The Agnostics Dilemma (Pertaining to religion)

This thread is directed towards agnostics, and this is a chance for them to prove their status.

I have a few questions to get the ball rolling.

1. Are you actively choosing to not take a stance on religion, or is your agnosticism merely apathy?

2. If you are actively choosing not to take a stance, what is the harm in taking a stance, or what is the problem you find with taking a stance?

3. If you are merely apathetic on the subject, why do you feel attention towards religion is time unnecessarily wasted?

PLEASE explain your answers! The rules of SFA explicitly dictate that you must back up your responses.

The atheistic plea for agnostics: I personally find that though God is not disprovable, the probability of his existence as defined by any one religion is to low for me to entertain the idea.

The theological plea for agnostics: I really don't know what a theist would say while pleading for an agnostic to convert, but I can assume one of the many things would be as such: Please join our religion, as our God will love you and if you don't, you'll go to hell/whatever nasty afterlife our deity has in store for you. I apologize for the lack of theological pleas, please provide your own in your post if you are a theist.

PLEASE PROVIDE OTHER PLEAS FOR AGNOSTICS, AND STATE WHICH STANCE FROM WHICH THEY ARE DIRECTED IN CASE THE AMBIGUITY IS PREVALENT!

Thank you, and good luck!
-Denode

P.S. I mean no offense in the creation of this thread. If you get too defensive to accept any constructive discussion, that is your loss.

 

Or, at the moment, they say they are agnostic because they have not found enough information to adequately give an honest response back to "What religion you do, or don't pertain to".

 

A large part of me is peeved with organized religion, while rejecting deism because of Occum's razor.

I suppose some people don't like being wrong.

I lean towards the atheist side.
1. There is no evidence.
2. God is improbable, not impossible.

 

This is essentially my stance. However, is this considered atheism or agnosticism?

 

Why would Deism be rejected because of Occam's razor?

There isn't any if you are looking in the wrong places.

It is only improbable through your eyes and perception.

Hearing that one of your friends was murdered is more probable to someone that lives in a high crime area than it is to someone who lives in a gated community, does that mean one is right and one is wrong?

 

There are four types of Atheist/Theist/Agnostics which aren't the past three I mentioned:

Atheist-Agnostic
Theist-Agnostic
Atheist-Gnostic
Theist-Gnostic

I feel that his beliefs are Atheist-Agnostic. From what I read I understand his belief structure is this, "God(s) presence isn't known to me, and I lack a belief in him/her/them."

**I'm not going to add a summary to each one because I'm lazy and you can Google it.**

 

To oversimplify a bit, I see nature; I just see little value in tacking on "Mother Nature".

Or not at all. I don't bother searching for things that I believe have little possibility of existing. And even if the God I imagined existed, believing in Him/Her would have little impact on my life.

Well, the fact that we are seeing it as a probability at all, brings the existence into question.

 

We all see nature, don't you sometimes wonder why it exists?

What if the God you imagined was the probability of the universe? And you would do what needed to be done to increase the probability of good things happening to you? You would work hard and the probability of you attaining success would increase. You would be nice to people and the probability of you having many friends would increase. The more we obey this probability, the greater we are rewarded. Is our relationship with probability not like a relationship with a God?

I never said that I saw it as a probability.

 

I don't discuss religion with agnostics. It's like discussing music with a deaf guy.

 

Living in the greater ignorance.

Why waste time living in an ignorance?

I believe that question serves for logic.


Though I am not Agnostic, I figured I would enlighten myself by acknowledging the answers to these, answering them for you, as well.

 

How is that relevant in any way to agnosticism? The amount of murders is purely circumstantial, based on the area they lived in, what the murdered person was doing (probably the most important factor) and so on.

The 'chance' of a god existing is not probability, which to a certain extent neither is a person being murdered a matter of probability.

In my mind, there are several reasons ANY god (not just the christian/muslim/jewish god) cannot or is unlikely to exist.

1. In the case of Yahweh, which religion's teachings am I to follow? You all believe in the same god, but am I meant to be a jew, a christian or a muslim?
2. Besides, there are thousands, if not millions of gods for me to choose from! Why should I believe in your god, when I can believe in Zeus or Thor or Ibis? All these gods began the same way as yours did, when a small tribe or people won battles and territories and spread the new religion as they moved.
Any religious person is an atheist for all but their chosen god, I just take it one further.
2. Furthermore, the bible was written from two thousand years ago, and obviously it is now outdated. Yet people continue to live their lives by it's 'rules' and 'teachings' (many of which have now been disproved, and will continue to be).


I need to go now, but I'll add some more on to this later.

 

That's one of my favourite points that Richard Dawkins has made.

 

It's not. If you read correctly you would see that it was a reply to someone's claim that God is improbable.

Those circumstances rely on probability. The probability of getting murdered rises when the person does those certain actions. Therefore your actions can affect the probability of something happenening. Everything that exists is based on probability.

Who says you have to follow a religion? You can simply create your own theory of God based on your perception of the world and follow that. Organized religions are simply different paths to the same destination, different because of the different perceptions of the people that created them.

I never told you to believe in my God, and how you say that there's my God and someone else's God is an illusion, we all worship the same God, but because of our perceptions and our environments, each of us creates a different image of him. And since people generally think that what they believe is real and true, they don't like people who have opposing views, so they end up killing each other.

Christianity is probably the worst religion. The bible was rewritten tons of times by greedy kings in order to keep their grasp on the people. Whenever the people started questioning the things in the bible, the rulers simply rewrote it. The fact that people still believe in it today amazes me.

 

I may have borrowed it from him.

 

1. Are you actively choosing to not take a stance on religion, or is your agnosticism merely apathy?

It's Apathy. I've listened to both sides, however, and both have their flaws.

2. If you are actively choosing not to take a stance, what is the harm in taking a stance, or what is the problem you find with taking a stance?

Neither of the two provide enough proof or are somehow flawed. If i'm taking a stance, it's with something I don't see flaws in.

3. If you are merely apathetic on the subject, why do you feel attention towards religion is time unnecessarily wasted?

Because you're spending your time THINKING a god exists but there's always uncertainty despite Christians saying they are sure of it.

1+1=2

We can all agree on that. Why can't we all agree on Religion? Because it has flaws or holes in its theories.