Why I am an agnostic

If I err, please tell me why

I am 71. I was raised Ukrainian Catholic, in Connecticut. For the past four decades I have been agnostic. Why? First, everything I have ever learned about religion has come from mortals. Thus, I have no reason to believe that they are correct. In a way, to be an atheist the same dilemma unfolds. In a way, atheism is a 'religion', in that it is a belief system. Thus, I prefer to call myself an agnostic which is a heralding of my ignorance. That is as accurate and as honest as I am capable of being.

We hear over and over again that there had to be a beginning. Why should there have been a start? Where is the beginning of a circle or sphere? And if the concrete object had a beginning, what about the CONCEPT of a circle or sphere? No beginning, no end, no start, no finish. The concept has always existed, but might not have been tapped into until we were smart enough to unfold it.

Why does there have to be ONE supreme being? And why is this being considered to be good? What, exactly, is good? Is it good to go fishing? Many think so, despite the reality of enjoying the long torture of an animal fighting for its dear life. Many actually enjoy that desperate fight. It is, to some, great fun. So, is fishing 'good'? We are uncomfortable with questions like this, and for good reason, because such questions challenge our home made perceptions.

Like with religion. The early settlers to the USA considered killing off the natives a god-given right. You see, "He" (does this being have male genitals?) said in so many words: "You whites are superior and should be the beneficiaries of all of these natural resources." You can bet your bottom dollar that these settlers went to church on Sunday in order to thank this "God". for his masterful largess. The popular saying in the mid 1800s was "There ain't no good injun but a dead injun." This was their religion, tailor-made. In a way, mankind has created its own god in order to placate his ego.

The Israelis are thankful to their own 'God' that he has allowed them to convince the USA that it is OK to massacre Palestinians. And they do. You see, the Palestinian is an evil entity which must be treated as subhuman. You see, the FACT that the Palestinians have lived in Israel (in harmony with Jews) for 1,000 years matters not when the Zionist Star of David intervenes. Such is human nature. (And the USA can be counted upon to keep supplying the deadly ordnance in order to effectuate this 'necessity'.)

I feel best not believing in anything which cannot be proven. And even if it CAN be proven, there is yet pause, because who, other than human mortals, have said that OUR sense of logic is the ONLY logic that there is? There are too many unanswered questions, extant, for David Lyga to hew to the mandate of the hoi polloi.

If I err, please tell me why. - David Lyga

I cling tenaciously to my my statement that atheism is a 'religion', in that it is a belief system.

Religion: a metaphysical system constructed on an architectural framework of superstition and myth, that attempts to explain the nature of reality, and the relationship of our species to it, which along with a body of ritual, and a static code of ethical formulation, is perpetuated via cultural transmission, for the psycho-physiological alleviation of existential angst and is epistemologically dependent on magical thinking, delusion, and confirmation bias.

Quote:

I cling tenaciously to my my statement that atheism is a 'religion', in that it is a belief system.

Cling as tenaciously as you like but I think you are being simplistic – merely trying to undercut a theory which you reject (your particular definition of "atheism") by attempting to turn it into a system of beliefs to which it ostensibly objects in order to make atheists (as you define them) appear hypocritical.

Christina Anne Knight wrote:

Religion: a metaphysical system constructed on an architectural framework of superstition and myth, that attempts to explain the nature of reality, and the relationship of our species to it, which along with a body of ritual, and a static code of ethical formulation, is perpetuated via cultural transmission, for the psycho-physiological alleviation of existential angst and is epistemologically dependent on magical thinking, delusion, and confirmation bias.

People using their own definitions of words is one reason these discussions break down into futile talking past each other.

Cling as tenaciously as you like but I think you are being simplistic – merely trying to undercut a theory which you reject (your particular definition of "atheism") by attempting to turn it into a system of beliefs to which it ostensibly objects in order to make atheists (as you define them) appear hypocritical.

I disagree with David's contention that atheism is a religion...it is NOT.

But I agree with David's contention that it IS a "belief system."

I think the Christiana Anne Knight quote is a bunch of bullshit.

If pointing out facts and reality undermines a religion so severely, that might be a sign that the religion’s beliefs are flawed.

Quote:

But I agree with David's contention that it IS a "belief system."

It can be a belief. Or a disbelief. But how is it systematic?

Quote:

I think the Christiana Anne Knight quote is a bunch of bullshit.

Very insightful. That really clears things up.