From the Universal English Dictionary, Ed. Henry Cecil Wyld, Waverley Press, 1960: Religion: “…..1. Belief in, acknowledgement of, a supernatural power which controls the universe and directs man's destiny......”
By this definition, Agnosticism and Atheism cannot be regarded as "religions."
Hello Jonny. Yes, that is one definition. Under other definitions, (probably from the same dictionary, although I did not confirm this), atheism and agnosticism would fit. Actually, I believe they fit under this one as well, but making the case represents more time than I have to spend here right now. I think there have even been threads on this in the past. I was just pointing out the inference made by the post I was commenting on. I know how badly the folks who identify themselves as atheists and agnostics typically want to be viewed as somehow above religion and/or not religious, so it is rare when one so clearly infers they are religious.
I can't help thinking that all the for and against arguments about religion and faith fail to address the underlying emotions which we are trying to appease.
I don't qualify as an agnostic. I do qualify as an a-theist. Why do I? Why do I reject the notion of a "god' looking into my life, who can direct me, discipline me, punish me? Because I reject control! Because when I feel trapped, imprisoned, I react violently against that control.
Such a god represents the control that my fellow humans (try to) have over me and my life. So I reject any semblance of such a god.
When a person who claims to have the authoritative backing of a supernatural being, tries to "Lord" (pun intended) over me, then I either confront, fight, or run a mile from that person.
Here you see my emotions at work. They are what primarily direct my actions and reactions. Not really the logic of the situation.
Maybe this point of view (which does not address the meaning of agnostic) will open up some deeper understanding of you folks in this discussion.... I await your feed back.
If I may, Jonny. Based on the information you provided here, this doesn't necessarily line up with the definition of atheist. By definition an atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Here you aren't specifically denying the existence as much as simply rejecting the dominion and authority of said being.
I'm not trying to argue here because you can call yourself what you want. But if we go by the definition, rejecting authority is not the same as lacking belief in the existence of
Or they don't build fantasies they assume are true and must be spread aggressively, but are honest in their lack of direct knowledge. Not many crusades have been lead by agnostics and not many totalitarian regimes ruled by them.
First time my dad let me drive his truck (over 50 years ago) I was told to try to keep it half way between the ditches. That way if i lost controll a little bit I'd still be OK. That is where the Agnostic is at. The agressive Atheist has gone up the outer side of the one side of the ditch, and the agressive religionist has gone off the other side. All the while the agnostic is walking down the middle of the road talking to an Atheist on their right and a theist on the left. Or something like that.
That being said, I would assume agnostics would have done the rigor to gain some direct knowledge of the world around us, insomuch as to at the very least have a grasp on how things work and how other things have never been shown to work. With these tools in hand, they need not build fantasies or make assumptions but can actively synthesize that knowledge to get them off the fence.
Well yes, I would suspect that running a crusade or regime would require some effort but that would also require one to get off the fence, first.
You do realise that offering a job to run a crusade or regime won't be incentive enough? Who wants to run a regime? It's work, work, work. What with summary executions, forced labor camps and genocides. True, there are some perks while in power, but a lot of sleepless nights.
1joke noun \ˈjōk\ Definition of JOKE 1 a : something said or done to provoke laughter; especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2) : an instance of jesting : kidding <can't take a joke>
I do respect what you say actually... and I have a respect for someone who is seeking and open minded. One day you might lean one way more and the next, the other, but you are usually very respectful of both sides, and you have not closed the door to truth while looking for it's definition.
What I find incredulous is the fact that ppl are *obsessed with something that they either claim is untrue or they're not sure about. There is something to this Jesus or so many ppl wouldn't be consumed with the need to talk about spirituality constantly... daily.
Hey. The subject of spirituality encompasses more than just Jesus. But, I do agree on some level. I think most everyone respects Jesus. A lot of my problem with Christianity is that they don't, from where I'm sitting. Up here on the fence, with nothing valid to say. I added the last part to save ATM the trouble of posting in response.
Isn't that indicative of a stand which creates conflict? You would like (you used the word us, so it is assumed you are included). That represents a want. Then you reference the needs of others. You want them to suppress their needs. To accommodate your wants. Is this a fair request? If so, then why?
It is my contention that the Christian religion (and specifically following Christ) is guaranteed to cause conflict, wars and ill will.As proof - I cite the last 1800 years - including the hubpages forums as evidence....
Is atheism becoming another religion? I am asking this question because many atheists are loudly talking against 'other' religions, like many of the the propagandists of religions do.I myself am an atheist, and I think...
Atheist, Religious/Theist, Agnostic. Out of these beliefs or non beliefs in relation to a God, which belief or non belief system is the smartest and most honest? Agnostic gets my vote because I don't see enough evidence...
A common religion debate is that religious people try to shove their beliefs down every ones' throats, which is unwanted, closed-minded, and hypocritical. Yet the most common closed-minded belief shoving type of...
I was reading a different thread that got me thinking about the history or religion and that it goes far back into history with many incarnations in different societies. Atheism on the other hand does not seem to have...
Here are my thoughts:It's better to be Agnostic than picking a god to randomly worship."Hey, let's pick a random god to worship, say it's real, and not question its existence!". That's BS to me. It always has...