-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ignorance rather than Knowing(ism)
- Thread starter Willamena
- Start date
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
Neither. I am agnostic not due to ignorance, but rather due to knowledge.
I am aware of various religious beliefs/faiths. And I find them to be both lacking, and arrogant. I take a similar askance view of atheism.
I have the humility to recognize that my pitiful mortal frame, and roughly 3 pounds of pink, white, and grey pulpy tissue between my ears CANNOT (by definition) declare with ANY degree of certainty the existence or the non-existence of any omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent creature.
Also, if such a creature does exist, then why should I believe that It has selected ME, as the prime candidate throughout the world, and throughout the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, as deserving of eternal reward, while so many others should "righteously" burn eternally for features of their upbringing which they had little or no control over; and which they cannot change in their brief mortal period on Earth?
Frankly, if such a petty and evil being does show itself to me upon my death. Then I will grab a pitchfork and join the legions of good souls fighting against its eternal reign of terror.
P.S. - the word "gnosticism" has many definitions, but seems to be a pantheistic philosophy per most accounts. ?? Is that the word you wished to use?
I for one am not torn between choosing just which God or god(s) to follow. I instead have come to realize that following ANY faith-based system is without merit, and self-deluding. I will live, attempt to do good throughout my life, and then I will die. My reason for attempting to do good is based primarily in a more humanistic philosophy, than any "fear of damnation" or "hope for eternal glory".
Simple really.Some agnostics would say it's forever unknowable, and thats why they say "I don't know." Others probably do it to avoid the question, some would say it because they don't care either way.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yeah, I'm starting to think a better description for most self-described "agnostics" is "wishy-washy".
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Ignorance implies that their are facts to be known, but are not known.
For someone to claim ignorance, there needs to be knowable facts to be ignorant of.
For someone to claim ignorance, there needs to be knowable facts to be ignorant of.
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
Ignorance to me means that there are facts to be known, but they don't want to know them. Ignore..Ignorance. Ignoring facts. Yay!
Oh for god sake what is the Star Wars smiley?
Oh for god sake what is the Star Wars smiley?
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
Acknowledging that one does not know, is the opposite of ignorance, it is the beginning of wisdom.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
I believe that those (the "wishy-washy" ones) are a tiny minority of agnostics. Not the norm. Most agnostics reach their philosophy only through examination of theist faiths, and extensive introspection.
If anything, I have found many "christians" who don't understand their own claimed religion, and don't really care too much about it either. They are ignornant. They are also wishy-washy, since when pressed for an answer, they basically
and figure that since they were 'raised christian' then they must 'be christian'. So they reply as "Christian" purely for lack of a better answer. :sorry1:Well put: especially the first word "Acknowledging", since this is a matter of facing reality; rather than hiding from it. :clap Frubals.
But if I may be so bold, I would add a few words, even though they may be repetitious.
".....it is the beginning of wisdom, humility, and honesty."
Miskellybones
Seeking Gnosis
Agnosticism is not founded in ignorance, for it comes only with a careful examination of your own faith, leading you to believe that you can not, at this moment in time know which philosiphy is correct.
Neither is it founded in gnosticism because, by definition, if you have found Gnosis, you have seen God and therefore cannot be Agnostic.
crunk-juice
Senior Member
they say they cant know so theyre not going to act like they know... but come on. why would you even leave open a possibility that their stories are true? sure there could be something beyond our capability of understanding, and there probably is.. but to label that as "God" and saying it "could" be true doesn't make much sense to me. anything "could" be true.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
One minus 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999~ does NOT equal zero.
I don't really leave open the concept that any of "their" stories are true (assuming "they" are any of the major or minor religions of the world). Their little mythologies, parables, and story-books are simple-minded at best.
I simply leave open the possibility that "there could be something beyond our capability of understanding". I don't even go so far as you, by saying the "there probably is". In fact......isn't your version a rather non-atheistic comment/slip? :faint:
Isn't the ignorance of "the correct philosophy" then?
Unless, of course, in saying this you know this.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ostic-doesnt-fall-between-theist-atheist.html
There are different types of agnostics. There are those that strictly hold the question of god(s)s existence is unknowable, and there are those that simply arent gnostic. The former has reason to believe the question is unknowable (whether you agree with those reasons or not is another question) so I wouldnt say it is founded in ignorance.
Jackytar
Ex-member
I agree with ATS in the thread you referenced. A "strong" agnostic, like me, is an atheist. A weak atheist. But he reveals a prejudice in this thread by calling agnostics "wishy washy".
None of my casual friends know that I'm an agnostic. If they know anything about my beliefs, they think I'm an atheist because that's what I tell them. Agnostic to them means "apathetic" agnostic - as in "fence sitter" or "wishy washy" or politely respectful towards thier personal God - a wholly untenable position to hold philosophically and, as someone else pointed out, a tiny minority of agnostics at best. I know of lots of "strong" agnostics but very few "apathetic" agnostics. And I am loathe to point out the difference to them (my casual friends). They may be intelligent people but most are not navel - gazing philosophical types like the folks on RF are, and they are unprepared to grasp the concepts we discuss here.
And most self-described atheists are weak atheists in my experience. If you or ATS or anybody else consider yourself a strong atheist I would like to hear your philosophical criticism of weak atheism.
Jackytar
Last edited:
And there is the agnostic who says "I don't know" because it is inherently unknowable by any useful definition of the term knowledge.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
? Are you suggesting that you (or anyone throughout human history) HAS figured out "the correct philosophy"? :sarcastic . . . . and how exactly was it that you (or they) determined that they had in fact found "the correct" philosophy?
As themadhair and Jackytar and others (including myself) have noted.....
It
is
not
possible
to know.
"The more I learn, the more I learn there is to learn." - Anon.
Ah! a clue...
Not suggesting that at all... is that required?
Believe it or not, Anon is actually a very dear friend of mine.
Whatever ...