"I was raised among people who knew -- who were certain. They did not reason or investigate. They had no doubts... In their creed there was no guess -- no perhaps." These words by Robert G. Ingersoll, the celebrated American orator and political thinker, appear in his 1896 essay "Why I Am an Agnostic," and they help remind us that in the 19th century the word agnostic had a much-stronger meaning than it does today. At a time when the term infidel (or unbeliever) was still the accusation of choice, the rejoinder that one was a-gnostic -- literally, "without gnosis" -- meant that he or she was taking a principled stand against ancient systems of belief.
To Ingersoll, a Republican freethinker justly dubbed "The Great Agnostic," his parents' and relatives' certainty sparked anguish and contention in him. "I examined maps of the heavens," he recalls in the essay, a searing account of lost faith, and "found that, compared with the great stars, our earth was but a grain of sand -- an atom." On turning from Calvin to Thomas Paine and other freethinkers, he adds, "the old belief that all the hosts of heaven had been created for the benefit of man" came to seem "infinitely absurd."
Today, with Republican freethinkers more of a rarity and agnosticism often derided as timid fence-sitting, Ingersoll's vigorous defense of both (freethought and agnosticism) makes clear that agnosticism was conceived as a form of healthy skepticism that questions everything, including itself. Standing capably and forcefully for the benefit and necessity of doubt, it dealt a blow to dogma and certainty, whether about faith or unbelief.
Rereading Ingersoll and other 19th century doubters today suggests that our assumptions about them have become caricatures, based on a misunderstanding of what in fact they doubted. Ingersoll's "Why I Am an Agnostic" does more than refute those caricatures: In recapturing the term's original meaning as a-gnostic, it underlines how far we've drifted from that earlier, 19th century focus. His essay also prompts us to wonder whether there's enough room for doubt in cultures such as ours that are increasingly polarized between belief and unbelief. When people are expected to stake a position regarding their belief (or lack of it) and defend it to the letter, is agnosticism of the kind that Ingersoll imagined possible? If not, is it not therefore all the more necessary?
Anyone who assumes that Ingersoll's agnostic stance implied a tepid handling of religious controversy is in for a big surprise. He was scathing about zeal and sanctimony, calling biblical accounts of hell not just "frightful dogma," but also an "infinite lie" that was, he thought, tied to a sadistic "belief in eternal pain." Nor did he concede any high ground to the devout. Instead, he railed at the presumption that they had attained one. He saw life in terms of integrity and civitas (citizenship), without religion. Yet "to live a moral and honest life -- to keep your contracts, to take care of wife and child -- to make a happy home -- to be a good citizen, a patriot, a just and thoughtful man, was," he wrote, about those presuming to judge and caricature him, "simply a respectable way of going to hell."
Still, Ingersoll did not embrace atheism, or belief in no God, and he was quick to explain why. "I do not deny," he writes in the essay, published three years before his death at age 66. "I do not know." Despite vehemently rejecting Christianity, then, he did not close the door on religious belief. Instead, like many other agnostics at the time -- including Leslie Stephen, George Eliot, Herbert Spencer, Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley (who coined the term agnostic three decades earlier, in 1869) -- he thought belief should rest on evidence, not faith, but also that evidence itself was in some key instances wanting.
That stance irks absolutists on either side who have come to consider agnosticism as spineless and wishy-washy, and agnostics as people who can't or won't make up their minds. According to Quentin de la Bédoyère, science editor of the Catholic Herald, for example, the Catholic historian Hugh Ross Williamson respected firm religious belief and certain unbelief, but "reserved his contempt for the wishy-washy boneless mediocrities who flapped around in the middle." Richard Dawkins not only repeats the same line in his recent book, The God Delusion, but prefaces it with similar invective from a "robust Muscular Christian" preacher of his schooldays, for whom agnostics were "namby-pamby, mushy pap, weak tea, weedy, pallid fence-sitters."
Open Ingersoll's "Why I Am an Agnostic" at almost any page, however, or trace the vast literature it cites. Over and again the same biting criticism of theology appears right alongside an urging that humanity not replace one form of dogmatism with another. "Man knows nothing of the Infinite and Absolute," Stephen warns similarly in "An Agnostic's Apology" (1876), with "apology" meaning justification or formal defense rather than being an expression of regret. "Knowing nothing, he had better not be dogmatic about his ignorance." He was using the phrase "knowing nothing" in a broadly metaphysical sense, not as a way of discrediting science and scientific evidence, which he unequivocally supported.
Like Ingersoll, Stephen was the son of an influential Evangelical, carefully schooled in its intricate theology. His essay, appearing in England's Fortnightly Review, is distinguished by its being the first on agnosticism by someone who applied the term to himself. He did so, moreover, after solemnly renouncing holy orders as a deacon -- an act grave enough at the time to push him to the brink of suicide.
"Whilst you trumpet forth officially your contempt for our skepticism," he writes of orthodox critics, "we will at least try to believe that you are imposed upon by your own bluster."
Heated? Indeed. "Weak tea, weedy, pallid fence-sitting"? Hardly. Like Ingersoll's essay, Stephen's is a bracing polemic -- a powerful stand against certainty and what had come to seem to him credulity.
We need more, not less, discussion about such doubts. A sense that agnosticism can be entertained and vigorously defended as a serious expression of such doubts, rather than endlessly demeaned and dismissed as an expression of weakness. As Ingersoll, Stephen, Huxley, and so many others have shown us, agnosticism is both a powerful critique of religion and a principled way of acknowledging when one doesn't have all the answers.
Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
agnosticism - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Agnosticism
Agnosticism | Define Agnosticism at Dictionary.com
Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What's the Difference? Are they ...
Any atheist who acknowledges that there is no proof that god does *not* exist is in that sense an agnostic. These atheists will generally agree that the nature of evidence does not allow us to prove the non-existence of anything, but that this does not make the existence of certain things any less far-fetched. Such agnostics don't recoil at the term atheist, which describes their lack of belief in a deity or deities.
Many who claim to be agnostics but not atheists, however, are basically fence-sitters who just can't seem to make the leap to genuine belief in a "higher power" (e.g. Jesus as the son of God or what have you). These agnostics are much closer to being religious believers than they are to being atheists because they seem to see the choice as being between the belief that, for instance, Jesus is the son of God, and the belief that Jesus is not the son of God. This is often combined with the mistaken notion that if we don't know, both possibilities are equally likely.
These agnostics forget that there are many other possibilities out there and that the likelihood of Jesus' being the son of God is exactly equal to that of the universe's having been created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. How plausible is that?
I finally realized that I was avoiding saying what I already knew. I'm an Atheist. At this point in time I don't believe in god....... but I'm open to any convincing evidence to the contrary. ;) Does that make me agnostic?
Perhaps, but the operative word is "find" and that involves the search. The only true religion.
(Wikipedia), for what it's worth; ”Traditionally, many religions have regarded spirituality as an integral aspect of religious experience. Among other factors, declining membership of organized religions and the growth of secularism in the western world have given rise to a broader view of spirituality. The term "spiritual" is now frequently used in contexts in which the term "religious" [is exempt].
Secular spirituality emphasizes humanistic qualities such as love, compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, responsibility, harmony, and a concern for others, aspects of life and human experience which go beyond a purely materialist view of the world, without necessarily accepting belief in a supernatural reality or divine being.
Spirituality in this context may be a matter of nurturing thoughts, emotions, words and actions that are in harmony with a belief that everything in the universe is mutually dependent.
Spirituality exists wherever we struggle with the issues of how our lives fit into the greater scheme of things. We encounter spiritual issues every time we wonder where the universe comes from, why we are here, or what happens when we die. We also become spiritual when we become moved by values such as beauty, love, or creativity. An idea or practice is "spiritual" when it reveals our personal desire to establish a felt-relationship with the deepest meanings or powers governing life.
Doesn't sound any different than God. How do you have a felt relationship with a power, if it's not experienced as some kind of agency? Or is that different from a "felt-relationship" with the hyphen included?
Spirituality is more of a vague idea, with no specific rules. I hope that helps.
The confusion between Belief and Religion is just as important. We see the confusion when people say, “I believe in Evolution”; it is not a religion, despite the use of the word belief. One can believe the world any way one wants and one can modify ones belief as new information or understanding comes along. Religion is monolithic and written in stone, there is no changing a comma, if one is to be loyal to the dogma.
I have debated the subject of 'god' with people of different cultures and often brought them to admit that they had doubts as to the authenticity of some scriptures and even to the authenticity of the existence of their 'god'. A Muslim will wind up saying, “maybe there is no god or maybe we are mistaken on what we know or think we know about 'him',... but if there is a god, it has to be Allah.
A Christian will say the same but... it has to be Jesus. A Jew will say the same but... it has to be 'G-d' (with the obvious fear of spelling out 'his' name); etc.
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Proof-Agnostics-Handbook-ebook/dp/B005HS56XQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323232713&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Proof-Agnostics-Handbook-ebook/dp/B005HS56XQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323232713&sr=8-1
You may have to type it in for search, and not just copy and paste.
It all depends on the questions that are asked. Most athiests will never claim that there is no god of any definition. I am going to assume you don't believe in gods that humans have created. Then you are technically an agnostic athiest. People like general terms for easy conversing but if we want to get really detailed it changes things up.
I call myself atheist, the gods humans came up with don't exist, but I cannot say for certain that there is not some sort of being in the universe that could be called a god. I seriousily doubt any such being exists but in the grand scheme of things it would be incorrect to say I know for sure. I also can't say that invisible pink unicorns don't exist either. Does that make me out of line for calling myself atheist, in my opinion, no.
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ...
It's not about "sitting on a fence" or not able to decide...or playing it safe. Agnosticism it's simply about the lack of evidence (for or against).
Non sequitur, singular.
As I always say, show me reliable data with a good p value, and I'll believe in any pantheon or supernatural event.
I believe morality is part of the human nature and that it comes from a solid education and understandÂing of history. Most Atheist and non-believÂers are moral and ethical individualÂs because after all we do not have a higher power to fall back on. We have to find justice and the difference between right and wrong in this live.
In the end it's not what you believe but how you act on those believes that matters most.
JESUS THE LAST NEPHILIM,'The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and after that,when the daughters of men gave birth to the sons of the gods,they were the mighty men of old.Men from the fiery rocket ships.
Genesis 6:1-2 'And it came to pass,when men began to multiply on the face of the Earth and daughters were born unto them that the sons of the gods saw that the daughters of men were fair and they took any that they chose as their wives.
THE LAW "You shall have no other gods before me:" Exodus 20:3
Some agnostics may fit into that category, however unlike atheists they actually entertain the existence of such a creature. They do this while hiding under the intellectual blanket that it is "impossible to know the unknowable"... which is more consistent with religious doctrine in my opinion.
If I was God, I would spit them out and embrace the atheists.