mhaze,

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive positions, each addresses a different question. Theism and atheism go to what one believes, while agnosticism concerns what one can know.

While we’re free to label ourselves whatever we please, by stating that you are an agnostic, you are only telling others what you think we can know about the existence of a god. Not a very interesting revelation, in my opinion. Personally, I’m more interested in what others believe.

<<If I was forced to jump one way or t'other I lean to the view that there is a higher intelligence.>>

So, you DO believe in “the deity”? Why should such a belief need to be “forced” out of you? Surely we all hold beliefs on a number of questions for which the answers we do not profess to have knowledge. There’s no reason why a belief can’t be subject to change, either.

So, why such special and widespread caution on this particular question?

One theory I’ve often heard is that those who refer to themselves as ‘agnostic’ almost always believe in a god, they just don’t know who or what that god is. This is consistent with what I have observed in all my years of debating religion. In my experience, for example, self-described ‘agnostics’ will reserve a disproportionate amount of their criticism for atheists; often with irrelevant and misguided questions such as, “But how can you KNOW?!”

You position as an agnostic-theist would not surprise me at all.

The vigour with which you defend "the deity"; the things you erroneously compare this deity to, which even Blind Freddy could see are in no way analogous (e.g. dark matter); the implications that referring to it as ‘the’ deity rather than just ‘a’ deity entail; the assumptions you are willing to make about something you claim is unknowable; and the mental gymnastics you are willing to engage in to defend the possibility that this deity may be in at least some sense omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent - all suggest that you already believe this deity exists.

It all makes sense now.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«Do you recognize God in a simular way Yuyutsu recogizes God? Unknowable but definitely there?»

I never claimed that God is unknowable.

Rather, God cannot be perceived via any means.

If there are two separate entities, 'A' and 'B', then for 'A' to know 'B' (albeit imperfectly) it needs to perceive it, thus some means are necessary to bridge the divide.

But if 'A' and 'B' are the same, more accurately when there is only 'A', then the type of knowledge is different: it is direct and uses no means. This is the case "between" us and God ("between" is in quotes because separateness is only an illusion, there is nothing truly in between).

God can only be known directly - neither through the senses (I think you agree), nor through the mind. Specifically, no intellectual understanding of God is possible. To know God, the mind has to be sidestepped.

---

Dear Mhaze,

«I don't know if there is a creator.»

I would like to draw your attention that this is quite a different question: A creator might not be God and God might not be a creator.

Just because someone created the universe doesn't imply that we should worship him or that it is good to sing his praises. What for example if the world was created in the lab of a sadistic mad professor from the 12th dimension?

In Hinduism we consider the god Brahma to be the creator - nevertheless, he is quite unpopular among humans (they say that he is popular among daemons, but I digress) and only very few temples are dedicated to him. Brahma is generally perceived as "the guy who got us into this whole mess to begin with".

«For a time I sought the higher intelligence through meditation»

I doubt that there's a higher intelligence, but if you persist in your meditation you will eventually find God.

«Nonetheless I remain of the view that prayer, chanting, ritual and meditation are similar processes.»

Yes, all being religious methods. One doesn't need to declare themselves "religious" in order to be religious.

To David f.

If more people held a "live and let live" attitude then this discussion would be over due to a lack of interest. Instead of leaving people the hell alone, this conversation from the get go has been giving me the intolerant view of "shut up, no one wants to hear it." Including you. From ignoring the subject matter in the origional OP and focusing on a blow to Christianity, to saying how arrogant and intolerant I am for approaching Christianity at all in a positive manner. The constant view (aside from perhaps three posters) is for me to shut up. Not for anyone to "live and let live."

Either way ya'll are getting what you wanted. I'm done. I'm out. Maybe some time I'll try again, but probably not. Congrats on the "tolerance" of "living and letting live."

To Mhaze. If you change your mind, let me know. I don't know if I can tell you much, but who knows. Thanks again for the articles. Still reading them.

Not_Now.Soon,

While it is indeed arrogant to assert what we all need to be saved from something and to assume that your god is the only thing that can save us, I don’t hold that against you because I understand that that’s just the theology. At the risk of sounding condescending, I understand where you’re coming from and can remember feeling an intense sense of urgency to save as many souls as I possibly could in my lifetime.

<<Instead of leaving people the hell alone, this conversation from the get go has been giving me the intolerant view of "shut up, no one wants to hear it.">>

If you look at my posting history, you’ll see that I’ve actually been more critical of Protestant Christians who don’t try to save souls because I worry about people who are happy to let others burn for an eternity without lifting a finger to prevent that. Although, I’m sure most of these people justify their inaction in some way or another. Either way, I completely understand where you’re coming from.

<<From ignoring the subject matter in the origional OP and focusing on a blow to Christianity …>>

I believe I have addressed the subject matter of the OP. I have explained that, in contrast to your experience, I am a better person for not believing in Christian dogma. I have explained that it is more honest to present mere assertions with caveats such as, “in my opinion”. And I have challenged you on the truth of your claims. I’m not sure how I could have better addressed the OP, to be honest.

<<… to saying how arrogant and intolerant I am for approaching Christianity at all in a positive manner.>>

No-one has said you are arrogant, let alone for approaching Christianity in a positive way. Your assumptions have been arrogant, but that’s not entirely your fault.

davidf, I note you cannot help yourself in trying to convince others to accept your position on these threads. It is obvious you have double standards by your statement. "I appreciate the words of Jimmy Durante: "Why doesn't everybody leave everybody else the hell alone?" Posted by david f, Wednesday, 7 February 2018 1:22:02 PM Obviously you do not appreciate Jimmy Durante's words one bit, I think that is called hypocrisy.

Yuyutsu,

Re creator: If there was a creator rather than just some fluke of some unknown physics AND if it is possible to know 'him' then that's worth the effort. Its possible that the creator has been superseded by some other entity but that doesn't get us anywhere - its just the 'Turtles all the way down' issue in a different form. I just use the word creator as shorthand for whatever the super intelligence might be. As I explained earlier I'm averse to using the word 'God'.

Re meditation/prayer : I explained earlier that I see them as two sides of the same coin. The people doing each believe they are talking to different things (one is talking to the external intelligence, t'other to their inner being). I'm not sure who's right...maybe neither, maybe both. Sam Harris believes meditation puts him in touch with the the universal spirit (its more complex than that but 350 words...). Maybe and maybe that's why prayers feel they a communing with something beyond them