KoloOyinbo:


Agnosticism is not well understood. But I stand by my definitions and what I said.

Definition by Websters of an Atheist - "a person who believes that God does not exist" i.e. They believe there is NO GOD.

Agnostic: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

Full Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

For further emphasis, gnosis means knowledge. You put an "a" there, it means without. Eg sexu@l and asexu@l, theist, and atheist.


Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Now see number 2a. That is what atheism really is. b under is one of the classifications I mentioned previously.

PLEASE don't go by most people on this forum try some reputable academic source. Not just Nairaland but almost all open forums and blogs are a mix from the best to the most uneducated fools with the craziest ideas. Rather enjoy the ideas etc and when the mood strikes point those that genuinely want to learn in the direction they should be going or towards some proper source material.

We are on nairaland so thats my first point of reference. There are atheists here who you can verify some of my claims with (for instance being hard pressed to find an atheist that believes there is no God) and thats why I mentioned them. Im not a stranger to academic research and so I will not point you in the direction of a nairaland post as empirical proof of some scientific fact or theory. If I point you in a certain direction on nairaland, its for a reason.

Sorry if I appear condescending but I try to simplify matters as much as I can to assist.

Thats not what I meant, but ok.

Very interesting idea you have - "Is atheism a religion?"

I can see a strong argument for YES! Very similar in fact to Humanism. Humanism is accept in many quarters as a religion 'of sorts' (my quote marks).

There are counter arguments of course but it has the makings of an interesting debate. Perhaps you should open a thread about it. Although first we would have to define religion! To me 'Religion' is more than a belief in God. I know many people who accept God but reject religion. Yup a complex set of arguments await there.

Atheism is NOT a religion, not even if you define it (erroneously so) as the belief in the non existence of God. I would be interested in seeing how you make a case for atheism being a religion.

Here, I've opened a thread for you https://www.nairaland.com/2285941/atheism-religion-kolooyinbo-explains

jayriginal:


Agnostic: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

Full Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

For further emphasis, gnosis means knowledge. You put an "a" there, it means without. Eg sexu@l and asexu@l, theist, and atheist.


Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Now see number 2a. That is what atheism really is. b under is one of the classifications I mentioned previously.

We are on nairaland so thats my first point of reference. There are atheists here who you can verify some of my claims with (for instance being hard pressed to find an atheist that believes there is no God) and thats why I mentioned them. Im not a stranger to academic research and so I will not point you in the direction of a nairaland post as empirical proof of some scientific fact or theory. If I point you in a certain direction on nairaland, its for a reason.
Atheism is NOT a religion, not even if you define it (erroneously so) as the belief in the non existence of God. I would be interested in seeing how you make a case for atheism being a religion.

Here, I've opened a thread for you https://www.nairaland.com/2285941/atheism-religion-kolooyinbo-explains

Your definitions support me, thanks.

2a Atheism is a BELIEF! A belief that is every bit as unsupported as the belief in a creator.

I said it would be interesting to discuss if atheism is a religion and so it would. As I mentioned I think a very strong argument could be made for it but did you read my proviso? - that we could agree on a suitable definition of religion.

I am unsure why you have stated twice now that "hard pressed to find an atheist that believes there is no God"? Surely 2a and 2b that YOU quote refute this claim?

Also 2b defines atheism as a doctrine and might be relevant to any discussion on atheism being a religion.

Anyway I have been responding to questions here for yourself and indeed Kay17. The phrase that you opened the new thread about above implies I have the full explanation of atheism being a religion. I have said I consider there are strong arguments pro this stance but there may also be some against. It is of mild academic interest to me but please feel free to start the ball rolling and I may look it on it from time to time thanks.

KoloOyinbo:


Your definitions support me, thanks.

2a Atheism is a BELIEF! A belief that is every bit as unsupported as the belief in a creator.

I said it would be interesting to discuss if atheism is a religion and so it would. As I mentioned I think a very strong argument could be made for it but did you read my proviso? - that we could agree on a suitable definition of religion.

I am unsure why you have stated twice now that "hard pressed to find an atheist that believes there is no God"? Surely 2a and 2b that YOU quote refute this claim?

Also 2b defines atheism as a doctrine and might be relevant to any discussion on atheism being a religion.

Anyway I have been responding to questions here for yourself and indeed Kay17. The phrase that you opened the new thread about above implies I have the full explanation of atheism being a religion. I have said I consider there are strong arguments pro this stance but there may also be some against. It is of mild academic interest to me but please feel free to start the ball rolling and I may look it on it from time to time thanks.

isnt agnosticism a belief as well?

KoloOyinbo:


Your definitions support me, thanks.

2a Atheism is a BELIEF! A belief that is every bit as unsupported as the belief in a creator.

I said it would be interesting to discuss if atheism is a religion and so it would. As I mentioned I think a very strong argument could be made for it but did you read my proviso? - that we could agree on a suitable definition of religion.

I am unsure why you have stated twice now that "hard pressed to find an atheist that believes there is no God"? Surely 2a and 2b that YOU quote refute this claim?

Also 2b defines atheism as a doctrine and might be relevant to any discussion on atheism being a religion.

Anyway I have been responding to questions here for yourself and indeed Kay17. The phrase that you opened the new thread about above implies I have the full explanation of atheism being a religion. I have said I consider there are strong arguments pro this stance but there may also be some against. It is of mild academic interest to me but please feel free to start the ball rolling and I may look it on it from time to time thanks.

isnt agnosticism a belief as well?

aren't negative and positive a assertions beliefs?

Kay17:


Why do you find atheism ludicrous?

For the same reasons I find 'theism' ludicrous, plus one!

They are both based not just on unsubstantiated beliefs but indeed on beliefs that cannot by their nature BE substantiated!

Plus the fact that many (possibly most but I do NOT want to condemn unfairly) atheists seem to wrongly feel that they are being more rational that a believer in God. Thus demonstrating a total lack of understanding of the core issues.

There is a God - the SECOND most idiotic idea known to man.

There is NO God - the MOST and NUMBER ONE idiotic idea known to man.

I choose the less of the two!

A believer or an atheism who realise they are operating on FAITH alone with no substantiation is worthy of respect.

An agnostic has the benefit that their position IS both sustainable and logical. (Although I can't help but feel that they are 'ducking the question' LOL!)

It is hard to refute (although I do not accept it) that the agnostics position is superior to both.

Perhaps I will pray hard to God to make me an agnostic!

Kay17:


isnt agnosticism a belief as well?

aren't negative and positive a assertions beliefs?

Agnosticism can be supported by logic and fact!

We do not and cannot know either way IF there is a God. Therefore the agnostic simply says I do not know. In scientific terms - insufficient data. A rational and sustainable (and indeed unassailable) position.

A assertion with evidence is a fact without it is an unsupported statement/belief.

KoloOyinbo:


Agnosticism can be supported by logic and fact!

We do not and cannot know either way IF there is a God. Therefore the agnostic simply says I do not know. In scientific terms - insufficient data. A rational and sustainable (and indeed unassailable) position.

A assertion with evidence is a fact without it is an unsupported statement/belief.

i simply asked if it was a belief.

Kay17:


i simply asked if it was a belief.

Then I would say not as it can be supported and is provable.

KoloOyinbo:


Then I would say not as it can be supported and is provable.

In fact i had a very broad definition of belief in mind only to turn to the nearest dictionary to find the common understanding of belief vastly different from what i tthought. Apparently a belief is defined as a conviction without rigorous proof.

I defined a belief as an idea dwelling in the mind regardless of proof.

Now if we are adopting the common definition, most atheists will obviously disagree that atheism is largely a belief because there are rigorous proofs in support of it. While my definition will include both atheism and agnosticism since they are essentially ideas with or without proofs.

So which do you endorse?!

KoloOyinbo:


Your definitions support me, thanks.

2a Atheism is a BELIEF! A belief that is every bit as unsupported as the belief in a creator.

I said it would be interesting to discuss if atheism is a religion and so it would. As I mentioned I think a very strong argument could be made for it but did you read my proviso? - that we could agree on a suitable definition of religion.

I am unsure why you have stated twice now that "hard pressed to find an atheist that believes there is no God"? Surely 2a and 2b that YOU quote refute this claim?

Also 2b defines atheism as a doctrine and might be relevant to any discussion on atheism being a religion.

Anyway I have been responding to questions here for yourself and indeed Kay17. The phrase that you opened the new thread about above implies I have the full explanation of atheism being a religion. I have said I consider there are strong arguments pro this stance but there may also be some against. It is of mild academic interest to me but please feel free to start the ball rolling and I may look it on it from time to time thanks.

Its a bit dizzying switching between the two threads.

The definition provided does not support you. 2a calls atheism a disbelief. That is what I have been saying all along. A disbelief is not a belief! 2b calls it a doctrine of the non existence of God. Now 2b is what you and many others consider atheism to be. However 2a is what we are telling you it is. If an award was to be given for being an atheist, each person would be called upon to answer the question "do you believe in God". Any answer other than "yes" would qualify the person for the award. It would not be necessary to ask the person if the person believed there was no God.

Kay17:


In fact i had a very broad definition of belief in mind only to turn to the nearest dictionary to find the common understanding of belief vastly different from what i tthought. Apparently a belief is defined as a conviction without rigorous proof.

I defined a belief as an idea dwelling in the mind regardless of proof.

Now if we are adopting the common definition, most atheists will obviously disagree that atheism is largely a belief because there are rigorous proofs in support of it. While my definition will include both atheism and agnosticism since they are essentially ideas with or without proofs.

So which do you endorse?!

WOW! there are rigorous proofs in support of it (atheism) LOL. Man has been searching for this for millennia. I thought you had already accepted that:
A) We cannot prove the existence of God
B) We cannot prove the NON existence of God.

That is what the discussion has been all about for days now! Suddenly you come up with this error?

Plus in the previous post I have explained that Agnosticism IS supportable and proveable and therefore is hardly a belief

jayriginal:


Its a bit dizzying switching between the two threads.

The definition provided does not support you. 2a calls atheism a disbelief. That is what I have been saying all along. A disbelief is not a belief! 2b calls it a doctrine of the non existence of God. Now 2b is what you and many others consider atheism to be. However 2a is what we are telling you it is. If an award was to be given for being an atheist, each person would be called upon to answer the question "do you believe in God". Any answer other than "yes" would qualify the person for the award. It would not be necessary to ask the person if the person believed there was no God.

Interesting points but what then do you consider the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism?

Plus I see how you are trying to argue semantics but consider this.

You do not believe a God. But you do not believe in NO God? Then you are a Agnostic? (Just asking, not judging)

Apologies for switching between the threads. If you are happy to do so I will abandon the Kalam stuff. Was only answering Kay17 anyway.

I think what he is saying is the fact that you do not believe in god makes you an atheist full stop because it is not in the rule of an atheist to consider whether in fact there might be a god.

So an agnostic is a branch of atheism and to believe in god is "religion"

KoloOyinbo:


Interesting points but what then do you consider the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism?

Plus I see how you are trying to argue semantics but consider this.

You do not believe a God. But you do not believe in NO God? Then you are a Agnostic? (Just asking, not judging)

Apologies for switching between the threads. If you are happy to do so I will abandon the Kalam stuff. Was only answering Kay17 anyway.

KoloOyinbo:


Interesting points but what then do you consider the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism?

Plus I see how you are trying to argue semantics but consider this.

You do not believe a God. But you do not believe in NO God? Then you are a Agnostic? (Just asking, not judging)

Apologies for switching between the threads. If you are happy to do so I will abandon the Kalam stuff. Was only answering Kay17 anyway.

You call it agnosticism, I say its atheism. I know what you consider as atheism and what you consider as agnosticism. They are both atheism, its just that one leaves open the possibility (provided proof can be given) while one forecloses the possibility. Neither believe in God.

Chiam55:

I think what he is saying is the fact that you do not believe in god makes you an atheist full stop

Full stop!

jayriginal:


You call it agnosticism, I say its atheism. I know what you consider as atheism and what you consider as agnosticism. They are both atheism, its just that one leaves open the possibility (provided proof can be given) while one forecloses the possibility. Neither believe in God.

Full stop!

Well it is certainly NOT what most of the world defines as Atheism (or indeed Agnosticism) which are seen as two separate things. But if we accept your personal definitions then I certainly see where you are coming from.

KoloOyinbo:


Well it is certainly NOT what most of the world defines as Atheism (or indeed Agnosticism) which are seen as two separate things. But if we accept your personal definitions then I certainly see where you are coming from.

Most of your world I believe.

Your definition is certainly not what most atheists accept. I may be wrong about this but I doubt it. Most atheists know that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. Why then will they with this knowledge say there is no God. Even the few who do declare that there is no God cannot prove it. Maybe there is a God, maybe there isnt, but when it comes to belief, we dont believe it. Simple.

jayriginal:


Most of your world I believe.

Your definition is certainly not what most atheists accept. I may be wrong about this but I doubt it. Most atheists know that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. Why then will they with this knowledge say there is no God. Even the few who do declare that there is no God cannot prove it. Maybe there is a God, maybe there isnt, but when it comes to belief, we dont believe it. Simple.

Yes, you have defined what most people call agnosticism. I now see where you are coming from. Irrespective of calling it Atheism or Agnosticism what you describe is supportable/sustainable.

I was trying to say that for those who believe God does not exist - my definition of an Atheist (of which I find many - and indeed they seem to outnumber the agnostics) then their belief seems to be every bit as much a 'religion' or perhaps I should say an act of FAITH as those who believe the contrary.

The worlds foremost (best known?) atheist (at least in his own mind and those of most atheists) is Prof. Richard Dawkin. He has written a best seller - The God Delusion - on the premise that God does not exist. I have not read it yet and am unlikely to. Not that I refuse to read it but that it is low on my list of priorities.

KoloOyinbo:


Yes, you have defined what most people call agnosticism. I now see where you are coming from. Irrespective of calling it Atheism or Agnosticism what you describe is supportable/sustainable.

I was trying to say that for those who believe God does not exist - my definition of an Atheist (of which I find many - and indeed they seem to outnumber the agnostics) then their belief seems to be every bit as much a 'religion' or perhaps I should say an act of FAITH as those who believe the contrary.

The worlds foremost (best known?) atheist (at least in his own mind and those of most atheists) is Prof. Richard Dawkin. He has written a best seller - The God Delusion - on the premise that God does not exist. I have not read it yet and am unlikely to. Not that I refuse to read it but that it is low on my list of priorities.

1) The reason why it seems those you call atheists seem to be more is because they are more vocal. Thats it. In reality I bet they are a small minority among atheists.

2) Secondly, Dawkins himself (I attempted to read the God Delusion on a journey once and it put me to sleep. I never resumed) is not an atheist by your definition. He has a scale from 1-7 where one is absolutely sure about the existence of God and 7 is absolutely sure about the non existence of God. He puts himself as a 6. Does this surprise you?

jayriginal:


1) The reason why it seems those you call atheists seem to be more is because they are more vocal. Thats it. In reality I bet they are a small minority among atheists.

2) Secondly, Dawkins himself (I attempted to read the God Delusion on a journey once and it put me to sleep. I never resumed) is not an atheist by your definition. He has a scale from 1-7 where one is absolutely sure about the existence of God and 7 is absolutely sure about the non existence of God. He puts himself as a 6. Does this surprise you?

An agnostic would be a 4! Not sure about the more vocal point - perhaps in Naija. But in European schools we are taught that atheists believe there is no God and Agnostics don't know (or if we are to be cynical - heaven forbid - don't care! )

Glad for your opinion on Dawkins book. You have now convinced me that I would be wasting my money - if I want something to put me to sleep I am quite sure kai kai, ogororo or buruktu would do a much better and enjoyable job!

Have to take issue with his scale. I consider myself a 1 but do not KNOW! But that's a different argument and as its HIS scale he can define it anyway he wishes probably.

KoloOyinbo:


An agnostic would be a 4! Not sure about the more vocal point - perhaps in Naija. But in European schools we are taught that atheists believe there is no God and Agnostics don't know (or if we are to be cynical - heaven forbid - don't care! )

Glad for your opinion on Dawkins book. You have now convinced me that I would be wasting my money - if I want something to put me to sleep I am quite sure kai kai, ogororo or buruktu would do a much better and enjoyable job!

Have to take issue with his scale. I consider myself a 1 but do not KNOW! But that's a different argument and as its HIS scale he can define it anyway he wishes probably.

Well let's move beyond that for now. At least we understand ourselves.

For the next argument, im going to assume (without conceding) that atheists believe that there is no God. How does that make it a religion?

Please make your argument on the other thread.

KoloOyinbo:


WOW! there are rigorous proofs in support of it (atheism) LOL. Man has been searching for this for millennia. I thought you had already accepted that:
A) We cannot prove the existence of God
B) We cannot prove the NON existence of God.

That is what the discussion has been all about for days now! Suddenly you come up with this error?

Plus in the previous post I have explained that Agnosticism IS supportable and proveable and therefore is hardly a belief

KoloOyinbo,

You keep acting like God is a being independent from theists' claims. An atheist in addressing the non existence of God has to rely on the theists' claims. If God cannot be proven to exist, then he need not be disproved. Whats left to be disproved?!

jayriginal:



Unsubstantiated, hasty generalization. I repeat, you would be hard pressed to find an atheist that believes there is no God. On this forum, I know only of one who says so and that is Ooman. There might be others but they will be very few. Most atheists simply do not believe. In fact, its like this, "I do not believe in God. You do so, not out of knowledge but out of faith. Give me proof." This is the stance of most atheists.

So easy to say. There is no god/God - Whatever. I am as certain that there is no god as I am that tortoises do not carry earth on their back.

Kay17:


KoloOyinbo,

You keep acting like God is a being independent from theists' claims. An atheist in addressing the non existence of God has to rely on the theists' claims. If God cannot be proven to exist, then he need not be disproved. Whats left to be disproved?!

LOL. This play on words is not a argument and has been rejected by philosophers for millennia!

God either exists OR does not exist. This is independent of anything we say or don't say - both theist and atheist.

We cannot prove, we cannot disprove. Therefore EITHER case rests of FAITH.

Only the agnostic is justifiable as they say 'insufficient data'.

As for "You keep acting like God is a being independent from theists' claims" Yes that is exactly what theists believe He IS such a being. We cannot prove it or disprove it. - FAITH.

A lot of this is covered in basic philosophy works which you might find interesting. They do not side with either theist or atheist but look at the arguments for each point of view and why in thousands of year neither side has been proven (or is even provable).

Only the agnostic needs no disproof of God.

A theist needs proof that God exists (and fails hence resorts to FAITH [an unsupported belief])

An atheist needs proof that God does not exist (and fails hence resorts to another unsupported belief - FAITH)

Failure to prove existence does NOT prove NON existence. Either case is then possible.

Quote> God either exist OR does not exist.
KoloOyinbo you call yourself a Christian, do you believe God exist?

KoloOyinbo:


LOL. This play on words is not a argument and has been rejected by philosophers for millennia!

God either exists OR does not exist. This is independent of anything we say or don't say - both theist and atheist.

We cannot prove, we cannot disprove. Therefore EITHER case rests of FAITH.

Only the agnostic is justifiable as they say 'insufficient data'.

As for "You keep acting like God is a being independent from theists' claims" Yes that is exactly what theists believe He IS such a being. We cannot prove it or disprove it. - FAITH.

A lot of this is covered in basic philosophy works which you might find interesting. They do not side with either theist or atheist but look at the arguments for each point of view and why in thousands of year neither side has been proven (or is even provable).

Only the agnostic needs no disproof of God.

A theist needs proof that God exists (and fails hence resorts to FAITH [an unsupported belief])

An atheist needs proof that God does not exist (and fails hence resorts to another unsupported belief - FAITH)

Failure to prove existence does NOT prove NON existence. Either case is then possible.

brocab:
Quote> God either exist OR does not exist.
KoloOyinbo you call yourself a Christian, do you believe God exist?

Yes I do. By FAITH. If you could prove God then it would invalidate FAITH. Have we not had this discussion before or am I confusing you with someone else?

KoloOyinbo, do you draw a line between faith in an impersonal God and faith in a personal God? Or to you, they both require faith?

The way I see it, believing in an impersonal God doesn't require faith. Believing in a personal God does require faith because of the rules, ritual and creed handed down.

What's your take?

jayriginal:
KoloOyinbo, do you draw a line between faith in an impersonal God and faith in a personal God? Or to you, they both require faith?
The way I see it, believing in an impersonal God doesn't require faith. Believing in a personal God does require faith because of the rules, ritual and creed handed down.
What's your take?

Interesting point. First come FAITH that there is a God - of whatever sort!

How can you believe in an impersonal God without FAITH - you still cant prove it's/his existence?

Also to believe that the universe came about by itself, was always there, was created by some force etc All require FAITH! Hence the idea of Atheism requiring FAITH.

Second will be a slightly different FAITH in the type of that God (personal - impersonal etc)

Then you need yet another FAITH if you go down the route of an organised religion with its associated creed, rituals, rules AND (remember this is how many religions like to distinguish themselves) their respective TABOO's.

I have little difficulty with my FAITH in a GOD. Flirted with Agnosticism for a little while. Rejected Atheism outright.

Would consider myself a non denominational Christian but specifically wanted to keep Christianity OR ANY OTHER specific religion out of this more fundamental debate.

KoloOyinbo:


LOL. This play on words is not a argument and has been rejected by philosophers for millennia!

God either exists OR does not exist. This is independent of anything we say or don't say - both theist and atheist.

We cannot prove, we cannot disprove. Therefore EITHER case rests of FAITH.

Only the agnostic is justifiable as they say 'insufficient data'.

As for "You keep acting like God is a being independent from theists' claims" Yes that is exactly what theists believe He IS such a being. We cannot prove it or disprove it. - FAITH.

A lot of this is covered in basic philosophy works which you might find interesting. They do not side with either theist or atheist but look at the arguments for each point of view and why in thousands of year neither side has been proven (or is even provable).

Only the agnostic needs no disproof of God.

A theist needs proof that God exists (and fails hence resorts to FAITH [an unsupported belief])

An atheist needs proof that God does not exist (and fails hence resorts to another unsupported belief - FAITH)

Failure to prove existence does NOT prove NON existence. Either case is then possible.

How does an agnostic use scientific or empirical proofs to confront a metaphysical being in the first place?!! The supposed proofs are useless. It is like searching for infra light with bare eyes.

Who is God? How do we get the truest picture of God? We cannot see it for starters. Are we supposed to rely on religious holy books or holy prophets or the general idea the Western civilization has developed on God?? How do we find the true picture of God independently?!

Kay17:


How does an agnostic use scientific or empirical proofs to confront a metaphysical being in the first place?!! The supposed proofs are useless. It is like searching for infra light with bare eyes.

Who is God? How do we get the truest picture of God? We cannot see it for starters. Are we supposed to rely on religious holy books or holy prophets or the general idea the Western civilization has developed on God?? How do we find the true picture of God independently?!

Have you read ANYTHING I have said?

The agnostic simply states that as there can be no PROOF either way they cannot make a decision. It could be either but they do not or cannot choose.

We have already established that there are no proofs there is or is not a God.

Your second question is more general and is why people have been searching for so long and come up with their own very personal answers.

Its different for everyone. The agnostic accepts they will never have an answer. The atheist believes there is NO answer. The Theists are free to choose between whatever seems most acceptable to them.

Theists are (generally) limited in choice by the region and culture they grow up in and also the level of education in that area. You are unlikely to be a Jew/Hindu/Moslem/Christianity if you have had little of no exposure to that religion. Polytheistic cultures tend to thrive where educational standards are lowest. etc

I can only answer all those on a very personal basis. I believe I have a conscience which as it often acts against my own best interest I believe to be God given. I look at what my conscience says is right and wrong (NOT going to debate the meaning in this context of right and wrong) and choose the Religion that I feel is most self consistent within itself AND consistent with what I believe has been revealed to me by God. This works for me. Will probably NOT work for millions each with their own reason why!

KoloOyinbo:


Have you read ANYTHING I have said?

The agnostic simply states that as there can be no PROOF either way they cannot make a decision. It could be either but they do not or cannot choose.

We have already established that there are no proofs there is or is not a God.

Your second question is more general and is why people have been searching for so long and come up with their own very personal answers.

Its different for everyone. The agnostic accepts they will never have an answer. The atheist believes there is NO answer. The Theists are free to choose between whatever seems most acceptable to them.

Theists are (generally) limited in choice by the region and culture they grow up in and also the level of education in that area. You are unlikely to be a Jew/Hindu/Moslem/Christianity if you have had little of no exposure to that religion. Polytheistic cultures tend to thrive where educational standards are lowest. etc

I can only answer all those on a very personal basis. I believe I have a conscience which as it often acts against my own best interest I believe to be God given. I look at what my conscience says is right and wrong (NOT going to debate the meaning in this context of right and wrong) and choose the Religion that I feel is most self consistent within itself AND consistent with what I believe has been revealed to me by God. This works for me. Will probably NOT work for millions each with their own reason why!

And WHAT God does the agnostic have in mind when he says there are no proofs to support his existence or nonexistence?!

Please pardon my persistent questioning

KoloOyinbo:


Interesting point. First come FAITH that there is a God - of whatever sort!

How can you believe in an impersonal God without FAITH - you still cant prove it's/his existence?

Also to believe that the universe came about by itself, was always there, was created by some force etc All require FAITH! Hence the idea of Atheism requiring FAITH.

Second will be a slightly different FAITH in the type of that God (personal - impersonal etc)

Then you need yet another FAITH if you go down the route of an organised religion with its associated creed, rituals, rules AND (remember this is how many religions like to distinguish themselves) their respective TABOO's.

I have little difficulty with my FAITH in a GOD. Flirted with Agnosticism for a little while. Rejected Atheism outright.

Would consider myself a non denominational Christian but specifically wanted to keep Christianity OR ANY OTHER specific religion out of this more fundamental debate.

Having faith in an impersonal God is like saying I have faith that my car will start in the morning. I don't think faith is the appropriate word to use in either circumstance.

Believing in a personal God is what requires faith.

Kay17:


And WHAT God does the agnostic have in mind when he says there are no proofs to support his existence or nonexistence?!

Please pardon my persistent questioning

I think you would have to ask the agnostic. Besides if you are not sure if a God exists or as in the case of an atheist believe God does not exist then you don't have any Characteristics to go on!

If we accept (for the sake of the argument) that God exists then as God created the Universe such a God would be infinitely beyond our understanding or feeble attempts to define. I have my own person way of thinking of God but again THATS JUST ME. Others may well disagree and are very entitled to do so.

I don't mind the questions at all! If you want you can email them direct to me. I hope you are getting something from my answers even if it is just curiosity!

If it helps any I consider myself a non denominational Christian although I am SOOOOO liberal in my thoughts that MANY people would not consider me Christian. (Again MANY other debates there)!