Ask the Agnostic-Theist: Q&A session for those of religious faith

[Aristotle]

I was not born a Christian. I came from an agnostic/atheist family. I didn't become a Christian until I was in my 40s. I know what agnostics and atheists think. I just don't care to hear more of it. Non believers never discuss, nor do they debate. They lecture and if you don't agree with them, they ridicule. What they don't recognize is that it takes just as much faith, or even more faith, to not believe in God, than it does to believe in God.

That is very premature thing to say (in the bold).

You said:

" What they don't recognize is that it takes just as much faith, or even more faith, to not believe in God, than it does to believe in God."

Curious. I always thought to disbelieve in something is to lack faith in something. How does it take more of a negative to disbelieve in a negative? I am confused by this one.

 

[Aristotle]

My issue with religions of today is not so much the positive messages but how the members portray the message of the faith. The idea of "trying to save my soul from hell" is an insulting idea. For one, there is this preconceived notion that my soul is corrupt because of my lack of belief in an organized faith. To me its a demeaning thing to assume that my soul is corrupt and the need for me to be "saved." I believe the message that is missed which Muhammad, Jesus and Moses taught that many people of these Abrahamic faiths miss is that in these respective faiths, God is more concerned about how we treat each other and how we grow as individuals. I personally feel that what we lack in faith will be known to us when we die whether there is a God or not.

So in other words, your obstacle is pride.

Tell me, how do you know what God is concerned about if you don't go to Him and learn from Him directly?

And why should we wait until we die to find out?

You're a very pretentious person.

It is not pride, but judging by the holy books that is my observation. Throughout the stories of the Bible and Holy Qur'an God appeared to be more concerned about man recognizing his potential and in turn, man will recognize God. In the Holy Qur'an it is said that God is nearer to use than our jugular vein. For the skeptic it takes a tremendous amount of contemplation of what that means. As far as going to God I think my biggest issue is how do we define God? What is God? What are the assigned attributes of God?

 

[Aristotle]

I wonder why an "Agnostic Theist" would CARE what anybody else thinks or wonders about his/her religious beliefs?

I wonder why so many "Agnostic Theists" are so spiteful, dismissive, accusatory, ridiculing, hateful, and punative when it comes to allowing people of different faiths, most especially Christians, to profess and practice and celebrate their religious beliefs?

I wonder what great achievements for the benefit of others can be pointed to by "Agnostic Theists" in the name of Agnosticism or Atheism? Hospitals? Institutions of Higher Learning? Orphanages? Leper colonies? Soup kitchens/homeless shelters/other ministry to the homeless? Selfless and tireless work for little or no reward among some of the world's most poor and desperate peoples?

I wonder why all nations who have made Atheism the official policy of the nation since the opening of the 20th Century have been some of the most restrictive of human rights, the most oppressive, the most brutal, the most invasive of nations?

If 'by their fruit ye shall know them' is to be taken seriously, then these are all serious questions.

Do you know any of the agnostic-theists personally or are we judging by an internet board full of strangers who all wear masks called avatars?

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder why an "Agnostic Theist" would CARE what anybody else thinks or wonders about his/her religious beliefs?

I wonder why so many "Agnostic Theists" are so spiteful, dismissive, accusatory, ridiculing, hateful, and punative when it comes to allowing people of different faiths, most especially Christians, to profess and practice and celebrate their religious beliefs?

I wonder what great achievements for the benefit of others can be pointed to by "Agnostic Theists" in the name of Agnosticism or Atheism? Hospitals? Institutions of Higher Learning? Orphanages? Leper colonies? Soup kitchens/homeless shelters/other ministry to the homeless? Selfless and tireless work for little or no reward among some of the world's most poor and desperate peoples?

I wonder why all nations who have made Atheism the official policy of the nation since the opening of the 20th Century have been some of the most restrictive of human rights, the most oppressive, the most brutal, the most invasive of nations?

If 'by their fruit ye shall know them' is to be taken seriously, then these are all serious questions.

Do you know any of the agnostic-theists personally or are we judging by an internet board full of strangers who all wear masks called avatars?

Personally as re friends, neighbors, family? No.

Personally as in up close and personal confrontation re whether a small historic cross should be removed from the Bernalillo County Seal or another tiny historic cross should be removed from the Tijeras Village Seal--the crosses signifying the Catholic and Presbyterian influences that were instrumental in settling this area . . . .

Re how many traditional Christmas carols should be included in the Highschool Christmas concert, or whether we could place a historic creche on property that was vacant but in part owned by the federal government. . . . .

And multiply those close up and personal issues by hundreds and thousands across the country. . . .

And those who post on message boards or call in to radio shows or write letters to the editor, etc. . . . .

Yes.

And therefore I think my questions remain fair to ask a professed Agnostic Theist who has requested clarification re his beliefs.

 

[Hollie]

I wonder why an "Agnostic Theist" would CARE what anybody else thinks or wonders about his/her religious beliefs?

I think there are many reasons why non-believers (or even believers in religions other than yours), would care about your beliefs. Plenty of people think Bibles and Qurans and any number of other religious texts relate an accurate and literal worldview, and those opinions cross over into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.

I would absolutely not want an Ayatollah Jerry Falwell or Sheik Jimmy Swaggert in a position of authority in this nation. Systems such as democracies and representative republics -- created by the Greeks and wholly human-focused, have changed and grown and been worked to the benefit of mankind. The creation of the USA (by Deists, not exclusively Christians) was a major leap in human social structure and this system even with its flaws is the most workable known. One of the reasons it is so workable is that religion is throttled by secular law.

Given the obvious social evolution of mankind even across the 20th century (a pivotal time period between older nationalisms and modern globalism with the US in the forefront thanks to its balanced system and freedoms), it is not surprising that we have seen a mostly peaceful transition away from Communism by the very country that had inaugurated it (USSR).

I wonder why so many "Agnostic Theists" are so spiteful, dismissive, accusatory, ridiculing, hateful, and punative when it comes to allowing people of different faiths, most especially Christians, to profess and practice and celebrate their religious beliefs?

That’s quite a litany of derogatory terms for non-believers. I think you’re generalizing, needlessly.

I have no issue at all with celebration of Christmas or other Christian holidays. I do have an issue with government sponsorship of religion. Decisions by the courts, as they relate to articles and practice of religion on government property or with endorsement by government, are in accordance with the law. You may find that those particular decisions negatively affect you but it also means that government is not endorsing any particular religion at the expense of, and to the detriment of other religions.

Human history is not a static event-- it is an ever evolving process. The fact is, Europe slogged through the Dark Ages which was largely a function of the Church and its vilification of knowledge and progress. That religion in this nation is constrained by secular laws – I’m OK with that.

I wonder what great achievements for the benefit of others can be pointed to by "Agnostic Theists" in the name of Agnosticism or Atheism? Hospitals? Institutions of Higher Learning? Orphanages? Leper colonies? Soup kitchens/homeless shelters/other ministry to the homeless? Selfless and tireless work for little or no reward among some of the world's most poor and desperate peoples?

Altruism is not the sole property of the theist. Note the theist takes credit for making the world a better place (would that include 9/11? And the endless terrorist war going on based upon theistic perception?) Sure, you are likely a very nice person. But so am I and so are others who hold no religious perspective. I have lived my life helping others, and being as good a person as I can be and I do not believe in doing this as a way of stacking up favor in a god's eye, nor do I do it because I have a deeply seated fear that if I don't, a god will punish me "forever".

Do I need to remind you that most of the planet does not embrace your religious beliefs (and in fact, every theistic sect is in and of itself a minority when stacked against the others and the non believers). Theists don't have some special trademark on decency or morality or benevolence.

It took religions how long to "unite" the world with a doctrine that splintered into hundreds of subgroups? 1500-2000 years (still not there yet)? How long has it taken the internet to make communication between people fast and cheap and easy? 15 years? And what happens when people communicate and learn about one another and their fears and tribalism’s are diminished? They treat one another with respect. They live peacefully together, like the experiment of pluralism the USA has proven. Does it happen in an instant? Is it perfect? No, but it does happen and it happens fastest with technology and science.

Before, it was impossible to conceive of a world of ethics without a god, and now it is not at all inconceivable. It was inconceivable that there were not angels pushing the planets and gods opened flowers and so on-- but now it is natural to know that these things have non-divine underpinnings. We are evolving! And we are evolving away from the "feeling" based tenets of religious dogma. The deepest fear (theists generally deny having any fears at all, but their doctrines belie the reality) of the theist, aside from what is in most cases the fear that death = nothingness, is that of knowledge. Knowledge builds a bulwark against gainsaid assertion and "unprovable" speculation.

Theists believe that man is inherently evil and cannot evolve away from the baser instincts without a god (or not at all and only death can evolve man into a higher state of being). This to me is quite a bleak perspective, though it does have a certain inevitability: dead people behave in completely non threatening ways.

I wonder why all nations who have made Atheism the official policy of the nation since the opening of the 20th Century have been some of the most restrictive of human rights, the most oppressive, the most brutal, the most invasive of nations?

If 'by their fruit ye shall know them' is to be taken seriously, then these are all serious questions.

I think your confusing political ideologies (Stalinism, Leninism, communism), with “Atheism” as an official policy.

Reason dictates that a system that cannot uphold itself will fail. This is why the vast majority of religions (and all forms of communism) have failed over time, and why all modern religions will eventually fail as well if we use history as our benchmark. There is no reason to believe Jesus or Al Mahdi (sp?) will ever come back and as the years roll onward and they don't return, religions will fall further and further out of favor, just like the promises of Mithras are now dust).

There is nothing to guarantee humanism/materialism/atheism will be a happy joyous and always pro life and healthy system. What it doesn't do, is it doesn't appeal to elements outside of a provable paradigm to assert some sort of supremacy from an "outside" force.

Communists do not point to the sky and say some entity other than man has created their dogma; hence, at its core, communism takes responsibility for its existence. Even representative democracy by the US founding fathers gave a casual acknowledgement to an impersonal "Creator" and then stuck purely to secular issues (and in the Constitution, they didn't mention any partisan divinities at all, and in fact prohibited religious infiltration of secular functions-- all with good reason).

 

[Aristotle]

I wonder why an "Agnostic Theist" would CARE what anybody else thinks or wonders about his/her religious beliefs?

I wonder why so many "Agnostic Theists" are so spiteful, dismissive, accusatory, ridiculing, hateful, and punative when it comes to allowing people of different faiths, most especially Christians, to profess and practice and celebrate their religious beliefs?

I wonder what great achievements for the benefit of others can be pointed to by "Agnostic Theists" in the name of Agnosticism or Atheism? Hospitals? Institutions of Higher Learning? Orphanages? Leper colonies? Soup kitchens/homeless shelters/other ministry to the homeless? Selfless and tireless work for little or no reward among some of the world's most poor and desperate peoples?

I wonder why all nations who have made Atheism the official policy of the nation since the opening of the 20th Century have been some of the most restrictive of human rights, the most oppressive, the most brutal, the most invasive of nations?

If 'by their fruit ye shall know them' is to be taken seriously, then these are all serious questions.

Do you know any of the agnostic-theists personally or are we judging by an internet board full of strangers who all wear masks called avatars?

Personally as re friends, neighbors, family? No.

Personally as in up close and personal confrontation re whether a small historic cross should be removed from the Bernalillo County Seal or another tiny historic cross should be removed from the Tijeras Village Seal--the crosses signifying the Catholic and Presbyterian influences that were instrumental in settling this area . . . .

Re how many traditional Christmas carols should be included in the Highschool Christmas concert, or whether we could place a historic creche on property that was vacant but in part owned by the federal government. . . . .

And multiply those close up and personal issues by hundreds and thousands across the country. . . .

And those who post on message boards or call in to radio shows or write letters to the editor, etc. . . . .

Yes.

And therefore I think my questions remain fair to ask a professed Agnostic Theist who has requested clarification re his beliefs.

I take what you've said in all of that as a no.

Personally I have nothing problem with spiritual or religious faith. My main issue with religion are those who profess it, yet demean others in the same breathe.

Websites like:

Answering Islam, A Christian-Muslim Dialog and Apologetic

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

Are all propagated by those who profess a faith (in this example Christianity) and seek to demean the beliefs of others without any regard from scholars and/or linguistic and historical professionals.

I personally have nothing against Christmas caroling on a public sidewalk or in an institution like a private hospital that promotes their religious faith, or in an environment of higher learning I have no problem. My issue are those who seek out to ruffle the feathers of people who have lived their lives as autonomous beings with no regard for religion, yet, there are people who make it their duty to judge because they do not believe as they do. I haven't met any atheist who do this. Are there rude atheists? Of course. Like the atheists that are rude and like to call religion "fairy tale" so too are those who profess a faith in a loving God yet their behaviors do not reflect that love. That is my concern.

 

[BreezeWood]

Aristotle: I personally feel that what we lack in faith will be known to us when we die whether there is a God or not.

... whether there is a God or not

10/4 -

... will be known to us when we die - except for admission to the Everlasting, it must be learned / known while still alive, before the body perishes ...



where did you come from - what designed your DNA ?

What designed my DNA?

Well I can say the collective DNA of both my mother and my father. Where exactly are you going with this?

my mistake ---> agnostic-theist ... 10/4.

I believe your DNA is assembled / engineered by those who have completed Remission to the OuterWorld of the Everlasting ... short story - your Mothers and Fathers input, that is a good one.

 

[Emir]

Human history is not a static event-- it is an ever evolving process. The fact is, Europe slogged through the Dark Ages which was largely a function of the Church and its vilification of knowledge and progress. That religion in this nation is constrained by secular laws – I’m OK with that.

I have to take issue with this (unfortunately common) characterization of European history. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I feel like you are channeling Edward Gibbon with this statement. For those who don't know, Edward Gibbon is the author of the Decline and Fall of Rome, the cornerstone of our understanding of the Roman Empire. He lived in Britain in the 18th century, during the Age of Enlightenment when thinkers were experimenting with Deism while bashing the Catholic Church, which by that point was certainly a corrupt and morally bankrupt institution. His idea was that the spread of Christianity through Rome discouraged active civil virtues and military ethos while encouraging financial waste and internal conflict, contributing directly to the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

The above analysis is the one component of Gibbon's work which modern historians reject. The political instability inherent in the imperial system, the economic instability of a system reliant on continual expansion, and the indefensibly long Europe border constantly threatened by Germanic tribes are all clearly more important in the Fall of the Roman Empire.

The argument then goes that because the next millenium was one of violence and ignorance, that because the Greco-Roman culture had been supplanted by German Christians to usher in the Dark Ages, Christianity itself was clearly a historically regressive force. But the assumption that the Dark Ages were so mean is based on an outdated understanding of European history. When the Goths and Vandals and Franks conquered the Western Roman Empire, it is true that they supplanted the traditional Roman elite. However, one could argue that initially, the rulers were all that changed in Roman Society. Slaves continued to toil on great estates owned by the super wealthy, the same old families governed at the local level, and the clergy continued to weild enormous influence.

What changed was the new ruling classes valuation of Greco-Roman literature, the body of work used to educate Roman elites for centuries. The Germans had no conception of classical literacy as a litmus test for nobility and so discarded the old tradition. Only in Roman Catholic Monasteries did scribes preserve some of the classics. The clergy were notable for being the only social class to maintain literacy, a necessary requirement to study the Bible, and thus also maintained much of the ancient knowledge. Without Christianity and the Catholic Church as an organization, we would likely know much less about the classical world, and, perhaps more importantly, literacy in Western Europe would have died with Rome.

That is not to say that the Church is blameless, or that Edward Gibbon was wrong to criticize Christianity in his day. But to project frustration with early modern Catholicism onto early Medieval Christianity clouds one's historical analysis.