Who here considers themselves Agnostic?

Post Reply New Topic

I am an agnostic. I would also tentatively group myself into the secular christian camp which is I think a suitable way to describe yourself with regard the 'christ' story.
I also consider myself a secular sufi, and find much of worth in Taosim and Zen Budhism as well as animistic dispositions if not beliefs.

peace j

That's hardly an exhaustive analysis of ancient world ethical traditions...

Just a small indication of how far the Hebrew were ahead of their neighbors ethically.

Without the influence of the Hebrews through the other Abrahamic religions (primarly Christianity and Islam) human sacrifice would still be practiced in many places.

ruveyn

Their immediate neighbors, perhaps... What about in places like India?

??? There would be no Christianity or Islam without Judaism of course there is an influence.

Or Australia or China or North America......

Before the Romans came and taught them some table manners, your ancestors couldn't have organized to take over a bathroom, and they were at great risk of being royally trampled by the Syrians. Your people might have been relatively sane compared to the demented lunatics you were surrounded by, but don't let it go to your head.

Besides, your ancestors probably learned their better ideas while living under Egyptian rule. Your Semitic ancestors would never have progressed beyond the Bedouins if you hadn't had to spend a tenure or two living under the yoke of either one empire or another. They might not have always treated you right, but they taught you a concept of law you otherwise would never have been exposed to. In fact, that's probably where your literacy came from.

Your ancestors had one law for Hebrew slaves, another one for foreigners.

Besides, the Britons, who were among MY ancestors, didn't learn about the concept of slavery until the Romans brought it over, and they actually never had much use for it anyway. While those cultures gathered around the Mediterranean were murdering and enslaving each other, MY people were venturing out into the uncharted wilderness. MY ancestors in time built the greatest maritime empire in history. And, if it were not for us, your people would not have their homeland. Quite frankly, it's doubtful that, without the intervention of the British and the Americans, there would have been any of you left.

You know, before the Romans came, my ancestors practiced rampant buggery, but I don't think they ever had any special attachment to slavery. Where it was practiced, it was probably a means of retaliating against a rival with whom there had been some sort of cave feud.

My ancestors may have had their flaws, but your ancestors threw rocks at people who suffered from mental illnesses and claimed they were infested with demons. Mine just thought they had been possessed by some terrestrial mammal or other, and gave them a lot of booze to shut them up.

I am also an agnostic, and have been for as long as I remember. Though I belive my father considers himself a Protestant, and most of my mother's side of the family attends regular church services, for some reason my immediate family was never very religious, so I was left to decide for myself. I never really believed in the Christian mythos, even from early childhood, but it was high school before I was able to actually attach the label of "agnosticism" to myself. Growing up in the Bible Belt, I can very distinctly recall having to explain to classmates the difference between atheism and agnosticism, and having a few try to convince me to abandon it for Christianity.

Insofar as the degree of my agnosticism is concerned-- I do not believe in any anthroporphized deity, be it Abrahamic or otherwise. I tend to base my views of existence upon scientific theory, so I endorse the view of the origin of the Universe which is consistent with the Big Bang, and the origin of life and of humanity which is consistent with evolution. For that reason, I don't believe in a "Creator", per se. However, I'm also willing to concede that there are many questions which science has thus far not been able to answer. If there is an entity which we might call "God" (and I'm open to the possibility, which is why I don't consider myself an atheist), I believe it is something which has not truly been encapsulated by the conceptions of God put forth by any organized religion. I'm not quite sure how to define it-- possibly a "superconsciousness" comprised of the interconnected web of inhabitants of the earth, or some sort of natural balance of life energy. Maybe God is that which is beyond human comprehension; if that's the case, I honestly don't see any logical conclusion other than agnosticism, since something which is beyond human comprehension cannot be proved or disproved.

I've wondered the same thing- if there are things all around us, but beyond the five senses. There's no logical reason to believe it though- it's more something I feel and sense.

I just don't get how people can classify one as Atheist when they're clearly Agnostic. It's really silly. If Atheist only means they don't believe in a God, then one can be Atheist, yet spiritual, and that just sounds weird.

It does sound very weird, doesn't it? The broadest possible use of the word "atheist" is inadequate. Spirituality occurs on a spectrum, and atheism is a very black and white word.

Am I an agnostic? I'm not sure.

Well, I've always thought Atheist came with additional meaning, beyond just not believing in a God. The word by itself simply means you don't believe in a God, but every atheist I knew also denied an afterlife of any kind, so I thought it was a package deal. Agnostic isn't even clear anymore to me. I thought Agnostic meant you weren't sure what exactly God was, or even if there was one, but according to wikipedia, there's several types, including agnostic theist and agnostic atheist. Since I believe -and I use that term kinda loosely- in something beyond this reality that connects us all, I suppose I'm closer to a theist.

I've found that the focus on terminology just gets in our way. It's better to just work on your concepts themselves, instead of worrying about how other people might classify them.

No they didn't. Ruveyn, these are cross-cultural and existed in societies with little to no Jewish contact, whether they were Romans or Oriental.

Even further, ruveyn, if the Jews were so ethically superior, how come we use ROMAN law to govern society, contracts, and so on and so forth? How come Jewish legal theory allows for a dying man to literally get away with murder? http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2009 ... h-law.html

How come the Jews forbid usury, which is, if you didn't notice, one of the founding aspects of our economy as it allows us to link up savings and consumption in a market of intertemporal preferences, increasing economic efficiency? Lending is a major part of the economy, and yet the Jews didn't want that??

How come the Jews committed acts of genocide?

How come the Jews invented a monotheistic God and literally let this being get away with murder in their theological framework, while calling it good? I mean, you're talking about the people who invented the Old Testament, which has been criticized by countless individuals, for things as far as genocide, misogyny, worship of a terroristic being, forsaking pork, etc. I mean, are you really telling me that forbidding pork is moral? That's ridiculous, have you tasted bacon???

How come the Jews didn't allow women to get divorces? Roman law did allow that, but Jewish law requires the man to file the divorce, rather than having gender equality.

How come the Jews didn't develop their own distinctive philosophy, and rather had to borrow from Greco-Roman philosophical concepts in later eras? I mean, seriously, if Jews had this great philosophical tradition, then Maimonides would have written using Greek philosophy, and we'd have Jewish thinkers in our intellectual pantheon somewhere. I mean, Eastern groups DID develop their own philosophy. The Greeks DID develop a philosophy. The Jews failed to do this.

I mean, look, ruveyn, you can "honor your tradition" however much you want, but to say that it is somehow really good when it isn't is just not reasonable. The Greeks and Romans have much much more to respect, and that's why we've borrowed more from them than any other group for developing Western Civilization.

You'll have to wait till tomorrow, I got home late from work and work early tomorrow mourning. But I think Frank Zindler said that, it was during a debate he had at the annual American Atheist National Convention. I've read Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins, but I might also suggest to you: Steve Stewart-Williams and his new book, Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life: How Evolutionary Theory Undermines Everything You Thought You Knew. he is a professor in evolutionary psychology and has some interesting perspectives that might interest you.

I don't think anyone knows what happens after we die. Strident atheists will tell you that obviously, we know what happens based on the observable and measurable. I don't think its the brain misfiring either, I think it's us not fully understanding this universe we live in, and the other universes that also exist who are in a dance with our own to keep all the life-sustaining properties in check. Time is a property of our universe, who knows if it exists in other universes as well, and supernatural phenomena may construct other universes in abstract ways that we can't conceive. We don't know and shouldn't limit ourselves based on our limited understanding.

In the final analysis - not to coach you or anything - my own perspective is, whatever helps you live and make it through this lifetime, go for it. If you think your atheism or theism helps you to lead a richer fuller life, live a little and be human, even if all of your questions haven't been fully answered.

be fair

Jewish law were instructions for a people who God came down to live with and condition to be his partners on earth in spreading ethical monotheism. They are not for you to adopt as your own, especially a someone like yourself who doesn't currently know too much biblical scholarship. We need to change that.

Mutilating genitals? I don't think too many males have complained about our circumcision. Could it feel better during sex? Perhaps, but I don't think men are currently enjoying sex less because of it. It is our covenant with God, and if you are born into the tradition, and feel so sh***y about it, end it for your line by not circumcising your own offspring.

The torah is strict in its anti-child sacrifice position, and don't quote Abraham and Issac either because it would further display your ignorance on the matter.

The jewish laws of kosher, are Judaisms compromise on the vegetarian ideal of the bible/torah. It is not a health code. It is part of Judaisms dealing with the fact that - to use Christian wording - "we have fallen" since our time in the Garden of Eden. Kosher is a reminder that vegetarianism is an ideal, and that fruit and vegetable eating is not the same as meat eating.

There aren't any kosher laws restricting your eating of fruits and veggies, so self-discipline is not the main purpose of kosher. It is a healthy reminder to all that you have still killed when you eat meat, and to honor that something gave its life so that you can nourish yourself.

Stoning is a punishment that's always been practiced in this part of the world. If you aren't 5-6000 years old and living with God in Ancient Israel, then again, as noted above, those rules and standards don't apply to you.