KNOW.

[Az]

31. Answering the wrong question

I asked what you believe. Not what you know. Completely different issues. You can believe there is a god without having any knowledge that demonstrates that there must be. Conversely you can lack a belief in god without convincing evidence of the position. Belief can even counter the evidence and knowledge you actually have. Belief is emotional. Belief is to some gut instinct. Belief can be irrational.

[info being]

34. Or are you asking the wrong question?

Stop and think for a sec.

[Beetwasher]

39. Oh Boy

Ummm, you need to stop and think for a sec.

One term (agnosticism) deals with knowing. The other (theism) w/ believing. Knowing and believing are different things, that's why there are different words for them.

I believe blue is the best color. Can I KNOW this to be true? See the difference? I'm an agnostic bluetheist. I can't ever know objectively if blue is the best, but I believe it is.

[info being]

41. To answer your questions with more respect:

I believe...in a deep and spiritual place...that it is not my place to ask whether or not there is a God. Wherever I came from, I was equiped with the body, mind, and senses I have. To live morally is to maximize my use of what I have been given.

To ponder the question of god. To label what cannot be labeled. Is arrogant. It is against nature.

I can confidently drop the athiest or gnostic stuff or whatever because my Agnosticism gives me everything I need. No, it gives me more than any other religion because it allows me to live in truth with nature.

[Az]

43. See my post below

It would be better if we focused this discussion to one thread.

[info being]

46. And see mine.

[Az]

20. It is insufficient on its own

It is an adjective. It merely presents the degree of certainty a person has on a particular subject. A person can be an agnostic theist or an agnsotic atheist. A person can be a gnostic theist or a gnostic atheist.

[info being]

25. You offer only oxymorons. Let me explain:

According to your language:

Gnostic theist:

"I accept the fact I cannot possible know whether or not God exists and it really doesn't even make sense to ask the question" "But he does."

You see the problem?

I am a devout Agnostic.

[Az]

29. Improper context

The gnostic theist would not claim they cannot know. In fact they would claim they have actual real experience of god. Whether their argument is viable or not determines whether others would consider their gnosticism to be verifiable.

The position you actually state is closer to the agnostic theist. This person would claim they cannot prove or demonstrate that god exists. But they would maintain that they do believe he/she does.

[info being]

33. Like I originally said:

The only irrefutable position is that one cannot prove or demonstrate that god exists AND one should not believe or disbelieve he/she does.

You certainly see the break in logic and the contradiction of your terminology. You seem to want to carry the question beyond the point where you admit that you cannot know and therefore should not try to. You still want to know or try to. That's precisely the trap and that's precisely the impulse that organized religion feeds on.

Don't ask ridiculous questions and you won't find ridiculous answers.

[Az]

40. Should not?

Some further clarification seems necissary here. People do not believe things because they should or should not. People come to believe things because of the bulk of their experiences add up in their mind to emotionally support one position or another. From this process our mind comes to its positions on issues. This is simply how the mind works.

Thus our beliefs come from our mind. They are comprised of our emotional responses to the things we have experienced with our mind making use of tools to decide matters which are conflicted with opposing notions. In such cases sometimes we reach for reason and critical thought. But these are not the only tools our minds can create.

Some people use signs of portent they believe surround them. Communication from the spirits and forces behind the universe are believed to provide guidance. Others look inward to communion with these forces. They believe that they are able to communicate with these things for guidance in matters of internal quandry.

Even those that favor reason and logic form the bulk of their beliefs by means of examining their emotional reactions to the most basic issues. Its our very base level of selfrealisation. It is only when doubt and conflict exist that we turn to our tools of logic and reason. The skeptics may have a lower thresh hold of turning to these tools to resolve issues. But this is because we have developed a reliance on them. Just as believers have developed a reliance on their methods.

Thus from these methodologies a person can have a lack of knowledge about a matter and still maintain a belief in it.

And one more caveate about your initial statement. It is not polar opposites as suggested by belief and disbelief. It is binary. The presense of belief or its absense. Theism and Atheism.

[info being]

45. There are no silver bullets

If you want to talk about "guidance" and "opinions" or whatever, that's a totally different discussion that may stem from a core religious belief.

But when it comes to religion I am Agnostic. No prefixes or suffixes required. Not sure why that bothers you so.

[Az]

55. Doesn't bother me

It simply doesn't inform me of anything. I agree there is no way to know in the absolute sense any of the answers to the big questions. Claiming agnosticism becomes something akin to claiming a lack of involvement. I would suggest this is not possible.

The claim to pure agnosticism without any other indicators suggests you both believe and don't believe in the issue. But since a person either does or does not believe in a matter it is impossible to remain in both camps. And because atheism is merely the absense of being in the theist camp according to set theory one must be in one or the other camp.

The problem in this matter seems to stem from philosophical issues created by the believers. Because morality and condemnation become invested in one's stance as a believer the position has been created that those that do not believe must be morally bankrupt. Due to this their statement of nonbelieve must be a direct and deliberate rejection of god. Thus when they write dictionaries and convey the meaning of the words to define us they phrase them according to their view.

Ask an atheist if they reject god. Its not an issue of rejecting god. We simply don't happen to believe there is a god. If we ever met him/her only then would we have an opportunity to accept or reject him/her. At worst what we reject are specific arguments presented by humans trying to prove god exists. And they are certainly not god.

So what of the agnostics? The people that insist that god is not knowable. Of course we agree with them. But we still don't know which way they lean. Do they suspect gods exist? Or do they lack a belief in gods as we do?

Incidently you can lack a belief in gods and still maintain a spiritual component to your world view.

[info being]

62. They lean in the direction that it is unknowable

Who in the fucking world can find logical or intellectual inconsistency with the position:

X is unknowable?

To ponder X is to fall into the trap set by politicians and institutions throughout the ages. It is to allow them to frame our thinking.

To say that X is unknowable and mean that...as a final destination that requires no further guessing or back-tracking...is the only path to freedom. The surprising thing, for anyone who's ever made that journey, is that you find in the end that religion actually serves no positive purpose. Nature has given us everything we need and we just need to embrace it.

[Az]

70. The mind cares little for politics or power

The mind is only concerned with resolving indecsision.

The problem we may be having is that we are approaching the issue from different angles. I am looking at the matter from what I know of how the mind works. You are looking at the matter as an exercise in logic.

What I know of the mind tells me that logic is a tool it makes use of in certain circumstances. Its a very effective tool (my personal favorite). But it is not the only tool the mind uses.

The mind does not deal well with indescision. It becomes stressed and agitated in its presense. Thus it tries to find tools to resolve indescision. It will continue to try to resolve issues until it forces them one way or the other.

The question of the existance of god is just such a situation. The mind has difficulty trying to remained balanced in a nonposition position. It will fall to either belief in god or no belief in god. Different people will turn to different tools in order to force this issue.

I suspect in the majority of cases where the individual claims agnosticism the mind has sided with not taking part in an active belief in gods. But they recognise that they cannot state this definitively. Thus they reject further attempts to clarify whether there is a god or not.

[info being]

81. Great post!

The beauty of Agnosticism, actually, is that it is not the same as indecision. It is not the same as saying, "I'm confused and undecided and I'll come back to this later."

There is peace in the acceptance of the truth that we cannot answer this question and should not ask it. As an ex-Christian, it is the only true peace I've found. I've found that Christianity is full of stress and agitation...and that's because we are being asked to believe and behave in a way that is inconsistent with our nature. We even learn to hate our nature. That's why you see so many grumpy and miserable Christians.

It isn't about balance. It is about the certainty that the question ought not be asked. It is a resolved issue for me.

[Cats Against Frist]

72. You're presenting the poster with what's called a "false delimma"

Your logic is very, very flawed. Where is your authority that you MUST either "believe or not believe in something?" You can't imagine a third, or multiple possibilities?

You should be able to, because your opponent has put forth a plausible alternative to your false delimma.

And "leaning toward," is quite a different qualifier than jumping full-kitty into a definitive nomenclature exercise.

No offense, but always keep an eye out for third possibilities.

I would also argue, in terms of quantum physics, that it is possible to hold two contradictory ideas, at the same time, and believe or not believe in both of them. It takes a bit of postmodern cerebral manipulating and a healthy dose of bullshit -- to stratify the different epistemological contexts, but it CAN be done.

[Az]

76. We are dealing with matters of the mind

Knowledge is the venue of logic. But belief is the arena of the mind. The mind can be wildly illogical. But it reacts to indecision with stress. It will try to find any leverage point to force a balanced issue one way or the other.

To boil it down to its simplest components although logically a person may be able to state that they cannot make a rational descision on a matter their mind will still come to a conclusion. It may not be rational or logical. But it will side one way or the other.

The person will experience this as a gut feeling. It is the thing they suspect or feel.

[ultraist]

37. A gnostic atheist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Among the gnostics, gnosis was the privileged "knowledge of the heart" or "insight" about the spiritual nature of the cosmos, that brought about salvation to the pneumatics - people who believed they could achieve this insight. Among heresiologists gnosis denotes different Christian belief systems of esoteric nature, such as, first and foremost, gnosticism and other dualist systems from the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., but also rosicrucianism, Christian kabbalah etc

Many elements of gnosticism are pre-Christian, and it is generally accepted that orthodox Christianity and its canonical texts do not predate the Gnostic movement, but grew up alongside it, out of some of the same sources. Many of today's scholars are convinced that the Gospel of Thomas was used by 1st Century gnostics as well as writers who lead to the modern Christian church. Other gnostic texts make no mention of Jesus Christ or other Christian figures.

Many Gnostic sects were Christians who embraced mystical theories of the true nature of Jesus and/or the Christ which were out of step with the teachings of orthodox Christian faith. For example, Gnostics generally taught docetism, the belief that Jesus did not have a physical body, but rather his apparent physical body was an illusion, and hence his crucifixion was not bodily.


Athiests do not believe in mysticism or supernatural beings as gnostics do; whether it be ancient gnostic mythology or contemporary gnosticism, there are theological elements of mysticism and divine beings within that belief system.

[gollygee]

42. They're using the word gnostic to describe one particular group of people

but gnostic as a word simply means "knowledge" - it doesn't *only* refer to that group of people. "Theism" has also been used to describe a group of people, but the word theism also has a definition larger than the specific group the word is sometimes used to describe.

[Az]

47. Bingo, and ironically

A gnostic atheist is the most logically conflicted of the categories. In order for an atheist to have knowledge of their position being correct they would have to posess absolute knowledge of the universe (or multiverse) and everything inside or outside it. It is arguable that an atheist can never know they are absolutely correct in their lack of belief. Instead they can only be relatively certain. Even it if it is very certain.

[info being]

49. But an agnostic atheist cannot truly exist

Neither can an agnostic theist. To use both words together is to cancel them out.

[Beetwasher]

52. Agnostic Theists Are Quite Common, Actually

They say "Well, I know that it can never really be proven that there's a god (agnosticism), but I have faith that there is and I believe (theism)". That's an agnostic theist. They recognize the limits of knowledge about such a thing but believe in it anyway.

[info being]

54. Confusion is quite common, yes.

But an Agnostic is not confused. It is the only intellectually honest position.

[Beetwasher]

57. It's Not Confusion, And It's Intellectually Honest

They admit they have no facts or data or proof of god and admit that they can probably never have facts or data or proof of god, but that doesn't matter to them, they still believe in god. What's dishonest about that? Belief is often times based on emotion and has nothing whatsoever to do with knowledge. That's sort of the whole point we're trying to get at.

[info being]

63. Yes, they admit that they are making shit up.

I don't find that very intellectually honest.

[Beetwasher]

68. Why So Combative?

Belief in something is not making shit up. I'm not sure where you get that. If I believe that my dad is one of the most honest people on the planet, it may or may not be factually true, but am I making shit up? I may truly believe it without it actually being true. Why is that so hard to understand?

[gollygee]

58. That isn't confusion

and it isn't an intellectually dishonest position either.

I'm an agnostic athiest. I don't see why you think those words are in conflict. Each word describes a different issue.

[info being]

65. Here's why:

You are saying 1) I cannot know whether god exists, and 2) I know God doesn't exist.

Why not just drop one or the other?

[gollygee]

67. Because they refer to two different issues

agnostic - I can't *know* whether god exists

athiest - I don't *believe* god exists

Your #2 is flawed - atheism has nothing to do with knowledge, only belief.

[info being]

71. You're wrong

Here's the second part of the dictionary.com definition, posted to start this thread:

2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

I dunno, it seems that, for the purpose of this discussion, we should stick with the difinition of the word referred to. I did go to the trouble of defining it.

So if you say you are an Agnostic, that means you believe in the definition above. To follow that up by saying you *believe* in something is to not be Agnostic.

Get it?

[Beetwasher]

77. Ummm, No, Even According To That Definition

One can be agnostic and still believe in god. "I believe there can be no proof that god exists, but I believe in god anyway because I have faith". Get it?

[info being]

83. Certainly you can be somewhere in the middle

But Agnosticism by itself, as defined at dictionary.com, is certainly possible as a stand-alone concept that requires nothing more. That's all I'm trying to say.

I am an Agnostic and I reject both the theist and athiest qualifier.

[Beetwasher]

85. Tricky

You say "The answer's can't be known and I'm not sure whether or not I believe"...You're answer to "Do you believe in god?" is "I don't know". Your answer to "Do you think it's possible to know whether god exists?" is "No". But you do see now how agonsticism and atheism differ now, correct?

It COULD be argued that if you don't have an active believe in god (or are unsure if you believe or not), then you are by default an atheist because you don't have an active belief in god. You're saying "I don't know if I believe" and since that's not "I believe" then you DON'T believe by default, even though you think you're just not sure. Being "not sure" if you believe is in some ways the same as not believing...yet.

[Az]

88. I will say such a position can exist temporarily

The mind goes through periods of introspection. During these times it sorts through its positions and reclarifies its beliefs. If one were to force a cap on the matter of god existing or not a stasis could be formed for a period of time.

However this condition is difficult to maintain. Society constantly buffets the individual. And the mind, despite all bravado, is sensitive to this. It will formulate positions on the matter even if the previously held positions are held in stasis. Eventually a soft position one way or the other will take hold. I do not think it is possible to prevent this from happening.

That being said there is still a semantic issue that even in this stasis you are arguably someone without a belief in gods. Which brings us back to the discussion about what an atheist actually is.

[info being]

90. Dunno

But I'll take my clear definition because this pontificating gives me a headache:)

[Az]

78. Proof?

Belief is not predicated on proof. I have seen people shown definitive proof that their fanstastical beliefs are wrong. It did nothing to their beliefs. Evidence, proof, logic. These only reach a person's beliefs if they overcome their emotional acceptance of their beliefs(as well as any other tools they have developed to form help them decide such matters).

[Az]

59. Huh

Do you know anyone that has met god and can demonstrate that there was no way it could possibly be a mental anamoly? The vast majority of people believe in god without any real knowledge of god.

And an atheist simply cannot have enough knowledge to conclude absolutely that all possible gods do not exist. There is an infinite number of potential gods that have never been presented for consideration. Atheists can only come to an absolute degree of certainty about the nonexistance of readily refuted claims of god. All others become matters of degrees of certainty. And this falls short of absolute knowledge.

[ultraist]

61. gnosis means knowledge, gnostics are believers of a particular mythology

Furthermore, if you consider the notable gnostics, using that word to denote only knowledge is incorrect. It refers to gnosticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The word gnosis (from the Greek word for knowledge, ãíþóéò) has several uses:


Classical meanings
Among the gnostics, gnosis was the privileged "knowledge of the heart" or "insight" about the spiritual nature of the cosmos, that brought about salvation to the pneumatics - people who believed they could achieve this insight.

Among heresiologists gnosis denotes different Christian belief systems of esoteric nature, such as, first and foremost, gnosticism and other dualist systems from the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., but also rosicrucianism, Christian kabbalah etc.

Later influences
Gnosis is the name of magazine <1> (http://www.lumen.org/) published between 1985 and 1999 in California as a "Journal of the Western Inner Traditions" covering traditions of spirituality and mysticism. It was a project of the Lumen Foundation.
Among certain modern occult movements, esp. chaos magic, gnosis refers to an altered state of awareness in which the will is "magickally" effective.
Gnosis is the name of a UK band formed in 2004 <2> (http://www.xcollective.org/gnosis/). Their eclectic sound blends trip hop beats, rock guitars and female vocals.

[kliljedahl]

16. I consider myself to be an Agnostic.

Does that mean I don't have the courage of my non-convictions?


http://www.kliljedahl.net

[ultraist]

19. agnosticism vs. religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Religion, a controversial term sometimes used interchangeably with faith, is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken an almost infinite number of forms in various cultures and individuals. However, religion today is dominated by a number of major world religions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the philosophical and theological view that spiritual truths, such as the existence of God, gods or deities, is either unknown or inherently unknowable. The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well and other matters of religion. The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.
Agnostics may claim that it is not possible to have absolute or certain spiritual knowledge; Alternately they may claim that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no such knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves scepticism toward religious statements.

An agnostic might claim that religious statements or statements about the numinous are not or cannot be satisfactorily justified. In this case, it would be reasonable to reserve judgment. For instance, an agnostic might demand that religious statements be justified in the same way as scientific statements, perhaps in terms of the scientific method. Since this is adopting an attitude towards the quality of proof required to accept such statements, agnosticism becomes a matter of inclination rather than of logical proof. That is, one need only be willing to accept a different justification of religious statements in order to avoid agnosticism. Perhaps this explains why agnostics do not generally engage in proselytization. But since an agnostic simply denies certainty of what religious Truth might be, the lack of attempt to convert others may simply be that this works both ways; one cannot be certain which potential convert had, even if by accident, already been correct in his belief.

[info being]

22. And only through Agnosticism can you finally be freed from religion

But you have to *embrace* Agnosticism to avoid the trap of religion.

[ultraist]

51. I was very skeptical even as a child

I was brought up Episcopalian but have always been skeptical of the concept of an omnipotent, anthropomorphic "God" or any supernatural beings.

Many here claim that they "know" because the Bible says so or because they have had experiences or gut feelings. But the fact is, such experiences may not be due to a supernatural being. If they choose to believe they are, fine, I don't.

I don't credit magic or mysticism for everything we have yet to understand and explain.

[cprise]

91. On the whole, I would say that is incorrect

Agnosticism is the idea that finite man cannot know the infinite (e.g. god). So it only applies to religions that have infinite gods.

Where more constrained or finite deities are concerned, atheism is far more relevant.

For me, freedom from religious dogma has its high point in humanism (religious or secular). A belief that people come first (if for no other reason than any god who made us probably put us in each other's faces for a purpose) requires that we have a certain level of faith in humankind. IMO much more challenging (and relevant) than theistic religion.

Is religion a trap? Often times, yes. But so is the common American practice of latching onto atheism or agnosticism and marrying it to the indifference of libertarian, individualist, anti-social, consumer-flavored materialism. Or worse: social darwinism. Most Democrat-leaning and swing voters today have these DISorganizing principles of division and mistrust in common to give their atheist/agnostic/etc outlook the feel of a complete worldview.

I am a humanist, but also consider my atheist position to be relatively unimportant. Any humanistic Buddist or Christian I run into is bound to have far more in common with my activities in the community and my hopes for the future than the average atheist or agnostic (in the USA at least). Not many of us around, though.

The Left in the USA would be in far better shape today if it was at all capable of explicitly and unabashedly promoting humanistic goals and sentiments... focusing on the positive in every asepct of society and a potentially limitless future instead of constantly obsessing against "the apocalyptic other 50%" and visions of dystopia. There is no permissable core belief that lefties can grab onto to keep us socialized with each other across the boundaries of our personal causes and projects... because, well, utopian ideas are just too embarrassing.

[fat free goodness]

93. Agnosticism can lead you TO religion

assuming that you are a doubter yet have an open mind.

Faulty assumptions made by some are that proof must be something that anyone can see and verify, and should be repeatable. There is absolutely no reason to think that God (if He exists) would work like that.

In fact, we have reason to think otherwise. We can assume that if God exists, then he could demonstrate His existence to everyone in such a way that it would be irrefutable. He does not do so(1), yet some say that He reveals himself to them in ways that are absolutely convincing to them personally. Such personal events may be irrefutable to the person who experienced them, but less than convincing to others. In fact, this is virtually always the case.
It’s possible to argue that this proves only that many people can be deluded. But it’s also possible that it shows that God deals only in personal relationships.

If I were in the group doubting the existence of God, I would find that mighty thin reasoning. However, being in the group that has been convinced by experience that God does exist and does take personal interest in us as individuals, I say it’s still mighty thin - but true.

(1) Some may point out that perhaps He has done so in the past, but such proof lasts a generation or less. Afterward, it’s only something you read about and call a fairy tale.

[info being]

98. This post illustrates how there can be no common ground

Because I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to have lots of answers, but what was the question and why?

[fat free goodness]

102. I was replying to the post (#22) directly preceding mine.

The post said that "And only through Agnosticism can you finally be freed from religion". My post said that Agnosticism can lead you TO religion, assuming you have an open mind.
I've known agnostics who kept an open mind and became believers, just as I've known some who did not. I've also known atheists who called themselves agnostics.

The point of my post (sorry it was not more clear) is that IF you make the assumption that there MAY be a God, then it follows that you will likely not find out by waiting for Him to approach you, or offer obvious evidence of His existence. (If He wanted to work that way we would all see wholesale proof. Since we do not see this, we can conclude either that God does not exist, or does not work that way.)

My observation is that if you take the position that "I will go through life with an open mind. If I happen to see indisputable evidence of God, I will believe." then you will probably never believe. However, this is a valid agnostic position.

If you take the position "I don't know whether there is a God or not. I don't want a "comfortable faith', I want the TRUTH, and I will actively seek it. " then you just might be lead to God. This also is a valid agnostic position.

But no, in response to your other observation, I do not have all the answers. I do not mean to give you that impression. Anyone who says they have all the answers is either God, or somewhat more likely, trying to sell you something.

[ixion]

21. I've been an agnostic for more than 20 years now

it's the only thing that makes sense.

I think there are many spiritual doctrines that have much wisdom to offer about a good way to live life, but it stops there.

I think that there have been 'Great Spirits' that have visited us from time to time througout the milenia, but the whole concept of anthropomorphic god(s) hovering above has always seemed to me to be a fairy tale. ;-)

[Walt Starr]

27. Ahhhh, but the existence of a god is a human position

which cannot be supported with the evidence, ergo, it is safe to dismiss the notion until evidence is presented.

[moof]

75. Pretty close Walt, do you concurr with this small adjustment ?

"Ahhhh, but the existence of a god is a human position which cannot be supported with the evidence, ergo, the notion is dismissed until evidence is presented.

unless of course you were going for the "Marathon Man" with the " Is it safe " premise.

[Walt Starr]

101. Good point. I concur 100%. n/t

[fat free goodness]

94. But that isn't necessarily true.

Not the part about the evidence. The part about not having evidence making it safe to assume otherwise. Something may be true without your having proof.

Have you been looking for evidence? If so, how? What would you consider evidence?

I myself see no reason that a God would be particularly interested in proving His existence to someone who was not interested, nor be particularly eager to supply evidence to match any particular specification.

Might it be that He wants those who seek Him out on His terms?

[Walt Starr]

100. The invisible pink unicorn MAY have created the universe

and failure to believe in the IPU MAY cause you to face an eternity of eating Unicorn shit.

It's just as plausible as the various"god" myths.

[kaitykaity]

32. I came to my agnosticism with the help of Robert Heinlein.

I personally don't think there's any way to know for sure about
the existence or non-existence of God, but I also think religion
is helpful for people. Religion is comforting, provides structure,
and like it or not, people seem to need it.

Relevant Heinlein quote, for me anyway.
http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_RHeinlein.htm
"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any
rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to
stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people
do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive
considerable pleasure from fiddling with it." Notebooks of Lazarus Long]

[K-W]

36. There might be a race of invisble clowns who live on my nose.

I cant prove thier aren't...

Either you think theists have met the burden of proof for thier claim, or you think they haven't. The other option is not being sure, agnosticism. But dont pretend that agnosticism is an intellectually strong position. At some point or another youve should decide whether the evidence shows the existance of dieties or not.

Until something is shown to exist, it doesnt exist. Is this really that hard to understand? Anything can potentially exist.

[info being]

53. Not true.

It is the only intellectually strong position. Our weak nature may lead us to one day want to decide one way or the other. And it is at that precise moment that we lose our intellectually strong position. We actually lose more than that: our respect for our place in the universe.

[K-W]

69. Sorry but you are simply mistaken.

Anything can potentially exist. Deities can potentially exist. You can be an athiest and still understand that you cant prove for certain that a vague category of entity doesnt exist.

This whole confusing mess originates from the Atheist Straw Man. The supposed athiest who thinks he can logically disprove the existance of god. While some underinformed athiests may hold this position, it is not the true position of athiesm.

The problem is, you arent starting with a blank slate. You are starting with the supposition that God may exist, therefore it would need to be disproven to you for you to believe he doesnt exist, this is not an intellectually strong position no matter how you cut it.

You must start from the position that god(s) like anything do not exist until they have been proven to exist. Once you do that you realize that the burden of proof is entirely on deists to prove the veracity of thier claims.

As far as I have seen there is to this day 0 credible evidence of a supernatural being, therefore the claims of deists are not supported, and since god(s) can not be shown to exist, to the best of human knowledge, they dont exist.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

48. Errr, Responsibility That Comes With God and His Laws?

And that would be which laws? The one's in the Koran? The Old Testament? The New Testament? The one's that contradict eachother? Puhleeze...

Responsibility my ass. You'll do whatever the hell you want, lie, cheat, steal, kill and then repent on your death bed and think you're going to heaven. Yeah, that's responsibility for you. Hypocrite.

[Warpy]

50. Consider the millions of gods that have existed

in human history, and that each was all powerful in his or her own time. Consider that nearly all of them have faded away and been completely forgotten. These gods will likely share a similar fate, whether humanity continues to exist or not.

I consider that the Taoists have probably come closest to the truth, that the universe is a living organism that is not aware that it is alive.

And that makes me an atheist.

[Redstone]

82. When my wife first asked me if I thought there is a God,

I said "how the fuck should I know?"

Does that qualify as agnosticism?

Redstone

PS: When the kids ask, I don't use that kind of language. I tell them "go ask your mother."

[info being]

96. Yes, but in this forum...your response is likely to generate

At least 10,000 words of interpretation.

[Redstone]

99. And at least 10,000 differing opinons, plus

sundry attacks on my belief / lack thereof, crude language, sexism for fobbing off the kids' questions on Mrs. R, and so on.

It's a rough neighborhood, it is.

Redstone

[johnaries]

86. Actually, Thomas Huxley invented the term, and it literally means

"not Gnostic". Of course, he was half-drunk when it made it up.

Read "Science and the Christian Tradition"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0899842852/qid=1112135041/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-2007267-2572913?v=glance&s=books

WTF? Amazon says limited availability because it's out of print!?!?!?

:nuke:

[Toots]

103. If there is one God there is more than one God

Even God himself says he is a jealous God and to put no other God before him. If there were no other Gods he would never even mention it or be a bit jealous. Isn't jealousy a sin by the way?