what does agnostic mean to you?

[Fluminator]

It seems I have zero idea, yes. I once had the impression that God was meant to be some kind of wizard who lives in the sky. However, Christians tell me this is wrong. I have no better concept to replace this with. So I have no idea.

God is thought to be a force outside of time that has consciousness and interacts with our world.

What does that mean? What kind of force? A gust of wind? An electromagnetic field?

I literally have no understanding at all of what this might mean.

I'm starting to get confused by your confusion. What exactly are you looking for? It's a conscious force that interacts with the world. Like are you looking for how it allegedly interacts with the world?

[Jamiet99uk]

God is thought to be a force outside of time that has consciousness and interacts with our world.

What does that mean? What kind of force? A gust of wind? An electromagnetic field?

I literally have no understanding at all of what this might mean.

I'm starting to get confused by your confusion. What exactly are you looking for? It's a conscious force that interacts with the world. Like are you looking for how it allegedly interacts with the world?

What do you mean by "a force" ???

Gravity is a force. Electromagnetism is a force. Nuclear interaction is a force. Forces are interactions which, in physics, cause "push" or "pull" effects.

Are you saying that God is some kind of gravitational or electromagnetic field which has somehow attained consciousness?

[Octavious]

At a guess I believe Jamie's problem is something along these lines. The idea of God that is popular amongst atheists is that He's an awesome all powerful being. The obvious conclusion an atheist would draw from this assumption is that if you came across God you would bloody well know about it. He would be blatantly obvious, much like if you found an elephant in your local Post Office.

The alternative, which I like to subscribe to, is that God has been their all along. He has always been there, providing help and guidance and inspiration, and the reason you're unaware of it is that you simply haven't recognised Him as God. That is a far easier fit with Jamie's experience of the world, but at first glance it appears that acknowledging this as God would mean reducing the role that you and those dear to you (the highly admirable Emily, for instance) have played in your life. The reluctance to do so is understandable.

Now, those of us who have had time to reflect upon and grow accustomed to the idea will see no such dilemna. The role of God in no way diminishes the role of others. God offers help to all, strength to all, but ultimately it is the individual who makes the call, who exercises their will for good or ill. The ranks of humanity are filled with those who choose poorly.

[ziran]

hmmm this passage from the dao de jing may be elucidating. normally it is something that i apply to human relationships. i'm not sure if it applies here or not.

Acting simply

True leaders
are hardly known to their followers.
Next after them are the leaders
the people know and admire;
after them, those they fear;
after them, those they despise.

To give no trust
is to get no trust.

When the work’s done right,
with no fuss or boasting,
ordinary people say,
Oh, we did it.

[Fluminator]

What does that mean? What kind of force? A gust of wind? An electromagnetic field?

I literally have no understanding at all of what this might mean.

I'm starting to get confused by your confusion. What exactly are you looking for? It's a conscious force that interacts with the world. Like are you looking for how it allegedly interacts with the world?

What do you mean by "a force" ???

Gravity is a force. Electromagnetism is a force. Nuclear interaction is a force. Forces are interactions which, in physics, cause "push" or "pull" effects.

Are you saying that God is some kind of gravitational or electromagnetic field which has somehow attained consciousness?

The Christian tradition is yes, he's sovereign over all the forces of nature. Then there's debate between Christian sects on if they actively control everything that happens or let it run on autopilot most of the time.

If there's a being outside of time, then I don't find it that much of a stretch to believe.

[Jamiet99uk]

I'm starting to get confused by your confusion. What exactly are you looking for? It's a conscious force that interacts with the world. Like are you looking for how it allegedly interacts with the world?

What do you mean by "a force" ???

Gravity is a force. Electromagnetism is a force. Nuclear interaction is a force. Forces are interactions which, in physics, cause "push" or "pull" effects.

Are you saying that God is some kind of gravitational or electromagnetic field which has somehow attained consciousness?

The Christian tradition is yes, he's sovereign over all the forces of nature. Then there's debate between Christian sects on if they actively control everything that happens or let it run on autopilot most of the time.

If there's a being outside of time, then I don't find it that much of a stretch to believe.

Ok, so God is some kind of sentient forcefield. I see. Interesting.

What does "outside of time" mean?

[Jamiet99uk]

At a guess I believe Jamie's problem is something along these lines. The idea of God that is popular amongst atheists is that He's an awesome all powerful being. The obvious conclusion an atheist would draw from this assumption is that if you came across God you would bloody well know about it. He would be blatantly obvious, much like if you found an elephant in your local Post Office.

The alternative, which I like to subscribe to, is that God has been their all along. He has always been there, providing help and guidance and inspiration, and the reason you're unaware of it is that you simply haven't recognised Him as God. That is a far easier fit with Jamie's experience of the world, but at first glance it appears that acknowledging this as God would mean reducing the role that you and those dear to you (the highly admirable Emily, for instance) have played in your life. The reluctance to do so is understandable.

Now, those of us who have had time to reflect upon and grow accustomed to the idea will see no such dilemna. The role of God in no way diminishes the role of others. God offers help to all, strength to all, but ultimately it is the individual who makes the call, who exercises their will for good or ill. The ranks of humanity are filled with those who choose poorly.

I'm not "reluctant to accept", the point is I don't know what it is I'd be accepting. I cannot accept what I cannot comprehend.

[Octavious]

Really? I think you comprehend it perfectly well but simply prefer to call it something else. Ultimately it doesn't make a blind bit of difference, and the only measure that counts is whether you believe you've lived a good life. An acknowledgement that God is there to help guide you may be useful, but God will do so whether you believe in Him or not so it doesn't really matter.

[Fluminator]

What do you mean by "a force" ???

Gravity is a force. Electromagnetism is a force. Nuclear interaction is a force. Forces are interactions which, in physics, cause "push" or "pull" effects.

Are you saying that God is some kind of gravitational or electromagnetic field which has somehow attained consciousness?

The Christian tradition is yes, he's sovereign over all the forces of nature. Then there's debate between Christian sects on if they actively control everything that happens or let it run on autopilot most of the time.

If there's a being outside of time, then I don't find it that much of a stretch to believe.

Ok, so God is some kind of sentient forcefield. I see. Interesting.

What does "outside of time" mean?

uhh, if that's what a forcefield is? Isn't that a shield of energy?
Outside of time means atemporal. A being that exists outside of the flow of time. Since it's outside of time, it's unchanging.

[flash2015]

Context is the key thing. I'm sure you already know this since you were raised Christian, but the Bible is a collection of books, and you have to look at each one by itself to figure out where it fits and what its message is. The Bible is not an all-or-nothing thing.
I read the story of the garden of Eden, the tree of knowledge, the deceiving serpent, getting kicked out of paradise, etc. and it seems so clear to me those are all representations of something much deeper. And the context of creation myths in early Palestine seem to support this.

The stories of Jesus are pretty clearly a different genre, where you have them start off with the writer basically saying "I'm talking to as many eyewitnesses as possible, lets record this."
The creationist museum and rich creationists like Ken Ham can claim "if you don't believe Genesis is literal you'll question everything" but it's insanely naive to assume it's all one continuous book. (And you really should question if all parts of the Bible were meant to be literally fact)

OK, so you are saying it should be read in the context of the time it was written? I agree with that, sure.

I don't disagree about whether Jesus really existed or not. There is enough historical record to suggest he did. And probably some of the things in the Gospels sort of represent what really happened...and perhaps some of it may represent what Jesus actually said.

But even if you take the claim that some of it may have been based off real eyewitness accounts, note that the first Gospel (Mark) was written 30+ years after Jesus death. That is a LONG time before giving a written account of Jesus life. And the Gospels disagree on A LOT of detail, again the later it was written the more elaborate the claims became. Remember your Uncle whose fishing story becomes more fanciful each time he tells it? I believe the same principles are in play here.

The first obvious example is the story of Jesus birth. Mark doesn't mention it AT ALL and Mark doesn't mention anything about the virgin birth. Mark also suggests that Jesus had brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3) suggesting his birth was ordinary. It seems like a pretty darn important fact to leave out, don't you think? The excuse is that Mark didn't think this was important. Yeah right...

The Gospel Of Matthew (~85 AD) was added next. Remember that by this time, it was 80+ years since Jesus birth. Who was the eyewitness for this that could give Matthew fresh info? A big part of the Gospel of Matthew was to tie Jesus life back to the prophesies of the Messiah found in the Old Testament. The prophesy of the virgin birth (not unique at all to Christianity - most major religions refer to a similar miracle) was an important prophesy from the book of Isaiah. Given the importance of seeing Jesus as fulfilling the prophesies, it is easy to see how Matthew may have "elaborated".

The Gospel Of Luke (written probably not long after Matthew) elaborates further on this and adds in the story about John The Baptist and Mary being visited by Angel Gabriel. Remember this is likely 80+ years after Jesus birth. Who is the eye witness giving the fresh info? But it all makes sense to me. IMHO, people want to believe in these magical elements so the Gospel writers honed their messages to give the people what they want. I am not knocking Christianity only here - Buddhism is just as bad in this respect.

Getting back to the Gospels, similar things happen with the Resurrection story. Mark pretty much ends with the women finding the empty tomb (it looks like verses 9-20 were tacked on at a later date). Matthew elaborates to then suggest the women actually met Jesus and added some extra verbiage about the disciples meeting Jesus. Luke makes the story even more elaborate and adds the detail about Jesus ascension. John (written around 100 AD) goes even further and introduces an iconic story about Thomas's interaction with Jesus...which was supposed to have happened when all the other apostles were there. The Thomas story seems pretty important - why did it take until 70 years after Jesus death for it to be mentioned? Some argue that the Gospel of John was at least partially a response to the Gospel of Thomas (one of the Gospels not chosen), he is essentially having a dig at him by adding this.

I can keep going and going on this. Who, for example, was the eye witness which saw Jesus tempted by the Devil in the desert (Jesus was supposed to be alone)? Why are Matthew and Luke's versions so much more elaborate than Mark's? Why is the Gospel Of John so different from the other three Gospels? They are all (allegedly) supposed to be representing the same set of events.

[flash2015]

Really?? The Jewish/Christian creation myth (which is one of many, many creation myths human civilizations made up) is equivalent to real science based on evidence? Why is making theories based on evidence "arrogance"? So I assume you would be one who believes we should "teach the controversy" in schools?

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to get into this discussion, but I guess now I have to defend myself.

It's not equivalent, obviously. They are totally different things. "Real science based on evidence" and a story passed down through generations of people are totally different things. The idea I'm trying to get across is that even "theories based on evidence" are subject to change and adaptation. Isn't that the point of the scientific method? That you can adapt to new information?

And about education, I think that everything should be given its proper place. Science(to use the colloquial definition) should be taught as fact when it is, and as theory when it is. Religion should at least be given more than a cursory glance and the occasional scathing remark.

But this point is moot considering what I was trying to say is that we are all in the same boat of understanding, we have what we can see and what thousands of years of recorded history have told us. We just use (very)different methods to come to our conclusions. You might think that my methods are wrong, and I might think that your methods are faulty. But at the end of the day, we all know very little.

Theories are subject to change to change and adaptation, sure. But that doesn't give you a free pass to ignore or cast doubt on what you don't like. So where do you draw the line between what you call "theory" and what you call "fact"? Note that theories about the origin of life and the universe don't sit out on "scientific islands". If you throw away ideas of evolution, you are also throwing away large swathes of modern biology as well. Saying the world was created in six days requires you to throw away a lot of modern physics too. Unless you are suggesting that God decided to change the rules at some point...and just put things like dinosaur skeletons in the ground or make far distant galaxies speed away to confuse us?

I am not saying that these origin stories don't have some value. They do from a historical perspective...and there are hints there on what was believed was required to live a good life. For those unaffiliated with a specific religion, it is useful to learn about these stories and stories from other cultures (with of course no preference given to one culture's story over another) as it does give us a window into the past. But it is just invalid to say that science or these origin stories are in any way shape or form equivalent in explaining the physical world. There is no point of debate here. I am sorry, but in explaining the physical world, I can confidently say these origin stories are just wrong.

[ubercacher16]

About the education discussion. I think Fluminator is right here. Religious stories aren't on the same playing field as science, so they shouldn't be taught in science classes. This makes more sense to me than what I was saying.

Many Christians however view it as wishy-washy to believe that ANY part of the Bible is anything short of absolute historical fact.

[ubercacher16]

About the who is God thing.

You've really got to understand everyone, God is most definitely a WHO. Not a what. Not merely a force but a personal being without beginning or end, that's part of what outside of time means.

[Stressedlines]

I generally avoid the forums, but I think I may pay attention to this one

[Fluminator]

OK, so you are saying it should be read in the context of the time it was written? I agree with that, sure.

I don't disagree about whether Jesus really existed or not. There is enough historical record to suggest he did. And probably some of the things in the Gospels sort of represent what really happened...and perhaps some of it may represent what Jesus actually said.

But even if you take the claim that some of it may have been based off real eyewitness accounts, note that the first Gospel (Mark) was written 30+ years after Jesus death. That is a LONG time before giving a written account of Jesus life. And the Gospels disagree on A LOT of detail, again the later it was written the more elaborate the claims became. Remember your Uncle whose fishing story becomes more fanciful each time he tells it? I believe the same principles are in play here.

The first obvious example is the story of Jesus birth. Mark doesn't mention it AT ALL and Mark doesn't mention anything about the virgin birth. Mark also suggests that Jesus had brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3) suggesting his birth was ordinary. It seems like a pretty darn important fact to leave out, don't you think? The excuse is that Mark didn't think this was important. Yeah right...

The Gospel Of Matthew (~85 AD) was added next. Remember that by this time, it was 80+ years since Jesus birth. Who was the eyewitness for this that could give Matthew fresh info? A big part of the Gospel of Matthew was to tie Jesus life back to the prophesies of the Messiah found in the Old Testament. The prophesy of the virgin birth (not unique at all to Christianity - most major religions refer to a similar miracle) was an important prophesy from the book of Isaiah. Given the importance of seeing Jesus as fulfilling the prophesies, it is easy to see how Matthew may have "elaborated".

The Gospel Of Luke (written probably not long after Matthew) elaborates further on this and adds in the story about John The Baptist and Mary being visited by Angel Gabriel. Remember this is likely 80+ years after Jesus birth. Who is the eye witness giving the fresh info? But it all makes sense to me. IMHO, people want to believe in these magical elements so the Gospel writers honed their messages to give the people what they want. I am not knocking Christianity only here - Buddhism is just as bad in this respect.

Getting back to the Gospels, similar things happen with the Resurrection story. Mark pretty much ends with the women finding the empty tomb (it looks like verses 9-20 were tacked on at a later date). Matthew elaborates to then suggest the women actually met Jesus and added some extra verbiage about the disciples meeting Jesus. Luke makes the story even more elaborate and adds the detail about Jesus ascension. John (written around 100 AD) goes even further and introduces an iconic story about Thomas's interaction with Jesus...which was supposed to have happened when all the other apostles were there. The Thomas story seems pretty important - why did it take until 70 years after Jesus death for it to be mentioned? Some argue that the Gospel of John was at least partially a response to the Gospel of Thomas (one of the Gospels not chosen), he is essentially having a dig at him by adding this.

I can keep going and going on this. Who, for example, was the eye witness which saw Jesus tempted by the Devil in the desert (Jesus was supposed to be alone)? Why are Matthew and Luke's versions so much more elaborate than Mark's? Why is the Gospel Of John so different from the other three Gospels? They are all (allegedly) supposed to be representing the same set of events.

I’m not saying the gospels are 100% accurate. I’m just saying they are attempting to be factually accurate based on context, while other books (like Job, Jonah, early Genesis for example) don’t.

With regard to your points here, I’m probably the wrong Christian to ask since I’m not the type to defend the Bible too hard. I think it’s a fascinating book, but I don’t think it’s infallible or perfect or literally God’s word like a lot of Christians do.
That said, I don’t find the differences between Matthew, Mark, and Luke that disconcerting. Sure there might be a few disagreements between the gospels on what happened (because different eyewitnesses will naturally give slightly different reports), but that’s why the early Christians wanted as many reports as possible to cross check. Mark being the first written and being the most concise makes sense, and likely why other people wanted more detailed reporting. Matthew and Luke both cover different things, and if you look in the right areas, either could look more detailed than the other. If they were just expanding on the previous books, why would there be slight contradictions between them?

I’m going to have to disagree that Matthew was written in 85AD. Do you have a source? Matthew and Luke and Acts would all have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem which took place in 70AD. (And before Paul was killed in the Nero persecution around that time)
John came a bit after the other 3 gospels were well established, so the author (allegedly John) probably wanted to focus more on stuff not reported by any of the other 3 since they are all similar. (Since there’s surely a lot Jesus said that isn’t covered in any of the gospels.)
I read the Gospel of Thomas. It is a terrible book about how women must become men to be saved lol. I don’t blame the early church fathers for saying whoever wrote that was a lunatic.

Since it’s 2000 years ago, you’re not going to get enough from the texts to be satisfied unless you have other reasons to believe Christianity is correct imo. The most interesting part of the historical records of the early church to me was the fact all the disciples almost certainly died for their faith, so whatever happened it seems like they believed Jesus rose from the dead. They gained nothing from the lie.

[Smokey Gem]

I am a true believer. I am God because I think I am.. or is it I think therefore I am god.

Either way god is simply an agnostic expression of a atheists view of non explainable events.

Like this post for example..

[flash2015]

<snip my own quote>

I’m not saying the gospels are 100% accurate. I’m just saying they are attempting to be factually accurate based on context, while other books (like Job, Jonah, early Genesis for example) don’t.

With regard to your points here, I’m probably the wrong Christian to ask since I’m not the type to defend the Bible too hard. I think it’s a fascinating book, but I don’t think it’s infallible or perfect or literally God’s word like a lot of Christians do.
That said, I don’t find the differences between Matthew, Mark, and Luke that disconcerting. Sure there might be a few disagreements between the gospels on what happened (because different eyewitnesses will naturally give slightly different reports), but that’s why the early Christians wanted as many reports as possible to cross check. Mark being the first written and being the most concise makes sense, and likely why other people wanted more detailed reporting. Matthew and Luke both cover different things, and if you look in the right areas, either could look more detailed than the other. If they were just expanding on the previous books, why would there be slight contradictions between them?

I’m going to have to disagree that Matthew was written in 85AD. Do you have a source? Matthew and Luke and Acts would all have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem which took place in 70AD. (And before Paul was killed in the Nero persecution around that time)
John came a bit after the other 3 gospels were well established, so the author (allegedly John) probably wanted to focus more on stuff not reported by any of the other 3 since they are all similar. (Since there’s surely a lot Jesus said that isn’t covered in any of the gospels.)
I read the Gospel of Thomas. It is a terrible book about how women must become men to be saved lol. I don’t blame the early church fathers for saying whoever wrote that was a lunatic.

Since it’s 2000 years ago, you’re not going to get enough from the texts to be satisfied unless you have other reasons to believe Christianity is correct imo. The most interesting part of the historical records of the early church to me was the fact all the disciples almost certainly died for their faith, so whatever happened it seems like they believed Jesus rose from the dead. They gained nothing from the lie.

I am going off multiple sources for the 85AD thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel (which has its own sources)
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin ... mfour.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html

I can see that many Christian sources will try to date the Gospels earlier because it will bolster their case for their factual accuracy. I guess we could go down a rabbit hole here...but I don't see this as that much different from any other arguments to prove certain sections of the Bible are the literal truth.

I don't think people dying for a cause or a belief is proof of the veracity of their claims. Lots of people have died for causes or for their beliefs, a lot of these not being Christians. I could go through many, many examples...but I think you would find those comparisons potentially insulting so I won't mention them here unless of course you want me to.

Anyway, I only went down this path because of the initial question you raised. My question seemed like a logical follow-on. I was not intentionally trying to be insulting...but I was worried after I wrote it that it may be taken that way. Thanks for the discussion.

[flash2015]

A militant atheist view is that **any** belief in the supernatural is bad. I am more of the view that only those beliefs lead people to poor decisions are important, especially those which can hurt or limit the freedoms of those which don't ascribe to the same beliefs.

[yavuzovic]

I can't read the all thread now but here's something:

When I talked with an atheist, she told me that she believes science will eventually explain the thing we call first creation. Every moment matter changes but first creation is something today's science can't explain. I still would like to hear other non-believers to tell me what they think about this first creation. Let me come to my point about agnosticism, they don't want to say yes matter is created by a superior power for whatever reason they have; and they avoid saying no matter's first appearance will be enlightened by science - because yeah future is unpredictable.
Anyway, I could never understand this mentality.

[yavuzovic]

Pardon my ignorance, is it possible an atheist to believe in souls, giving human's power to opt?
(The text following isn't a mushroom trip, I guarantee)
Like, the atom-energy physics, there could be a complete different system that we miss because it has nothing related with our system: It doesn't fill the space, doesn't affect the energy around and... makes the soul? If that's too dumb just answer the question.