Atheism

[phyllo]

Ah, so the focus is on the shared American Christian Evangelical madness. Okay.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ah, so the focus is on the shared American Christian Evangelical madness. Okay.

If you are asking what my focuses are — yes, that is one. But these things interconnect with other things.

[iambiguous]

God and religion are my measure.

If that's true then why fixate on Christianity? Judaism and Islam, the other two Abrahamic religions, never come up with you.

Christianity because it is the largest denomination. Christianity because I was once a devout Christian myself. Christianity because most folks here who are religious seem partial to it as the font for both moral commandments and immortality and salvation.

What doesn't change however is that most of the other denominations here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- all insist it is their own [and only their own] One True Path that is applicable to both sides of the grave.

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

Hell, Desim itself is one of those 1% "other religions". It isn't even included as one of the "medium-sized religions". The nonreligious reflect almost 16% of the world's population.

As for Jews and Muslims, what I find far more interesting is how they have been slaughtering each other now for centuries and they all worship the same God!!!

So, for those like you and I, sure, we're Hell bound according to IC. But what of the Jews and the Muslims on Judgment Day?

And, again, I'm considerably less interested in what Jews and Muslims claim is true about their own rendition of God, and more interested in how they go about demonstrating that to all other reasonable/righteous men and women. In fact, even to themselves.

As for the Deist God, you can't even tell us if a belief in Him involves immortality and salvation. Some Deists say yes, others say no. Some may as well just flip a coin.

As for Deism and objective morality? Well, "somehow" you connect the dots between God giving birth to mere mortals hard-wired to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature". And yet at the same time, both adamantly and arrogantly, you seem to argue that only those who embrace your own rooted existentially in dasein assessments of life, liberty and property are being reasonable and natural. Philosophically, theologically, morally, politically.

Start here: https://www.google.com/search?q=do+deis ... s-wiz-serp

Then get back to us.

Not relevant to my question.

The same sort of wiggle, wiggle, wiggle rationalization I get from AJ when he refuses to respond to the points I raise with him above. Over and again. I answered your question above about Christianity. Why I focus in on it.

Now, how about you responding more in depth to the points I raised in regard to Deism.

[Sculptor]

Ah, so the focus is on the shared American Christian Evangelical madness. Okay.

Not sure it matter.
THe generalised claim is that there is one god ,whose "son" is Jesus WTF that means. This God is the moral judge and giver of moral rules to mankind.
It is inherently incoherent that such a god would permit and allow variying and sometomes contradictory versions of his moral instruction to exist in a range of disarate and oft fighting cults.

If we are talking about why any one would reject theism to be a atheist, then why would the exact focus matter?
The simple fact that an atheist can point to idiocies and absurdities lends weight to a rejection of the whole.
Failing that please feel free to bring the focus to reflect any cult you would like to help your argument.

[VVilliam]

But agnosticism isn't a single position. It's a range.

I say again, if you believe otherwise, I'm happy for you to spell out the particulars of this "position" you suppose all agnostics to hold. I think you'll find there's far more cases that don't fit any singular position than there are cases that fit any "positional" definition you can suggest.
But have a try. I'd be interested to see what you think that "position" involves. I see you've had a go below.

You critique what I gave as something which doesn't warrant be seen as a position independent from Theism or Atheism.

1: You appear to be okay with Atheism (or Materialism as I call it) being a position even that you complain about angry atheists and their close-mindedness to your own position (Theism).
2: You claim that Agnosticism isn't a position because it is a "range". If this is the standard, then Theism (by your logic) is also not a position. Yet it is seen/accepted as a position by you so (to avoid a double standard) you should be able to accept there are a different range of Agnostic personalities who can be said to hold the overall position of Agnosticism. This is why I mentioned earlier that you may not want to acknowledge Agnosticism as its own position because it may be disadvantageous to the Theist position to do so.

Re that, this is why I decided to jump in and correct you misunderstanding of Agnosticism. A Theist can use that misunderstanding to bolster the Theist position and claim it as the strongest/best position to have…because “Agnostics are Atheists”.
Indeed "lacking belief in gods" only has to do with Theism's having belief in gods, (also suffering the "range" you argue disqualifies it from being a position re that belief).

Further to that, Agnosticism has its own stepping off point I mentioned, and you argued wasn’t the primary starting point as “belief in gods” was the primary starting point, not “the question of belief that we exist in a created thing.”

What Agnostics say (or what this Agnostic understand Agnostics would say) about that what you are arguing is that the Theist starting point is the question of the creator not the question of creation, which is fine/okay/acceptable/recognizable/distinguishable and a proper starting point for that position (Theism).
So, I agree that for Theism/Theists the primary concern is with the question of God(s) and the claim that “God(s) exist.
However, I deny the Theist the right to dictate the Agnostic Position has to share the same staring point, which is why I pointed out that for Agnosticism, the starting point is the question of whether we exist within a creation.

I further pointed out that it was acceptable to Agnosticism that Atheism has the starting point of primary concern being the question of God(s) and the claim that “God(s) do not exist.
Both Atheist (personalities) and Theist allow there positions a privilege which is denied by both types to be acknowledge as its own position unique to theirs but related to the question of god (creator) through the question of creation.

Well, I would point out that #2 is your own, and is not generally found to be how agnostics frame their concern. Mostly, they frame it as doubt that God exists.

Then I am here to set the record straight. People are confused about what position they are at, especially re Agnosticism since it is not recognised by either Theism or Atheism to being a position on its own. (Agnostics themselves do not accept such double standards) so the likelihood is that those calling themselves Agnostics are thinking of themselves as Atheists, so rightfully should be referred to and refer to themselves, as Atheists. (Or as Materialists as I refer to Atheists.)
If there is doubt gods exists, they are coming from that position, not from the position of Agnosticism.

And as for #4, it suggests that agnostics cannot be agnostics without "data." But clearly, they can; one could just as easily be an agnostic on presupposition, or on preference, or on intution, with absolutely no data brought into the question at all. Would you claim that such are not agnostics?

Agnostics accept that presupposition, preference, intuition, reports from human personalities about alternative experiences - et al, are forms of data as these can be assessed due to their availability.
I would not claim re that, That the data is not also available to all, regardless of position. The positions have to do with how said available data is processed and feed back into the environment.

It seems to me that #1, #3 and #5 are actually redundant.
Essentially, they just say the same thing in different words: they are open to new knowledge, they have no dogmatic beliefs, they recognize unknowns -- those are all just other ways of saying, "We realize we don't know everything." And while that is basic to agnosticism, it's not really three points at all, but one: and that one point is pretty much the definition of agnosticism itself.

Okay I can revise these by consolidating them into one point.
Agnostics have fundamental openness to knowledge, reflecting a stance free from dogmatic beliefs and a humble acknowledgment of the vast unknowns in line with Agnosticism.

: And #6 -- I see no reason to believe it's necessary at all.


Agnostics might operate individualistically, sure;...

That being the case, point 6 can stand.

...but just as likely, they could go along with the agnosticism bedded in their particular society, or follow the agnosticism proposed to them by others.
They would of course have to agree with the summary points in order to maintain their claim to Agnosticism – to supporting Agnosticism.
This is also true of the other positions.

They would of course have to agree with the summary points in order to maintain their claim to Agnosticism – to supporting Agnosticism.
This is also true of the other positions.

I'm certain that most agnostics today are really only agnostics because they've heard from somebody, and find it convenient to continue to believe, that answers to their doubts are simply not available. It saves so much time and anxiety on the search, you see, if they conclude before any search that there's nothing to be found. In that sense, it's quite possible for an agnostic to be operating on pure intellectual laziness. I've met some like that, too.

What you are describing there is evidence (data) an Agnostic (in this case me as a human personality) can use from my position and feed back into the environment.
You are not describing Agnostics. Rather, you are describing confused/lazy Atheists.

Now, maybe there are some agnostics that fit your six criteria. Not many will fit #2, since it's from you, and I've never seen it from a single agnostic, though I've talked to many. But they might fit the other five of your criteria (or three, really, since three are redundant). But I don't think that's many agnostics, for the reasons I've pointed out above.

That is a form of band-wagon fallacy as it is not about the known numbers who may fit under the Agnosticism which should determine its validity as an independent Position.

If the position is not made available to them because of Theist and Atheist opposition (lack of support for) then the resulting (or continuing) confusion can be traced back to those positions and seen to be for the purpose of bolstering those positions through the use of the confusion it causes.

So I have to suggest that maybe your criteria are self-selected, rather than being intrinsic to the position. But if you can supply further evidence that every agnostic actually believes all or most of the six, I'll rethink that.

Given the overall points already noted, and in line with/circling back to the idea of consciousness suppressing subconscious revelation, your response here (as from the Theist position) favors your position unfairly because you raise the bar through a fallacy (bandwagon) to say that “if you can show me the numbers are sufficient for me to acknowledge and support for an Agnostic position” then you will consider rethinking – but until such a time as I provide this for you, you will remain theistically dogmatic in suppressing the idea rather than supporting its actual existence within the environment human personalities are involved within.

I would caution against that, as it is my understanding that such behaviour (double standard) while often enough expressed by those calling themselves Theists/Atheists is not necessarily regarded by Agnosticism to being directly related to the core principles of those positions.

Helping to maintain confusion is not the core principle of Theism is it? (Perhaps it is and I have simply been ignorant of that.)

So anyway, to close off, I offer the revised summary of points and thank you for your contribution re that.

1. Openness to Knowledge. Agnosticism is characterized through absence of dogmatic belief and acknowledgment of unknowns. Agnostics do not assert definitive beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God but acknowledge the limitations of their current knowledge.
2. Position on the Primary Question: Agnosticism centers around the primary question of whether we exist within a created thing. Agnostics neither affirm nor deny this proposition definitively, recognizing the need for more information.
3. Assessment of Available Data: Agnostics base their position on the assessment of available data. They are willing to consider new information and adjust their stance accordingly.
4. Individual Approach: Agnosticism is recognized as an individualized approach to philosophical questions. While common themes exist among agnostics, the position allows for personal exploration and interpretation.

[Immanuel Can]

But agnosticism isn't a single position. It's a range.

I say again, if you believe otherwise, I'm happy for you to spell out the particulars of this "position" you suppose all agnostics to hold. I think you'll find there's far more cases that don't fit any singular position than there are cases that fit any "positional" definition you can suggest.
But have a try. I'd be interested to see what you think that "position" involves. I see you've had a go below.

You critique what I gave as something which doesn't warrant be seen as a position independent from Theism or Atheism.

1: You appear to be okay with Atheism (or Materialism as I call it) being a position even that you complain about angry atheists and their close-mindedness to your own position (Theism).

Well, only because those ARE positions. In the middle is all agnosticism, which is a range of views.

2: You claim that Agnosticism isn't a position because it is a "range". If this is the standard, then Theism (by your logic) is also not a position.

No, that's not logical. Both Atheism and Theism have a firm ontological position: one, that no God or gods exist, the other that God does exist. Agnosticism has no comparable definiteness, but encompasses several different positions. That's what makes it a range.

And it's neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to any of the other positions to recognize that. It's just how it is.

What Agnostics say (or what this Agnostic understand Agnostics would say) about that what you are arguing is that the Theist starting point is the question of the creator not the question of creation, which is fine/okay/acceptable/recognizable/distinguishable and a proper starting point for that position (Theism).

Well, you're certainly not representative of the whole range of agnostics, that's for sure.

I deny the Theist the right to dictate the Agnostic Position

The Theist isn't "dictating" anything. I'm just pointing out the obvious: that agnosticism, being a claim "not to know" is a range. There are many ways "not to know," but only "I do know" (Theism) and "I know there's none" (Atheism) on the far ends.

I haven't the slightest idea why this is a big deal to you. It's so clearly obvious, and it seems to me, doesn't say anything at all about the relative merits of the three.

I further pointed out that it was acceptable to Agnosticism that Atheism has the starting point of primary concern being the question of God(s) and the claim that “God(s) do not exist.

But it's also acceptable to agnosticism that God may exist. Agnosticism can't be definite on that point.

Well, I would point out that #2 is your own, and is not generally found to be how agnostics frame their concern. Mostly, they frame it as doubt that God exists.

Then I am here to set the record straight.

You think you speak for all, or even most agnostics? I warrant you don't. Your position is not one I've seen other agnostics take.

And as for #4, it suggests that agnostics cannot be agnostics without "data." But clearly, they can; one could just as easily be an agnostic on presupposition, or on preference, or on intution, with absolutely no data brought into the question at all. Would you claim that such are not agnostics?

I would not claim re that, That the data is not also available to all, regardless of position. The positions have to do with how said available data is processed and feed back into the environment.

Well, and some can have no data at all, and just refuse to look at data. That is also within the range of agnostic possibilities.

It seems to me that #1, #3 and #5 are actually redundant.
Essentially, they just say the same thing in different words: they are open to new knowledge, they have no dogmatic beliefs, they recognize unknowns -- those are all just other ways of saying, "We realize we don't know everything." And while that is basic to agnosticism, it's not really three points at all, but one: and that one point is pretty much the definition of agnosticism itself.

Okay I can revise these by consolidating them into one point.
Agnostics have fundamental openness to knowledge, reflecting a stance free from dogmatic beliefs and a humble acknowledgment of the vast unknowns in line with Agnosticism.

One fault in that: they can't say anything about "vast unknowns." They can only speak of their own "unknowing." They obviously have no way of knowing what it is that other people may or may not know, or what is even knowable in the future to themselves.

: And #6 -- I see no reason to believe it's necessary at all.


Agnostics might operate individualistically, sure;...

That being the case, point 6 can stand.

No, because of what follows...

...but just as likely, they could go along with the agnosticism bedded in their particular society, or follow the agnosticism proposed to them by others.

They would of course have to agree with the summary points

No, they actually wouldn't have to. They could choose to, or not. And they could hold their agnosticism knowingly, or totally unthinkingly. There's no stipulation within agnosticism itself that says how they have to come to their confession of personal lack of knowing.

I'm certain that most agnostics today are really only agnostics because they've heard from somebody, and find it convenient to continue to believe, that answers to their doubts are simply not available. It saves so much time and anxiety on the search, you see, if they conclude before any search that there's nothing to be found. In that sense, it's quite possible for an agnostic to be operating on pure intellectual laziness. I've met some like that, too.

You are not describing Agnostics.[/quote]
Yes, I am. That's not only what they call themselves, but also they claim not to know or care, either.

Now, maybe there are some agnostics that fit your six criteria. Not many will fit #2, since it's from you, and I've never seen it from a single agnostic, though I've talked to many. But they might fit the other five of your criteria (or three, really, since three are redundant). But I don't think that's many agnostics, for the reasons I've pointed out above.

That is a form of band-wagon fallacy as it is not about the known numbers

I didn't say it was. I said I know people who are definitely agnostics who don't hold to the criteria you supply. I never said how many, nor did I hold the number up as a deciding factor. I just pointed out that many agnostics are not of the type you describe.

So I have to suggest that maybe your criteria are self-selected, rather than being intrinsic to the position. But if you can supply further evidence that every agnostic actually believes all or most of the six, I'll rethink that.

... “if you can show me the numbers are sufficient for me to acknowledge and support for an Agnostic position”

I never said a thing about "numbers." You should reread my last comment, I think.

So anyway, to close off, I offer the revised summary of points and thank you for your contribution re that.

1. Openness to Knowledge. Agnosticism is characterized through absence of dogmatic belief and acknowledgment of unknowns. Agnostics do not assert definitive beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God but acknowledge the limitations of their current knowledge.
2. Position on the Primary Question: Agnosticism centers around the primary question of whether we exist within a created thing. Agnostics neither affirm nor deny this proposition definitively, recognizing the need for more information.
3. Assessment of Available Data: Agnostics base their position on the assessment of available data. They are willing to consider new information and adjust their stance accordingly.
4. Individual Approach: Agnosticism is recognized as an individualized approach to philosophical questions. While common themes exist among agnostics, the position allows for personal exploration and interpretation.

#1, yes, in the ideal, though not always in practice. #2, definitely not. #3, many not. #4, not necessarily. But I've covered all this in my last message, so I won't repeat all the reasons.

[Immanuel Can]

But agnosticism isn't a single position. It's a range.

I say again, if you believe otherwise, I'm happy for you to spell out the particulars of this "position" you suppose all agnostics to hold. I think you'll find there's far more cases that don't fit any singular position than there are cases that fit any "positional" definition you can suggest.
But have a try. I'd be interested to see what you think that "position" involves. I see you've had a go below.

You critique what I gave as something which doesn't warrant be seen as a position independent from Theism or Atheism.

1: You appear to be okay with Atheism (or Materialism as I call it) being a position even that you complain about angry atheists and their close-mindedness to your own position (Theism).

Well, only because those ARE positions. In the middle is all agnosticism, which is a range of views.

2: You claim that Agnosticism isn't a position because it is a "range". If this is the standard, then Theism (by your logic) is also not a position.

No, that's not logical. Both Atheism and Theism have a firm ontological position: one, that no God or gods exist, the other that God does exist. Agnosticism has no comparable definiteness, but encompasses several different positions. That's what makes it a range.

And it's neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to any of the other positions to recognize that. It's just how it is.

What Agnostics say (or what this Agnostic understand Agnostics would say) about that what you are arguing is that the Theist starting point is the question of the creator not the question of creation, which is fine/okay/acceptable/recognizable/distinguishable and a proper starting point for that position (Theism).

Well, you're certainly not representative of the whole range of agnostics, that's for sure.

I deny the Theist the right to dictate the Agnostic Position

The Theist isn't "dictating" anything. I'm just pointing out the obvious: that agnosticism, being a claim "not to know" is a range. There are many ways "not to know," but only "I do know" (Theism) and "I know there's none" (Atheism) on the far ends.

I haven't the slightest idea why this is a big deal to you. It's so clearly obvious, and it seems to me, doesn't say anything at all about the relative merits of the three.

I further pointed out that it was acceptable to Agnosticism that Atheism has the starting point of primary concern being the question of God(s) and the claim that “God(s) do not exist.

But it's also acceptable to agnosticism that God may exist. Agnosticism can't be definite on that point.

Well, I would point out that #2 is your own, and is not generally found to be how agnostics frame their concern. Mostly, they frame it as doubt that God exists.

Then I am here to set the record straight.

You think you speak for all, or even most agnostics? I warrant you don't. Your position is not one I've seen other agnostics take.

And as for #4, it suggests that agnostics cannot be agnostics without "data." But clearly, they can; one could just as easily be an agnostic on presupposition, or on preference, or on intution, with absolutely no data brought into the question at all. Would you claim that such are not agnostics?

I would not claim re that, That the data is not also available to all, regardless of position. The positions have to do with how said available data is processed and feed back into the environment.

Well, and some can have no data at all, and just refuse to look at data. That is also within the range of agnostic possibilities.

It seems to me that #1, #3 and #5 are actually redundant.
Essentially, they just say the same thing in different words: they are open to new knowledge, they have no dogmatic beliefs, they recognize unknowns -- those are all just other ways of saying, "We realize we don't know everything." And while that is basic to agnosticism, it's not really three points at all, but one: and that one point is pretty much the definition of agnosticism itself.

Okay I can revise these by consolidating them into one point.
Agnostics have fundamental openness to knowledge, reflecting a stance free from dogmatic beliefs and a humble acknowledgment of the vast unknowns in line with Agnosticism.

One fault in that: they can't say anything about "vast unknowns." They can only speak of their own "unknowing." They obviously have no way of knowing what it is that other people may or may not know, or what is even knowable in the future to themselves.

: And #6 -- I see no reason to believe it's necessary at all.


Agnostics might operate individualistically, sure;...

That being the case, point 6 can stand.

No, because of what follows...

...but just as likely, they could go along with the agnosticism bedded in their particular society, or follow the agnosticism proposed to them by others.

They would of course have to agree with the summary points

No, they actually wouldn't have to. They could choose to, or not. And they could hold their agnosticism knowingly, or totally unthinkingly. There's no stipulation within agnosticism itself that says how they have to come to their confession of personal lack of knowing.

I'm certain that most agnostics today are really only agnostics because they've heard from somebody, and find it convenient to continue to believe, that answers to their doubts are simply not available. It saves so much time and anxiety on the search, you see, if they conclude before any search that there's nothing to be found. In that sense, it's quite possible for an agnostic to be operating on pure intellectual laziness. I've met some like that, too.

You are not describing Agnostics.[/quote]
Yes, I am. That's not only what they call themselves, but also they claim not to know or care, either.

Now, maybe there are some agnostics that fit your six criteria. Not many will fit #2, since it's from you, and I've never seen it from a single agnostic, though I've talked to many. But they might fit the other five of your criteria (or three, really, since three are redundant). But I don't think that's many agnostics, for the reasons I've pointed out above.

That is a form of band-wagon fallacy as it is not about the known numbers

I didn't say it was. I said I know people who are definitely agnostics who don't hold to the criteria you supply. I never said how many, nor did I hold the number up as a deciding factor. I just pointed out that many agnostics are not of the type you describe.

So I have to suggest that maybe your criteria are self-selected, rather than being intrinsic to the position. But if you can supply further evidence that every agnostic actually believes all or most of the six, I'll rethink that.

... “if you can show me the numbers are sufficient for me to acknowledge and support for an Agnostic position”

I never said a thing about "numbers." You should reread my last comment, I think.

So anyway, to close off, I offer the revised summary of points and thank you for your contribution re that.

1. Openness to Knowledge. Agnosticism is characterized through absence of dogmatic belief and acknowledgment of unknowns. Agnostics do not assert definitive beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God but acknowledge the limitations of their current knowledge.
2. Position on the Primary Question: Agnosticism centers around the primary question of whether we exist within a created thing. Agnostics neither affirm nor deny this proposition definitively, recognizing the need for more information.
3. Assessment of Available Data: Agnostics base their position on the assessment of available data. They are willing to consider new information and adjust their stance accordingly.
4. Individual Approach: Agnosticism is recognized as an individualized approach to philosophical questions. While common themes exist among agnostics, the position allows for personal exploration and interpretation.

#1, yes, in the ideal, though not always in practice. #2, definitely not. #3, many not. #4, not necessarily. But I've covered all this in my last message, so I won't repeat all the reasons.

[VVilliam]

You think you speak for all, or even most agnostics? I warrant you don't. Your position is not one I've seen other agnostics take.

Fair enough.

I will drop the idea that what I am explaining is a position which can be related to agnosticism since both Theists and Atheists have definite ideas/understanding of what agnosticism is (a sub-set of Atheism).

Since - on the question of God(s) (as primary consideration) - there are only two position one can take, I will take the position of Theist - hereafter called "Natural Theism" - and therein rework the points I have made, under that new heading, replacing "agnostic" with - that..

Natural Theism.
1. Openness to Knowledge. Natural Theism is characterized through absence of dogmatic belief and acknowledgment of unknowns. Natural Theists do not assert definitive beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God but acknowledge the limitations of their current knowledge.
2. Position on the Primary Questions and Assessment of Available Data: Natural Theism centers around the primary question of whether we exist within a created thing and in relation to that, the question re the nature of the creator. Natural Theists affirm this proposition definitively, based on both recognizing the current available information and the ongoing need for more information. Natural Theists are willing to consider new information and adjust their stance accordingly.
3. Individual Approach: Natural Theism is recognized as an individualized approach to philosophical questions. While common themes exist among Theists, the position allows for personal exploration and interpretation.

Apart from that, thanks for your assistance here as I have been floating around investigating agnosticism as perhaps the best/most honest position to take (re my personality in relation to the experience of being human) and in that I have had a lot to do with the Theist outlook and agree with the fundamental logic which claims that we exist within a creation (therefore there is a creator.)

But such is not for this thread, as it is about atheism, so I will leave things there.

(Edited number sequence.)

[Immanuel Can]

You think you speak for all, or even most agnostics? I warrant you don't. Your position is not one I've seen other agnostics take.

Fair enough.

I will drop the idea that what I am explaining is a position which can be related to agnosticism since both Theists and Atheists have definite ideas/understanding of what agnosticism is (a sub-set of Atheism).

No. Agnosticism is the range between Atheism and Theism, but is outside of both.

There are two decided positions: Theism -- the belief there is a God,

and Atheism -- the assertion there are no gods.

Both take a firm position, you can see.

Agnosticism fills the whole space between those two positions, because it's chief characteristic is undecidedness. But the measure of that undecidedness (from almost convinced to almost convinced against) is not fixed. It's not firm. It's very broad, and can vacillate. Even the individual agnostic would, rationally speaking, have to admit that he doesn't know from minute to minute whether he will continue to feel warranted in holding his current position. Maybe new data will appear. Maybe he will consider something new. Maybe he will have some experience he has not yet had. Maybe something will finally close his mind on one option or the other. Maybe not. He doesn't know, because he's undecided.

All he can know for sure is that he is at least a bit open both to Atheism turning out to be the case, or Theism. And he cannot decide on a firm position without becoming himself either a Theist or an Atheist. (Well, the one thing he could do is decide not to think anymore, and close his mind, and pretend that his indecision can never be shifted; but I'm guessing you don't think agnostics ought to be encouraged to do that.)

Since - on the question of God(s) (as primary consideration) - there are only two position one can take, I will take the position of Theist - hereafter called "Natural Theism"

I'm a Theist. I know thousands of other Theists...maybe hundreds of thousands, by now. But I recognize nothing about Theism in the description you assembled under "Natural Theism." So I don't know what to tell you about that.

[VVilliam]

I'm a Theist. I know thousands of other Theists...maybe hundreds of thousands, by now. But I recognize nothing about Theism in the description you assembled under "Natural Theism."

I don't know what to tell you about that...other than perhaps it has something to do with the circles you keep?
But as I said, such is not for this particular thread.

Go Well.
VV

[phyllo]

Natural Theism.
1. Openness to Knowledge. Natural Theism is characterized through absence of dogmatic belief and acknowledgment of unknowns. Natural Theists do not assert definitive beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God but acknowledge the limitations of their current knowledge.
2. Position on the Primary Questions and Assessment of Available Data: Natural Theism centers around the primary question of whether we exist within a created thing and in relation to that, the question re the nature of the creator. Natural Theists affirm this proposition definitively, based on both recognizing the current available information and the ongoing need for more information. Natural Theists are willing to consider new information and adjust their stance accordingly.
3. Individual Approach: Natural Theism is recognized as an individualized approach to philosophical questions. While common themes exist among Theists, the position allows for personal exploration and interpretation.

This sounds somewhat like 'natural theology' but without the emphasis on reason.

Are these your own ideas, or a variation on natural theology or something else?

Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology,[1] is a type of theology that seeks to provide arguments for theological topics (such as the existence of a deity) based on reason and the discoveries of science, the project of arguing for the existence of God on the basis of observed natural facts, and through natural phenomena viewed as divine, or complexities of nature seen as evidence of a divine plan (see predestination) or Will of God, which includes nature itself.[2]

This distinguishes it from revealed theology, which is based on scripture and/or religious experiences,[3] also from transcendental theology, which is based on a priori reasoning.[citation needed] It is thus a type of philosophy, with the aim of explaining the nature of the celestial motors, or gods, or of one supreme god, that are responsible for heavenly motion. Aristotle's tractate on metaphysics claims to demonstrate the necessary existence of an unmoved prime mover.

For monotheistic religions, this principally involves arguments about the attributes or non-attributes of a deity, and especially the deity's existence, using arguments that do not involve recourse to revelation.[4][5]

The ideals of natural theology can be traced back to the Old Testament and Greek philosophy.[6][7] Early sources evident of these ideals come from Jeremiah and the Wisdom of Solomon (c. 50 BC)[6][8] and Plato's dialogue Timaeus (c. 360 BC).[9]

Marcus Terentius Varro (116–27 BCE) established a distinction between political theology (the social functions of religion), natural theology and mythical theology. His terminology became part of the Stoic tradition and then Christianity through Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology

[phyllo]

If we are talking about why any one would reject theism to be a atheist, then why would the exact focus matter?

That's not my interest in this thread.

If the focus is ragging on IC, then I don't particularly care.

If the focus is on American Christian Evangelism, then AJ might have an interesting insight. He seems well read and intelligent.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Agnosticism fills the whole space between those two positions, because it's chief characteristic is undecidedness. But the measure of that undecidedness (from almost convinced to almost convinced against) is not fixed. It's not firm. It's very broad, and can vacillate. Even the individual agnostic would, rationally speaking, have to admit that he doesn't know from minute to minute whether he will continue to feel warranted in holding his current position. Maybe new data will appear. Maybe he will consider something new. Maybe he will have some experience he has not yet had. Maybe something will finally close his mind on one option or the other. Maybe not. He doesn't know, because he's undecided.

All he can know for sure is that he is at least a bit open both to Atheism turning out to be the case, or Theism. And he cannot decide on a firm position without becoming himself either a Theist or an Atheist. (Well, the one thing he could do is decide not to think anymore, and close his mind, and pretend that his indecision can never be shifted; but I'm guessing you don't think agnostics ought to be encouraged to do that.)

I believe that I understand Immanuel's position sufficiently. Either one *believes in God* and is a theist, or one doubts that God or gods exist or one states that one does not know, and is agnostic.

One is somewhat at a loss to know how Immanuel interprets those who, located in other cultures and traditions, do certainly *believe in God* but are not Christian. To clarify matters I will say that 1) he could not accept their god-belief as being either real or genuine, and 2) that belief in any other god or gods is, given the metaphysical predicates of Hebrew and Jewish belief-system, a form of Devil worship.

What I say here is fundamental to Christian Evangelical fundamentalism and cannot be ignored.

Be that as it may I can present something of an alternative to his either you are/or you are not paradigm, and I would say that what I describe is a confession of my own position:

Try as I may I cannot arrive at any sufficient definition of what God actually is. Neither can I understand (if such a God exists) what I am to do in my relation to that God. Why is there a God who is so *invisible* and so absent from the world when it is conceivable that, in a truly god-world, that everything would be made totally plain. Why such a tricky and shadowy God who sets things up in such a strange manner? The Christian presupposition (certainly the Calvinist one) is that *the believer* had been chosen long before he became decisive in belief. That some are destines to believe and to *be saved* and others to be sent to eternal torment. I know that Immanuel's belief is different. Yet, in fact, you have to be able to explain why some do not *get the message*, or get the message very differently, and do not, and cannot, go along with the strict Christian program.

So there really is another position altogether, and that position is for people who may have had all sorts of *spiritual experiences*, which have both instructed them and also puzzled them (I am thinking of Bahman here), but do not seem to prompt the individual to take up the strictly defined Christian path such as Christian Evangelicalism is.

There is actually a further dimension as well: those who recognize that there is no way, within our modern structure, to either explain or to demonstrate (prove) God, but who yet, as to a vestige, cling in some sense to the myriad former descriptions about what God is, what God does, what God wants, and a great deal more, and so have no other choice if they are to remain authentic but to hold to a non-decisive position.

It is different than the either you do/or you do not position that Immanuel outlines. It is as if one says: I have lost all sense of a genuine description of God that I can believe in. The entire platform of human life has shifted so dramatically that any *description* is not possible if I am to remain authentic and coherent. So I must forge a new sense of what *religiousness* and also *spirituality* are to be. But this view has not coalesced enough for me to have certainty or confidence.

There is another side to all of this as well. We must clearly see and recognize that in any decisions I would or can make as an individual, and certainly when it pertains to the mass, that religiousness is intimately tied up with politics. Need I point out how Evangelicals in America must take a position on Israel and "God's original children* there who are fighting God's fight? That is just one aspect of the intrusion of politics into religious belief and into cultural issues.

One thing that Immanuel has referenced in the past is that the Nazis rejected Christianity. I have done the research and I have no doubt that this is true. In a way similar to myself, through I was raised as I say *on the fringes of Reform Judaism in California*, I see it as a necessary step to reject both Judaism and Christianity at the most elemental and fundamental level. In a general sense, in an evolving way, Northern Europe received Christian missionaries from the Roman/Mediterranean world, but they significantly modified the belief-system. They made it (in many but not all ways) not an otherworldly religious system but a this-worldly religious and existential system. This has to do with fundamental ways that different people, or different races and climes, situate themselves within this Earth existence.

One sign of the beginning of a vast change was, naturally, Luther's rebellion against the Roman Church. And it is true what Roman Catholics say: this rebellion represented a radical and a fundamental shift in how religiosity and spirituality were conceived. It is something of a reduction but when you push it forward (Luther's rebellion) you do eventually arrive at a position of not being able to define what God is anymore -- unless you resort back to outrageous faith-based belief in complex phantasy-pictures.

I have to say that to best understand the argumentation and conflict that has taken place on this forum (certainly since I reappeared here and engaged with Immanuel for months on the Christianity thread), that we have to acknowledge what the *rejection of Christianity* really and truly is, and I mean at the metaphysical and the most fundamental level. I have my own way of describing it. Or to put it differently I see myself as being on the cusp of a newer solidification of what *religiousness* and *spirituality* should be.

It should not be an *otherworldly profession*. It should not be seeing *God* as an exterior element who has *invaded* the world and *taken slaves* (those who will bow their knees eventually). If you are going to define a Divine Figure (an Avatar of God) you cannot (should not) define a Master who comes to rule you. But rather a friend who is similar to you in essential orientation. Further, it is substantially erroneous and misleading to paint a picture of a God who comes from a radically different locality within the Cosmos and *imposes* his will on the Earth. That is one of the principle motivations in historical Christianity, is it not? The Christian confronts other peoples and enforces the view on them that what they are, and what they believe, is the stuff of deviltry. Christianity is enormously imperialistic. But the real root of that imperialistic attitude was developed in Hebraism. The Hebrew is really & truly God's chosen. And the Goyim are, essentially, the devilish material that Yahweh is molding to his historical purposes and ends.

It is not at all difficult for me to understand and respect the general European will to throw off these imposing, slave-making ideas.

Now, what is the relation of *all this* to the events and the situations of today? Political upset, deadly battles, talk of civil war, irreconcilable social, political and existential differences, wars popping up like mushrooms, the sense of things careening out of control, the deninciation of *elites* who control the fate of peoples and nations, globalist projects and on and on and on? In so many ways we are dealing in, and we are subsumed in, octaves of the same conflict and upset of the Interwar Period.

This is why, in my view, the potential for conversation (here) is so intriguing. That is, if one can get sufficiently dis-invested of one's own partisan position and get enough above the fray to talk about oneself, ones; orientation, one's situation, with a certain detachment.

[Immanuel Can]

One is somewhat at a loss to know how Immanuel interprets those who, located in other cultures and traditions, do certainly *believe in God* but are not Christian.

Very simple. They are Theists. And in that very broad category, I would include everything from Hindus to Unitarians to the Amish, and everyone else that believes in a god of any kind. For the category "Theist" has only something to say about the existence of A god or gods, and nothing whatsoever about the secondary question, "What sort of 'god' is being considered."

To be a Theist is not enough, of course. But it's a very good first step.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh. So we are finished and also not-finished at the same time?

You have what corresponds to an ‘agnostic’ position in respect to my wUnDeRfUL posts.

Sensible! Very sensible!