Oh man, will the agnostics inherit the earth?

Question

http://ncregister.com/site/article/3287/


Quote in regards to atheists and theists from the article:

"Really, the only obvious position is to say: We don’t know, we need to be persuaded one way or the other. The default position in other words is: not being sure. "

Someone said as far as burden of proof goes that why they are agnostic. That person inspired this question and the article reminded me of it.

Answer 1

Atheism = lack of belief in God/gods
Agnosticism = awareness of a lack of knowledge, personal or otherwise, concerning the existence of God/gods

One can be an agnostic atheist.

To not believe is neutral; to completely reject or affirm is not. If you claim that there is definitely no way God or gods could ever exist, your statement is just as much subject to the "burden of proof" concept as the theist's stance.

Perhaps there is an invisible pink unicorn or teapot. If it's invisible, I can't know. But, until it's proven, I do not believe. It is presumptuous to say that it must exist or that it cannot exist.

Both theists and atheists get so bent out of shape about this stuff. It's not like I spend all of my time thinking about what I can't see (exception: God, because of the attachment other people have to it) or perceive at all. I merely recognize the possibility but attach no value to it. If the teacup were somehow disproven, I would not care. If it were proven, I still would not care, though I'd be curious as to how it managed invisibility.

People like to regard this stance as fearful or wishy-washy, but it is neither. It is not fear that prevents me from taking a stance, but apathy and a lack of evidence; it is not wishy-washy to not declare absolute certainty, but logically honest.

EDIT: In response to the site itself...

That guy is rather ignorant.
Claim #1: Approaching God scientifically for knowledge is a flaw in the approach Dawkins implements.
Response: There is no knowledge outside of that which is perceived, i.e. that which can be measured by science. It is possible that one could experience something valid that is not shared with anyone else, but Dawkins and the rest of us have not.

Claim #2: It is wrong to place the burden of proof on theists alone.
Response: Again, atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods, not the rejection of the possibility. If one does not perceive them, it is up to someone else to prove it if he makes a claim concerning its existence.

I won't bother reading the rest of that; he doesn't sound capable of taking on Dawkins. I've heard that Dawkins actually admits the possibility of a deity, but rejects the Christian one through logic and refutations of the Bible. Clearly, he's not someone who is subject to claim #2.

Answer 2

Does the person who wrote that quote feel the same way about invisible pink unicorns and orbiting teapots? Or is he just a poorly-informed theist in thin disguise?

It seems to me that one would have to be deeply out-of-touch with reality to sincerely say

"We don't know whether or not there are invisible pink unicorns, we need to be persuaded one way or the other. The default position in other words is: not being sure".

I mean, really? Is that what agnostics honestly think?
====================
Michael B. (below) writes " If religious people have to "prove" that God exists, then atheists should have to prove that He doesn't exist. That's fair".

Nope.

Google "burden of proof".
Read carefully.
Never post this kind of nonsense again.

Answer 3

The Sermon on the Mount replaced into of course addressed to the Jews for the Jews and worded in a fashion the Jews would carry close actually. The bible account is sparkling approximately who have been accrued their on those hills in Galilee. Jews all of them. no longer Christians, no longer Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics or every person different than Jews. it somewhat is Jesus be conscious possibilities that make the sermon so efficient to his listeners, You asked: "Why do godless people attempt to respond to a question approximately God? And why do godless people attempt to respond to a question approximately Jesus whilst they declare he did no longer exist? Oh, and interior the approach, fail to respond to the question?" by way of fact some absolutely everyone isn't confident yet. would not believing the bible to be the interest of God, negate it somewhat is fee as a achieveable source of historic activity? somebody very smart wrote or suggested those words on that mountainside 1000's of years in the past. Does the incontrovertible fact that i will question the mystical claims of growing to be from the ineffective, healing, and being the God on earth, substitute my opinion of the words he expressed. No it would not. So I proceed to have an interest in what people such as you peacelilly, 360, Annsan, talk Boldly, and a few others (sorry ought to no longer pull up the avatars/names on the 2nd) ought to declare. I examine and evaluate all info, it somewhat is the only good factor to do. otherwise i'd ought to call myself an atheist, I nevertheless evaluate myself agnostic, so according to probability there remains wish for me.????

Answer 4

Agnosticism is about doubt. Although I have my doubts about God -- I have NO doubts about religion; none of them are valid.

Because nobody, even after thousands of years, can offer direct evidence either way, belief, or disbelief, in God boils down to faith.

Faith. For something so important, it seems to be taken for granted or glossed over. What exactly is faith? My observations and experience tells me that faith is the suspension of disbelief. There is no bridge between reason and faith; you have to leap. Faith simply can't be arrived at through critical reason or logic. Faith is a personal position – not an objective conclusion.

What about doubt? How can you have faith without doubt? THAT IS BLIND FAITH! If we humans are special for any reason, it is because of our minds. Why would God bestow this great gift upon his special creatures only to require that we don’t use it to “know” him? Indeed, without doubt, there is no meaning, need or purpose for faith.

There are a myriad of arguments for or against God. However, there's no direct evidence either way. To me, it's necessary to define what you mean by "God" to begin with. For most of us, that means a God defined by a religion.

And that's where the problems start . . . at least for the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). For the remainder of this answer, any mention of "religion" means "Abrahamic religion" for short.

Religion tries to lay claim to God. This insistence on exclusivity sets up religions for contention unless or until they convert the entire world – thereby eliminating the competition. This is why, I believe, these religions await the end-time when God will finally do the eliminating.

It's a forgone conclusion that no single religion (much less, denomination!) will win the world on its own. After all, they've had between 1,400 and 3,500 years (Islam and Judaism, respectively) to do so and haven't made any real progress. Christianity, with over 2 billion adherents, leads the pack but Islam, at 1.3 billion, is coming on strong (again). Despite being many centuries older than Christianity or Islam, Judaism has only 14 million adherents. If ANY religion truly is THE right one, I don't believe the competition would have survived this long.

Given all this . . . how are we supposed to decide which religion, if any, is right? The first one? The biggest one? The most sophisticated one? The most realistic one? What? The competition reduces our choice to a roll of the dice. And why would we go to hell for choosing the wrong one? It's ridiculous. Can God really be so sadistic? And if so, why would you worship him?

No . . .

NO religion can be valid if God exists AND is good. Any entity who could create the universe, would not be so petty as to set up his "intelligent" beings for condemnation. Why would the Creator give us free choice, only to confuse the choice of Creator? I say that if God exists, ALL religions are heretical. If God is good, we wouldn't be killing each other in His name. In the paraphrased words of Stephen Roberts:

"I contend that we are both anti-religion. I just believe in one fewer religion than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible religions, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Oh yes . . . and forget about "Original Sin". It's the biggest lie in the bible and the foundation for many lies that follow. I am no more accountable for Eve than I am Hillary Clinton or for you.

If God exists I believe he’s a cosmic God, not a personal God; a creator, not a meddler. Whichever he is (if he is at all) I'm certain that NO religion is valid.

Answer 5

Intellectually we may not know whether God exists, but we have to make a choice because we have to live our lives. Is there any difference between the atheist and the agnostic when it comes to praying to God, for example? Or seeking His guidance?

Christians seek God even not knowing whether He even exists. That is what belief is. It doesn't mean that we don't have doubts but the reward of finding God outweighs, by far, everything except proof that He doesn't exist. Faith is acting on your belief.

The hidden problem is that we are of two minds about the worth of finding God. We are powerfully attracted to a God who created us and loves us. We are simultaneously repelled by the thought of a God who watches us and judges our behavior. That is the real decision we all have to make.

Answer 6

Leave them alone, lol, I don't think that's such an awful position to take. If someone feels that way, they are being honest about what they feel.

They could very well be agnostic about pink unicorns. Why is it that religious folks and Atheists alike feel Agnostics are to be made fun of because they admit there is no way of knowing whether any god exists or not?

Answer 7

I'm not sure, I need more information as to whether or not the Agnostics will inherit the Earth. LOL

Raji the Green Witch

Answer 8

I agree that the default position should be: not being sure. Atheists are always demanding "proof" of God's existence. As if it can be proven like the existence of a mammoth fossile, for example. If religious people have to "prove" that God exists, then atheists should have to prove that He doesn't exist. That's fair.

Answer 9

Yup, the agnostics are ahead of the militant theists and militant atheists for sure.

Answer 10

Eventually we all become Atheist, because the proof of the non existence of gods is mounting. The more we get educated the more we see the fallacy of religion.