Online Bible Study for Agnostic
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
DP. How can “doesn’t believe” be the same thing as “not sure”? These are two different things to English speakers. Not even your cartoon tries to claim they’re the same—even if the cartoon distinguishes between agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists, it’s saying it depends on full knowledge vs. partial knowledge and the cartoon says these two things are NOT the same. Dawkins’ whole point about calling himself agnostic is that he still has 0.1/7% uncertainty, presumably the same uncertainty he has about fairies. He’s not at 7/7 certainty there are no gods. And THAT’s the whole reason Dawkins calls himself agnostic, not atheist or agnostic atheist or however else you’ve tried to label him. Please re-read the quote from Dawkins himself above. |
Anonymous
And not to Dawkins—pp is misconstruing him. Please re-read Dawkins quote above. |
Anonymous
OP, I like this devotional for a daily reader:https://www.amazon.com/Mockingbird-Devotional-Good-Today-Every/dp/148402771X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=sl1&tag=themockblog-20&linkId=f476ba72a9f7857f1d6db96fe7325bde&language=en_US. Though I linked to the print version, you can also find some good (not quite daily) writings on this site: https://mbird.com/category/bible/. Mockingbird is a group of mainly Episcopal, younger priests and theologians focused on themes of grace in the Bible and in culture. It's usually fresh, lively, and interesting writing, and always grounded in Scripture. Sarah Condon, in particular, is one of the writers whose voice I particularly appreciate. She's funny and relatable. This app for your phone includes various devotional plans/readings that you might find helpful to follow along with: https://www.youversion.com/the-bible-app/. And if you (like me) were raised in a church but feel like you didn't get the full picture in your childhood, you might find a book like this one a good read as an overview back into the Bible: https://www.amazon.com/Story-Stories-Guided-Genesis-Revelation/dp/0830858164. I've just started in, but it's such a helpful, narrative way to tie together the overarching story being told through the Bible. Finally, it's not a Bible study, and certainly not online, but Alpha courses (mainly offered through Episcopal churches) are a nice way to explore the overall themes of Christianity in a low-key, non-pressure group setting. The format is a dinner, short video, and then discussion group. There are a number of courses kicking off in January and February at churches around the region: https://alphausa.org/try |
Anonymous
NP who is also interested in doing the same thing - thank you for actually responding to the topic and making the scroll to the end of the thread worthwhile! I appreciate it! |
Anonymous
And how is it that you can speak for the "vast majority" of atheists? If you were an atheist, you'd know that it's impossible to prove there are no gods, just as it is impossible to prove there are no fairies or gremlins. Yet people generally give up belief in fairies while they are children. Atheists have given up, i.e., stopped believing in God - they have not proved his (or her!) non-existence because it's just as impossible as proving the non-existence of fairies or anything else that's invisible. Many atheists would describe themselves and agnostic atheist - I don't know and I don't believe. It's true that in our society, agnostic is considered to be a nicer designation -- presuming a desire to believe, but an inability to believe -- but it really doesn't mean that. Think of other uses of the word: when people say "I'm agnostic about that" they mean they don't know, not that they wished they knew or that they are struggling to know. It's the same in the context of religion. |
Anonymous
And you base your understanding on the contents of a CARTOON?? To me, it seems like you are an atheist who does not know the meaning of "agnostic" which is "not knowing" while "atheist" is "not believing" and you can certainly be both. Maybe it's time to realize that you were misinformed and that now you're learning something new. |
Anonymous
You seem really threatened. It was an "atheist" who first posted the cartoon saying you can't be both atheist and agnostic. |
Anonymous
I posted the first cartoon, and it makes it clear you can be both and explains how. I am both atheist and agnostic. 
|
Anonymous
The cartoon has already been disected and ridiculed above, by other atheists. Why don't you let OP go back to trying to get input. |
Anonymous
Why don't you stop ignoring facts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism https://books.google.com/books?ei=0Xt_T5mMH8KUiQLrlq3HAw&id=FI7ZAAAAMAAJ&dq=atheism+the+case+against+god&q=agnostic+theist#search_anchor https://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/arminnavabi/atheism-vs-agnosticism-what-difference 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRmX9RVeNkU https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201410/why-i-am-agnostic-atheist https://danielmiessler.com/blog/if-youre-agnostic-youre-probably-an-atheist/ The most common misconception about atheism is that all atheists are 100% convinced that no godlike entity exists anywhere in the universe. This is false. https://atheism.wikia.org/wiki/Atheist_vs_Agnostic People sometimes say stuff like, “I’m an agnostic” when the other person thinks they’re closer to a weak atheist. Alternatively people call themselves atheists while others think they’re agnostics. Then people can get accused of lying when they didn’t intend to deceive anyone. Below are examples of different use of atheist and agnostic:- Richard Dawkins argues that there almost certainly is no god and is considered an atheist. Bertrand Russell also believed that god is very unlikely but called himself an agnostic at least part of the time, [1] . People generally hate it if they get called liars despite trying to be honest. So at the very least we should take care to remember that other people may use these two words with a different meaning from the meaning we assume. I could go on all day with links. You can say what the word means to YOU, but you can't say what someone else believes, just the way you can't tell a Mormon he isn't Christian or a Buddhist that he isn't religious. It's not your choice. I am Atheist and Agnostic both. I am not making the claim "no gods exist" because I know I cannot prove a negative so I do not make that claim. |
Anonymous
|
What you call yourself is of course your choice.
Yet, as this thread keeps proving, vast majority of people aren’t aware of the semantic hair-splitting. TBH I truly don’t care what you call yourself. You’re just such an easy target, you get so angry and defensive. |
Anonymous
"vast majority of people" - you mean a few people in this forum despite link after link showing otherwise? That's your claim? The people active in this thread - which may be single digits - constitute the "vast majority" against the multiple links of evidence (that I can continue if you need it)? "aren’t aware of the semantic hair-splitting" - but it is not "semantic hair-splitting"; it's a critically important distinction because to say "There are absolutely no gods" is a claim which must be supported by evidence. You know this, which is why you don't like the Agnostic Atheist position. You'd like to share that impossible burden of proof that you shoulder. Sorry. Not happening. |
Anonymous
Exactly - if you go ask them today they would NOT say "I'm an agnostic atheist". They'd either say "agnostic" or "atheist". |
Anonymous
That's not the question - what's easy in conversation. Ask them if they are both. I they say "Atheist" ask them if they are 100% certain there are no gods. Very, very few will say yes. That makes them also agnostic. Really, try it. Or watch a few online videos from The Atheist Experience or similar groups and programs. You'll find it very consistent. And, for the record, if anyone says "I AM 100% CERTAIN THERE ARE NO GODS IN THE UNIVERSE", by all means, make them show evidence. |
Anonymous
| Another vote for BSF. I do it online but they have weekly in person groups. There is an audio/video lecture and then written materials and questions to help relate it to the life of the reader. A friend who is in seminary took a look and said the materials are of high quality. I was curious and also felt like I was missing a lot of cultural references, etc, OP. I like the mix of modalities watching/listening/reading and even engaging in online discussion if you want (I have skipped that part since I cannot commit to a time). It is free and you can stop whenever, skip or make up when busy, etc. A colleague mentioned it to me - she goes to in person lectures/meetings and keeps up even when she travels, there are groups that meet all over the world. That also appealed to me on some level, a collective search for meaning sort of thing. |