Susan's Place Transgender Resources

In the realm of spiritual beliefs and using Theists, Agnostics and Atheists to represent those who believe, those who are on the fence and those who don't believe, respectively, Agnostics are correct, scientifically speaking and based on present day knowledge.

Theists say, "Look at the planets, the moon, the stars, the universe. What more do you need to prove there is a God?"  Atheists say, "The planets, the moon, the stars and the universe were all created by pure chance.

Neither belief can be proven scientifically.  So the only logical position to take about the existence of a god is one that discounts neither theism nor atheism nor accepts one over the other or either at all.

Is there a god?  Maybe or maybe not.  You can believe there is or you can believe there isn't but neither belief changes the fact you can't prove either.  Maybe someday we will know, maybe not.  So, from a scientific standpoint, agnostic is the correct stand to take on the age old question, "Is there a God?"   

Often however I've seen it shown less as a direct scale and more like a two axis thing where religious and atheist are opposed and theist and agnostic are opposed, wherein it allows for those that do as well as don't "believe" in something, but do not assert any 100% certainty as well as those who do as well as don't believe in something and assert their view as certainty.

As in, the agnostic religious person who believes in X, but doesn't say that they are "right", the agnostic atheist that lacks belief in anything but doesn't assert that there "isn't" any god as a fact as well as those that preach "this is the one true faith" and the "there are no god, at all, ever" types.

Kia Ora Julie,

::) I'm an agnostic atheist so does this also make me correct ? ;)

Metta Zenda :)

You can be whatever you want Zenda.  That's the world we should all live in.

Quote from: Julie Marie on November 10, 2011, 10:00:38 AM
You can be whatever you want Zenda.  That's the world we should all live in.

Kia Ora Julie,

::) How do you 'know' this for sure ?  ;) :D

Metta Zenda :)

Because the voices in my head tell me.  :o

Quote from: Julie Marie on November 12, 2011, 07:08:56 AM
Because the voices in my head tell me.  :o

Kia Ora Julie,

::) Now tell me *as I turn on my psychoanalytical brain function*  how long have you been hearing this voice ?  ;) ;D

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Miniar on October 25, 2011, 12:22:23 PM
Often however I've seen it shown less as a direct scale and more like a two axis thing where religious and atheist are opposed and theist and agnostic are opposed, wherein it allows for those that do as well as don't "believe" in something, but do not assert any 100% certainty as well as those who do as well as don't believe in something and assert their view as certainty.

As in, the agnostic religious person who believes in X, but doesn't say that they are "right", the agnostic atheist that lacks belief in anything but doesn't assert that there "isn't" any god as a fact as well as those that preach "this is the one true faith" and the "there are no god, at all, ever" types.

This is right, but I would put theist/atheist together and religious/agnostic together instead.

The religious-agnostic axis looks like:

Religious (certainty) <---------------------------------------> Agnostic (it is unknowable)

And the theist-atheist axis looks like:

Theist (I believe in god(s)) <---------------------------------------> Atheist (I do not believe in god(s))


And just like politics, you can have any combination of those! ;)  As far as the OP goes, I agree that of these choices, an agnostic atheist is the most correct point of view from our current scientific understanding.  But I've known plenty of agnostic theists and they are generally cool people too.  It's people on the religious side of the scale that scare me because complete certainty in either direction can only come from holding a position without evidence.

Kia Ora,

::) One would only become an atheist[in the sense of a disbeliever] if they were informed of the possibility of an almighty creator and chose not to believe what they were told...If the whole god concept was totally foreign to them would they[because we as a species like to label] be called a "normalists" ?. ;)

Just a thought......

Metta Zenda :)

Nah. :) The way I see it:  even if you aren't even aware of the concept of god, atheist is still the default position.  Perhaps I could have defined it better semantically - theist is the belief in god, where atheist is the lack of a belief in god. (As opposed to the belief that there is no god, which is more like the "religious atheist" position)

Quote from: AmySmiles on November 12, 2011, 04:16:14 PM
Nah. :) The way I see it:  even if you aren't even aware of the concept of god, atheist is still the default position.  Perhaps I could have defined it better semantically - theist is the belief in god, where atheist is the lack of a belief in god. (As opposed to the belief that there is no god, which is more like the "religious atheist" position)

Kia Ora Amy,

::) I guess in the sense of the term "A"=without "Theist"=god you're right, but they would only be called this by those [atheists, agnostics and theists] who live in a god-centric society where the concept of a god was known...

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Julie Marie on November 12, 2011, 07:08:56 AM
Because the voices in my head tell me.  :o

Kia Ora Julie,

::) BTW I've booked an appointment for you to see me at my 'clinic' asap...those voices in your head have got me intrigued... ::) ::) Very interesting  ;)

::) And if you don't come voluntarily, my assistants will call for you-they can easily be identified by their white jackets... Oh I forgot to mention, they will also have a nice snug padded jacket for you to wear  ;) 

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Zenda on November 12, 2011, 02:56:44 PMNow tell me *as I turn on my psychoanalytical brain function*  how long have you been hearing this voice ? 

Only for as long as they have been talking to me.  Why?  Doesn't anyone talk to you?  :angel:

After reading the posts here (outside of the silly banter Zenda and I have carried on) I can see there are more than three "sides" to this equation.  Theist vs. atheist.  Gnostic vs. agnostic.  And those who never give it a thought.  Maybe their opposite is those who can't stop thinking about it.

But since we can't prove or disprove the existence of a god, then there can only be theory which leaves only doubt.  So, with the information we have available today, doubters are in line with the evidence and/or lack thereof.

Quote from: AmySmiles on November 12, 2011, 03:42:40 PM
This is right, but I would put theist/atheist together and religious/agnostic together instead.

The religious-agnostic axis looks like:

Religious (certainty) <---------------------------------------> Agnostic (it is unknowable)

And the theist-atheist axis looks like:

Theist (I believe in god(s)) <---------------------------------------> Atheist (I do not believe in god(s))


And just like politics, you can have any combination of those! ;)  As far as the OP goes, I agree that of these choices, an agnostic atheist is the most correct point of view from our current scientific understanding.  But I've known plenty of agnostic theists and they are generally cool people too.  It's people on the religious side of the scale that scare me because complete certainty in either direction can only come from holding a position without evidence.

Yeah, that is much closer than I presented it, but I've been pretty beaten up by my rehabilitation program so I'm generally posting from a completely exhausted position. ;)

I try to be an agnostic but in naturally an athiest, even though the logical part of my brain nows that i can never know for sure whether there is a higher power or not and points towards being agnostic I just cant make myself belive in the possibility. I think its because, if there is a God, he is doing a terrible job in looking after his flock, constant holy wars for 2000 years, natural disasters, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I dont seem to have any power over that bit of my brain that files "God" away under "Lies to keep you distracted" with Santa and the media.

I think there's no evidence in science that God exists, but anyway there's some evidence science can't explain everything... So basically it's a choice, a guess, an act of faith.
I am agnostic with will to velieve in a superior purpouse , also ethical for my life... Not a nihilist... And i do agree that religions are mostly sociql construct that mislead society into wars and hate. I suggest to read " jesus'vangelis " from jose saramago, it explains how also the moral example of a man can Jesus be turned into a total different faith.
I do believe in Buddha, Jesus, in other great people example!

Well, ofcourse science can't explain "everything", and likely never will, that's not the point of science.
Also, science doesn't claim that X "can't" be real, only that there's no evidence X is real.

Well no i didn't mean that science can't prove the exsistence of X=God, it is obvious, I meant sometimes science can't prove statistical coincidences of events that recurr in synchronicity theory for example, simulthaneous events that occurr at high distances and can be explained in other ways, as much as psichological mutations in geminis, and so on.... It is a whole new field! And it is essential in methereology, as well as in studying the laws of fluid dynamichs ( I had a degree in this ), or stock markets, or subatomics events...  there's proof of the absence of the common link of cause-effect in the most common way because of the absence of the theory of little disturbances, indeed in all these examples a little disturbance can cause a big change, the theory that studies these events is called chaos theory! Very few scientific predictions can be done and all are stathistical computations, it's litterary like science accepts the fact that it can't go further!

Nonsense.

we are all descended from Adam and Eve and are intended to fully populate the earth for eternity.

Quote from: lilacwoman on December 08, 2011, 04:43:19 PM
Nonsense.

we are all descended from Adam and Eve and are intended to fully populate the earth for eternity.

Kia Ora Lilac,

::) And where did Adam and Eve descend from ? And where did what they descended from, descend from etc etc ?

Metta Zenda :)

Hi, Zenda,

There is another alternative, sported by Jewish mystics, and that is: there is part of God that is accessible to the human understanding, and another part of God that is beyond the compression powers of the human brain.

Jen61

Quote from: Jen61 on December 08, 2011, 08:12:45 PM
Hi, Zenda,

There is another alternative, sported by Jewish mystics, and that is: there is part of God that is accessible to the human understanding, and another part of God that is beyond the compression powers of the human brain.

Jen61

Kia Ora Jen,

::) Doesn't Sufism have similar beliefs ?

::) So if this is the case with  Kabbalists , which part is which then[what is it that humans understand about this god and agree upon] ?

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Zenda on December 08, 2011, 08:21:28 PM
Kia Ora Jen,

::) Doesn't Sufism have similar beliefs ?

::) So if this is the case with  Kabbalists , which part is which then[what is it that humans understand about this god and agree upon] ?

Metta Zenda :)

I am threading in thin ice as religious scholar i am not. However, my limited understanding of Cabala is the Ein Sof is the unreachable incomprehensible G-d.

I a afraid I do not know anything about Sufism.

Shalom,

jen61

Quote from: Jen61 on December 08, 2011, 08:12:45 PM
Hi, Zenda,

There is another alternative, sported by Jewish mystics, and that is: there is part of God that is accessible to the human understanding, and another part of God that is beyond the compression powers of the human brain.

Jen61

Kia Ora Jen,

::) Think about the bold statement.....

Metta Zenda :)