Online Bible Study for Agnostic

[Anonymous]

Let’s double down on Dawkins’ self-identification, shall we. And which definition Dawkins uses.

Dawkins uses a single definition/scale, and this definition allows for somebody to be EITHER atheist OR agnostic, but not both. Either you’re 100% sure there’s no god (atheist) or you’re less than 100% sure there’s no god (agnostic). Say that, like Dawkins, you’re .99/7% sure. Because .99/7 does not equal 100%, Dawkins calls himself agnostic. This is basic stuff, folks.

The epistemology/theology distinction involves two different definitions. This allows somebody to call themselves agnostic at the same time they call themselves atheist.

Which is Dawkins using in the quote above? Bingo! The first one. Calling other pp’s “jerks” doesn’t change any of this.

[Anonymous]

I enjoy the Bible Recap podcast. It's reading through the Bible in a year.

https://www.mydgroup.org/podcast

[Anonymous]

I love BSF! The community is really friendly, if you ever decide to join an in person class. It’s decisively apolitical, which is refreshing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love BSF! The community is really friendly, if you ever decide to join an in person class. It’s decisively apolitical, which is refreshing.

Is BSF associated with any particular denomination?

[Anonymous]

A quick search says this about BSF:

"BSF is an in-depth, interdenominational Bible study that helps people know God and equips them to effectively serve the Church throughout the world."

Not the OP, but somebody similar. I attend a UU church and definitely believe in a higher being, but not in Jesus. I want to know the Bible more because I live in a world where it seems like knowing the Bible is important to understand literary references, certain cultural phenomenons, of people's points of views. I want a Bible study that looks more at the cultural and connotations behind the words. I don't want a Bible study that wants to convert me, though I know that is a tall order.

[Anonymous]

Here are Dawkin's own words, from his own website:

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2012/12/im-an-atheist-because/

It's entitled, "I’m An Atheist Because…"

I know you guys are trolling, but this really should end your idiocy and threadjacking. On this topic, forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A quick search says this about BSF:

"BSF is an in-depth, interdenominational Bible study that helps people know God and equips them to effectively serve the Church throughout the world."

Not the OP, but somebody similar. I attend a UU church and definitely believe in a higher being, but not in Jesus. I want to know the Bible more because I live in a world where it seems like knowing the Bible is important to understand literary references, certain cultural phenomenons, of people's points of views. I want a Bible study that looks more at the cultural and connotations behind the words. I don't want a Bible study that wants to convert me, though I know that is a tall order.

I am the OP and did some googling after posting. I found a recommendation for a book called Understanding the Bible: An Introduction for Skeptics, Seekers and Religious Liberals, which was written by a UU minister. I’m going to order it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not agnostic if you attending church and want t o study the bible.

Not true at all. Besides the fact that there are plenty of atheists and agnostics (often closeted) who attend church regularly (to meet some kind of expectation--family, social, etc), besides the fact that the UU church has NO doctrinal requirements at all BUT does have the "Six Sources" which include Judeo-Christian sources AND a hymnal which includes hymns about God as well as readings from the Bible (among other books), there can be plenty of reasons for an agnostic to want to read and explore the Bible--possibly to challenge one's own current belief or lack thereof, to explore it in the sense of literature or history or in comparison to what other religions say.

This isn’t it. OP is not atheist. She’s agnostic if she’s in between atheist and the possibility of something there.

You can be agnostic AND atheist at the same time. Nearly all atheists are. And, you can be both and attend a Unitarian church - or any other church. You just don't believe and attend for social reasons, or to keep familial peace. I wouldn't do that, but it is possible.

Right. Agnostic is "I don't know" and Atheist is "I don't believe". Many people are both, but may feel more comfortable describing themselves with one word or the other.

These are mutually exclusive — you can’t not believe and yet not know. They are different. A dictionary is your friend, or agnostic writers like Richard Dawkins.

It would be hard for you to be more wrong about those things.

They are not mutually exclusive. The PP is correct. Dawkins calls himself Atheist. Nearly every Atheist also calls themselves agnostic as they cannot prove there are no gods.

Nope. Dawkins has said he prefers to be called agnostic.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.” Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs. “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

For Dawkins, it’s that 0.1/7% possibility of a creator that makes difference between agnostic and atheist.

OK, well the fact that he thinks God is a supernatural "creature" is just silly. How can he be taken seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are not agnostic if you attending church and want t o study the bible.

You need a wider world view. You can be a Unitarian and an agnostic. You can also belong to any religion and be seeking a different perspective. Sorry that your world is so narrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are Dawkin's own words, from his own website:

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2012/12/im-an-atheist-because/

It's entitled, "I’m An Atheist Because…"

I know you guys are trolling, but this really should end your idiocy and threadjacking. On this topic, forever.

In your link, Dawkins is talking about OTHER people who identify as atheists. Not about himself. He reproduces OTHER people’s’ 346 statements about why THEY identify as atheists.

I find it very hard to understand how you can be so abusive to others in defense of your own flawed position. Honestly, you call others trolls and idiots and then you produce this irrelevant link?

Produce a link from Dawkins himself where he calls himself an atheist, and we’re all willing to listen to you. Until then, your abuse and ad hominems are no argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are Dawkin's own words, from his own website:

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2012/12/im-an-atheist-because/

It's entitled, "I’m An Atheist Because…"

I know you guys are trolling, but this really should end your idiocy and threadjacking. On this topic, forever.

In your link, Dawkins is talking about OTHER people who identify as atheists. Not about himself. He reproduces OTHER people’s’ 346 statements about why THEY identify as atheists.

I find it very hard to understand how you can be so abusive to others in defense of your own flawed position. Honestly, you call others trolls and idiots and then you produce this irrelevant link?

Produce a link from Dawkins himself where he calls himself an atheist, and we’re all willing to listen to you. Until then, your abuse and ad hominems are no argument.

OK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkgYgJEH-e4

at 1:04 he explains his scale and that a 6 is "de-facto atheist", which is what he is. "Agnostic but with the same level of belief in god that I have in faries or unicorns".

He explains that this is because he cannot prove a negative. No one can prove something doesn't exist, including gods. An extension of Russel's Celestial Teapot concept.

Here's another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93SjXowlJD0

"a de-facto atheist would be someone who lives their life as if there is no supernatural being, and that is certainly what I am".

This is a thoughtful, eruidite and nuanced position, so I guess it is understandable that you are having difficulty grasping it. What you most misunderstand is the definition that Atheists use for Atheism, which means having no religious belief, and that certainly includes Richard Dawkins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are Dawkin's own words, from his own website:

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2012/12/im-an-atheist-because/

It's entitled, "I’m An Atheist Because…"

I know you guys are trolling, but this really should end your idiocy and threadjacking. On this topic, forever.

These are not Dawkins’ “own” words; the whole point of the link is that he wants to quote 350 other people.

You seem very upset that Dawkins and OP identify as agnostic not as atheist. This is not the challenge to your own non-belief that you seem to think it is. By all means, adopt the distinction between the theological and epistemological definitions of atheism. Under the theological definition, if you’re 100% sure there’s no god (unlike Dawkins and OP), then congrats, you’re an atheist. Under the epistemological definition, you’re probably an atheist anyway. I’m going to guess that the 350 people Dawkins quotes in his link are either using the epistemological definition or, like you, they’re not aware of these distinctions. Maybe you can even find a quote from Dawkins where he uses the epistemological definition to self-identify, although I tried without success and frankly the onus is on you.

Until then, lighten up on the abuse. Also, claiming someone like Dawkins is an atheist when he says he’s not (earlier link) is sort of like messing with somebody’s racial or sexual identify. You don’t get to define them differently from what they themselves say.

[Anonymous]

The choices are not atheist, agnostic or "God is a supernatural creature." Language limits discussions of God and what God is, but an old dude sitting on a cloud is not a real option for anyone. So if being atheist/agnostic means you don't believe God is a supernatural creature, then most Christians are atheists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are Dawkin's own words, from his own website:

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2012/12/im-an-atheist-because/

It's entitled, "I’m An Atheist Because…"

I know you guys are trolling, but this really should end your idiocy and threadjacking. On this topic, forever.

In your link, Dawkins is talking about OTHER people who identify as atheists. Not about himself. He reproduces OTHER people’s’ 346 statements about why THEY identify as atheists.

I find it very hard to understand how you can be so abusive to others in defense of your own flawed position. Honestly, you call others trolls and idiots and then you produce this irrelevant link?

Produce a link from Dawkins himself where he calls himself an atheist, and we’re all willing to listen to you. Until then, your abuse and ad hominems are no argument.

OK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkgYgJEH-e4

at 1:04 he explains his scale and that a 6 is "[b]de-facto atheist", which is what he is. "Agnostic but with the same level of belief in god that I have in faries or unicorns".

He explains that this is because he cannot prove a negative. No one can prove something doesn't exist, including gods. An extension of Russel's Celestial Teapot concept.

Here's another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93SjXowlJD0

"a de-facto [/b]atheist would be someone who lives their life as if there is no supernatural being, and that is certainly what I am".

This is a thoughtful, eruidite and nuanced position, so I guess it is understandable that you are having difficulty grasping it. What you most misunderstand is the definition that Atheists use for Atheism, which means having no religious belief, and that certainly includes Richard Dawkins.

So a day later you pull out this link and accuse people of “having trouble grasping a nuanced argument” in, um, retrospect? You really are a piece of work.

I’ve bolded the part where Dawkins calls himself “agnostic.” You’re the one having trouble with nuance. Can’t you see that a “de facto” atheist is not a strict atheist? And that living your life ”as if” you’re an atheist is also not the same exact thing as being full-on certain of your atheism? Which is why Dawkins, being more intellectually honest than you’re willing to be, calls himself “agnostic.”

Put a different way: Dawkins is using a theological definition. And, being more intellectually honest than you, he has to call himself “agnostic” and he has to modify the term atheist with the words “de facto.”

None of which is to say that you can’t use the epistemiological definition to define yourself as an atheist. I encourage you to google it. Or heck, if you’re more certain than Dawkins (no teapots for you and you proved that negative), then call yourself an atheist by the theological definition as well.

But for the love of small “g” gods, stop abusing posters who are being more nuanced and intellectually honest than you’re being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The choices are not atheist, agnostic or "God is a supernatural creature." Language limits discussions of God and what God is, but an old dude sitting on a cloud is not a real option for anyone. So if being atheist/agnostic means you don't believe God is a supernatural creature, then most Christians are atheists.

Dawkins, not Christians, set up the “supernatural being” straw man. Also bit about an “old guy on a cloud” is coming from you, not from Dawkins, who may well have meant a spiritual being, we don’t know.

Given that it’s a straw man with your own fanciful elaborations about old guys, let’s not bother going down this rabbit hole.