10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion (Blog)

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

The patterns are still repeating, improving... iteration after iteration....

Religion is about the future and as the future unfolds... religion needs to adapt and predict the next step...

IMO, religion just isn't necessary at all for this sort of thing. If I had to label myself religion-wise I'd say agnostic, as I don't believe in particular gods, religions, messiahs, etc. I'm fascinated though by the idea of dimensions we can't perceive (or even wrap our minds around), paranormal things, astral travel, and that sort of stuff. I'm on the fence toward most of that as well. One should remember though that, at one point in time, magnetism was likely seen as something supernatual, magical, and totally unexplainable (and I'm sure many people who never saw it personally didn't believe it much), and as of the present day we have figured out a completely reasonable scientific explanation for magnetism. I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point in the future, we (humans) could possibly finally figure out of some of the things I listed above are in fact real, and how/why they occur. The religions are just there (IMO) until then to satisfy those who can't be satisfied with not knowing yet.

[Natsu]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

It wasn't a technical comparison. I think you've read too much into it, although given the context I can see how you might interpret it that way. You're probably thinking of the movie Zeitgeist or something along those lines, but the line wasn't meant in that context.

OK, understood. I hope you'll forgive my insistence on that point, but I really wanted to check that out. I have nothing against the people who made Zeitgeist (though they are severely mistaken in most of what they claim), but I find pretty annoying to find some people repeating Zeitgeist's claims without checking one single fact out. I got specially angry when they started vandalizing the articles about Horus at wikipedia, both in English and Spanish (and those were the only two languages I could check out, don't know what happened in other languages). I am very much for people investigating and opening their minds, but I am totally against people believing blindly the first "alternative" theory they are given, repeating it everywhere as if it was sacred, and vandalizing the wikipedia article because Horus doesn't get crucified enough there and Isis has lots of sex to conceive him.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

The exact line from the article was, "You go, Horus!" It was meant as hyperbole. I could just as easily have written, "You go, Apollo!"

Erm... Your "You go, Horus!" was preceded by:

you’ll encounter various theories that Christianity’s teachings were largely assembled from pre-Christian myths and that Jesus himself was merely a fictional character pieced together from earlier mythical figures. You go, Horus!

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but the full paragraph sounds as if you were endorsing the Christ as a myth based in Horus theory... as presented by Ascharya S (one of Zeitgeist's sources) and the likes. There is no problem in thinking Jesus Christ didn't exist, nor in knowing he was provided with pagan characteristics... the problem is when you think it's based in the figure of Horus. You can say a lot of stuff about Jesus being a myth... but whatever myth it was, it had strong Jewish roots, and was "invented" in ancient Israel. The pagan flavour was added lately by the Romans after Constantine made Christianity official (and fully spoiled it by associating it to power). If you tell me that four Jewish writers got drunk and made a contest to invent a story, agreeing on the details previously, and came up with the gospels, now that'd a more historically correct theory. Oh, well, I'll stop now, I could go on for ages.

In short: if you were not endorsing that theory, but just talking about pagan-Christian syncretism, that's perfectly OK, sorry for the misunderstanding. As you guessed, I have read a lot on the subject of comparative Mythology, and I well know that the Romans did a lot of "adorning" of the figure of Jesus Christ with all the pagan details they liked: the 25th of December birth and many details directly copied from Mithras and Elagabalus cults are only a few examples. I know of those sincretic and copied aspects, and certainly I wish that people who consider themselves Christian (of any branch) were more informed about it. But the forced comparison with Horus creeps me out, so I had to check out where you had gotten it. If it is an hyperbole and an attempt to make people investigate about that, that's OK. No, it's better than OK, it's absolutely great. As I wrote, I have no problems with the "Jesus didn't exist" theories... as long as they are historically believable. The "Jesus from Horus" is just not, and is a travesty of ancient Egyptian mythology. You had the bad luck of finding a reader who is passionate about Mythology, (it's one of the drawbacks of having millions of readers ). It's just that I have found many instances in which some people warp myths as they like to prove their points. Whether it's people saying Horus was crucified, or Wiccans saying their religion is a cult that has been working since Neolithic... and survived all the time until now, I just get annoyed, as a physicist would get if I stared inventing the number of neutrons in atoms just because it suited my agenda, whatever it was.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I picked Horus because the Eye of Horus is a symbol of power much like the crucifix is for the church. This was meant as a jab at history repeating itself... needing a powerful figure to idolize as a symbol. Maybe I was too subtle about it, but I didn't think it was a big deal.

Maybe I was too stubborn about getting this answer, but please try to get into my shoes. I don't have any problem with people don't knowing, but I have a high intolerance for people spreading mistaken data, and there is a huge spread of the data provided in Zeitgeist throughout all the internet. I have been insulted by some Zeitgeist fans because I dared write that the coincidences between Horus and Jesus portrayed in that movie are absolutely wrong. You'd have to see their words when I proved it using Zeitgeist's own sources. I am sorry if I asked too bluntly, but I am a little bit fed up of having people repeating everything they have seen in a movie without checking out their facts first, and just wanted to know where you had gotten the info.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

During the 1990s I spent a lot of time researching pre-Christian mythology for a computer game I was working on. Due to a number of problems, the game never got published, but I enjoyed learning about those belief systems. It was interesting to see how the same patterns repeat themselves today. It took a while for religion to figure out that tithes are better than animal sacrifices.

I totally agree on this point. I am a passionate of both History and Mythology... though Mythology is my favourite because it's sort of the beginning of epic fantasy. I mean, having Zeus and his pals you don't need soap operas to have fun . I totally agree that it's fun to see how details and stories permeate neighbouring cults, and how much politics and paganism influenced Christianity as it is known today. I guess I'm picky about what is said about whom in mankind's myths.

Well, hope I didn't offend anyone. In any case, if whoever reads your blog thinks you are endorsing the Jesus-is-a-copy-of-Horus theory and believes it without checking his facts out, it'd be his fault and not yours. I can't expect you to do other people's thinking.

Thank you for answering , and sorry for being such a pest.

[Steve Pavlina]

I saw the movie Zeitgeist months ago (when it was first mentioned here). I thought it was interesting, but I haven't followed the film since then, so I wasn't aware of any brouhaha surrounding it.

[munish]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

I agree with this, and as I said... is not the intent but the delivery.

Have you read by any chance Awareness by Anthony de Mello? He's calling people all sorts of names in that book but... I never felt as offended as in your article. Some how he manages to call me an "ass" and make me agree smiling.

An old saying ,

If you are hurt ,there is some problem with you.

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by mlc82

If I had to label myself religion-wise I'd say agnostic, as I don't believe in particular gods, religions, messiahs, etc.

That's atheist not agnostic. I use to think that agnostic is somehow between atheist and theist BUT, agnostic is another dimension. You've got atheist-theist in one dimension and agnostic-gnostic in the other. Each person that thinks about this subject a little bit more falls in one of the 4 sections created by the 2 axes.
Theist-gnostic: knows that God exists
Theist-agnostic: doesn't know if God exists BUT believes that God exists
Atheist- agnostic: doesn't know but believes that God doesn't exists
Atheist-gnostic: knows that God does not exists.

Agnostics tend to be less aggressive.

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by mlc82

The religions are just there (IMO) until then to satisfy those who can't be satisfied with not knowing yet.

Religions are timewarps. Imagine a guy traveling from the future and trying to describe a society based on law where you are protected by police to a bunch of savages. He has to get the message across... how does it do it? How can he be compelling? The most efficient way would be to transplant his ideas on the religion of those savages. He will use the Gods those people FEAR and tell them, God is no longer angry he wants you to live together in peace under his commandments. And proceeds in implementing a system of LAWS giving them under the mystic form of God's commandments.
Some will still break the law but most will see the benefits of it and adopt the law in an inner, intimate way. Generation by generation, the LAW will enter the group's conscience so deeply that it will be respected almost without effort and will not be perceived as something reducing their freedom but rather as something that frees them from the fear they use to feel (daily fear for their life or possessions) Of course some will abuse the law, some will deliver it, some will have to enforce it... and you will have the corruption that it is characteristic to this system.

Now.... after the system of LAWS is implemented, imagine another timewarp and a person from an even distant future arrives. In his future corruptions and abuses have been eradicated, everybody lives in peace. There is mutual respect and support on a planetary scale. He will again use the God this people fear and obey and will tell them God loves them and wants them to become the manifestation of his love on this earth. He tells them that they no longer need to live in FEAR, they no longer need to fear tomorrow and the should just start enjoying life. Some will consider him nuts. Some will start to listen. The old corrupted authorities will try to do anything in order to pervert the message to the point that it will become impotent BUT the message will survive. People will discover that they are happier living like that and will just start living like that. Some will discover that even in conflict Love is more potent than Fear and will start winning with non-violent tactics.
And little by little... as Hendrix put it, the power of love will overcome the love of power the world will know peace.

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

That's atheist not agnostic. I use to think that agnostic is somehow between atheist and theist BUT, agnostic is another dimension. You've got atheist-theist in one dimension and agnostic-gnostic in the other. Each person that thinks about this subject a little bit more falls in one of the 4 sections created by the 2 axes.
Theist-gnostic: knows that God exists
Theist-agnostic: doesn't know if God exists BUT believes that God exists
Atheist- agnostic: doesn't know but believes that God doesn't exists
Atheist-gnostic: knows that God does not exists.

Agnostics tend to be less aggressive.

I've always thought they were mainly the same thing, just that most people tend to mistakenly believe atheist means "believes for sure there is NO "god" (or higher power of any sort), when it can also and usually means "doesn't believe in any particular ones".

As I said, I don't rule out the possibilites I listed above, or that there are other energies/forces out there we can't comprehend/understand yet, if ever. At the same time, I simply don't believe in any of the gods/religions that are out there. Whatever that would make then I guess

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

Religions are timewarps. Imagine a guy traveling from the future and trying to describe a society based on law where you are protected by police to a bunch of savages. He has to get the message across... how does it do it? How can he be compelling? The most efficient way would be to transplant his ideas on the religion of those savages. He will use the Gods those people FEAR and tell them, God is no longer angry he wants you to live together in peace under his commandments. And proceeds in implementing a system of LAWS giving them under the mystic form of God's commandments.
Some will still break the law but most will see the benefits of it and adopt the law in an inner, intimate way. Generation by generation, the LAW will enter the group's conscience so deeply that it will be respected almost without effort and will not be perceived as something reducing their freedom but rather as something that frees them from the fear they use to feel (daily fear for their life or possessions) Of course some will abuse the law, some will deliver it, some will have to enforce it... and you will have the corruption that it is characteristic to this system.

Now.... after the system of LAWS is implemented, imagine another timewarp and a person from an even distant future arrives. In his future corruptions and abuses have been eradicated, everybody lives in peace. There is mutual respect and support on a planetary scale. He will again use the God this people fear and obey and will tell them God loves them and wants them to become the manifestation of his love on this earth. He tells them that they no longer need to live in FEAR, they no longer need to fear tomorrow and the should just start enjoying life. Some will consider him nuts. Some will start to listen. The old corrupted authorities will try to do anything in order to pervert the message to the point that it will become impotent BUT the message will survive. People will discover that they are happier living like that and will just start living like that. Some will discover that even in conflict Love is more potent than Fear and will start winning with non-violent tactics.
And little by little... as Hendrix put it, the power of love will overcome the love of power the world will know peace.

Whatever you're on, I'd like some I see the progression of ideas of law in the opposite way, gradually growing over time from both common sense and fear of punishment/banishment/death. Here's a little fable on the beginnings of what we call "morality":

In a time before recorded history, Ug and Grog live in the same little village. One day while Ug is out hunting, Grog decides it will be fun to go and have his way with Ug's woman, whether she likes it or not, so he does and has a great time! Ug returns home that night to a horrified and angry wife, who tells him what happened. Then Ug, Ug's brothers, and Ug's wife's father and brothers all go and drag Grog into the middle of the village, where they brutally kill him in front of everyone. After seeing this display, even the most sociopathic, homicidal members of the same tribe then realize "Hey, if I go killing or raping for fun around here, that's going to happen to ME!", and so for the most part, they keep themselves in line.

Just about every law system that's ever existed has those "universal laws" of not murdering others, having sex with someone else's wife, stealing, lying, etc- most of which likely came to be by seeing enough people who did these things being killed or banished into the wilderness, to where people realized they weren't such a good idea, and would have been detrimental to keeping your society under control, which the leaders wouldn't have liked. Those tend to remain constants, and then you start getting the culturally influenced stuff mixed in as well.

For example, in both the USA and France, it is illegal to murder someone. At the same time, in France (IIRC), violence in popular media tends to be disallowed and even censored (such as in video games), while naked human beings, from what I understand, generally aren't seen as such a big deal. Here in the US, we love violence like nothing else on television, even the "Family Channel" shows tend to be good and violent. Something like an exposed human female nipple, however, is seen as a nasty evil tool of Satan that will "scar the children!" and bring about the "downfall of morality" if such a nasty thing is even seen on TV. The "Violence = ok, Sex = Evil!" attitude of this society truly annoys me.

[MidasGirl]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Remember that it's impossible to get offended unless there's something in you that takes offense. That may sound a bit unfair to some, but it's the honest truth.

Of course once you get offended, then you need to defend yourself, and being defensive usually ends up being a big waste of time.

It's only when they get past their defensiveness that people get to the root of what offended them -- attachment.

This is very true. Your article on religion (and a few others) take on the style of Randy Gage who has pretty much branded himself as the "in your face" guy. If anybody thinks Steve's article on religion was offensive, read Randy Gage's. Your jaws will drop never to be picked up. He even wrote a book called "Why you are Sick, Broke and Stupid", and he's still rakes huge speaking fees. Go figure eh? I think deep inside people like somebody that will tell them what others aren't willing to. Same reason people pretend to hate Simon Cowell yet they won't stop watching American Idol.

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by mlc82

The "Violence = ok, Sex = Evil!" attitude of this society truly annoys me.

extreme non-violence is the core of Christ's teachings... and having the hypocrisy of saying "One nation under God" and doing the PRECISE opposite of what Christ taught is what should stand in the face of people.

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by mlc82

I see the progression of ideas of law in the opposite way, gradually growing over time from both common sense and fear of punishment/banishment/death.

What you see is the radicalization of the Law system. People begin to wake up and start wanting the third level... but that means total annihilation of the second level structures. State will go, government will go, church will go, economical unbalance will go.

So you see, all the people with an interest in maintaining the current status have a direct interest in sabotaging the evolution of society.

Wikipedia is more dangerous to the USA government that all the terrorists combined. Actually terrorists are beneficial to the current organization because they can be used as an excuse to take even more liberties from the people, an excuse to enslave them in taxes for the sole benefit of some war profiteers.

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

extreme non-violence is the core of Christ's teachings... and having the hypocrisy of saying "One nation under God" and doing the PRECISE opposite of what Christ taught is what should stand in the face of people.

IIRC the "under God" part was added in during the 1950's communist (aka nasty old atheist) scare. The hard core Christian conservatives (usually the most war loving people in the country) like to claim it was always there.

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

Actually terrorists are beneficial to the current organization because they can be used as an excuse to take even more liberties from the people, an excuse to enslave them in taxes for the sole benefit of some war profiteers.

I couldn't agree more. If everyone had a basic understanding of how a (good) chess game is played, and how to think like a good chess player (not bragging here, I'm not a good one ) propaganda would have a LOT less effect on people.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I've tested that assumption multiple times by writing certain articles in a very snarky, over-the-top style, and every time the long-term results showed that assumption to be incorrect -- at least in the aggregate.

I have read every single one of your blog articles and I don't recall any of them approaching the level of vitriol in this one.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

It's ironic to say that the most discussed article I've ever posted (in terms of the comment count, not including private feedback) "shuts communication channels" when clearly the opposite has occurred.

Yes. It's more accurate to say that it polarised the communication channel. The impact is on quality of discussion rather than quantity.

This thread has actually been remarkably mature and adult, but that seems to be due to the quality of posters in this forum rather than any intrinsic merits of the article.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Keith

I have read every single one of your blog articles and I don't recall any of them approaching the level of vitriol in this one.

Yes. It's more accurate to say that it polarised the communication channel. The impact is on quality of discussion rather than quantity.

This thread has actually been remarkably mature and adult, but that seems to be due to the quality of posters in this forum rather than any intrinsic merits of the article.

You may enjoy 10 Reasons You Should Never Get a Job and My Wife Won't Let Me Start My Own Business for starters.

Personally I think the job article is particularly snarky, but lots of people have told me it was the nudge they needed to start their own business.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

You may enjoy 10 Reasons You Should Never Get a Job and My Wife Won't Let Me Start My Own Business for starters.
Personally I think the job article is particularly snarky, but lots of people have told me it was the nudge they needed to start their own business.

I read both of those and didn't find either of them aggressive and offensive like this one.

I think part of the reason "10 reasons you should never get a job" worked so well was the introduction. You opened it with that cosy family anecdote so by the time you got to the "snarky" bit your points felt like friendly and appropriately blunt advice, and a very effective 'nudge'.

Conversely the introduction for "10 reasons you should never have a religion" had a dry and academic feel, so the first personal attack ("If you have the awareness level of a snail, and your thinking is mired in shame and guilt") came out of left field. It didn't establish the required rapport to be a nudge rather than a judgemental attack.

The content was also overly simplistic. "10 reasons you should never get a job" had ten insightful points to make. "10 reasons you should never have a religion", OTOH, had a couple of great points (#9 - the difference between moral codes and genuine compassion is brilliant) but also grossly oversimplified ones such as "Idiocy or hypocrisy" that added to the 'ranty' feel of the article.



You seem satisfied with the content of this article and your decision to present it in this manner and I doubt I could change your mind about that. But I do find it of poorer quality than the timeless articles I've seen you write. Since this article is a 'big topic' one that could have been great, I find that a shame.

P.S. An aside re: Point#9 - I think there's a distinction to be made between religions that mandate compassionate actions and ones that encourage cultivating a compassionate mentality. But that's a level of detail that's rightly beyond the scope of your article.

[Love]

I didn't remember the Job article being on the same level as the religion article. So I looked over that article (and the wife one), and I agree with you Keith that those articles are on a different plane than the religion article.

But I see that in job article Steve actually tells us and explains the reason behind his method. I think that reading that bit again made me better crystalize his approach. Here's a reminder of what he said:

"Of any of this makes you mad, that’s a step in the right direction. Anger is a higher level of consciousness than apathy, so it’s a lot better than being numb all the time. Any emotion — even confusion — is better than apathy. If you work through your feelings instead of repressing them, you’ll soon emerge on the doorstep of courage. And when that happens, you’ll have the will to actually do something about your situation and start living like the powerful human being you were meant to be."

If you're mad you're supposed to take a look at what you're mad at (content or delivery) and why.
If you're pleased, then you also need to evaluate this.
If you're confused, then you're debating some topics in your head, which is still good.
If you don't think anything at all, you're not examining things at all.

[Love]

When I first read the article, I was bewildered by the emotion behind it, especially because I knew some very nice Christians. So I already had a side, I guess. I do think that hearing the reaction of the forum members actually helped catalyze me to go further.

I went to Church today to see the handbells play (I was an audience member this time). As I looked through the bulletin, I realized how fantastic this place really was, and it seemed like such a contrast from what was discussed in this forum. After being away from the church and service a long time, it became more clear to me that something good was happening. I read the mission statement, which was extremely welcoming. The sermon was on the business of prison and hope. The list of offerings were even larger than I thought-- Common stories of Christians, Jews, and Muslims; Qi Gong; right down to Toastmasters. I thought about the article and the response it generated, and I decided to donate whatever I had in my bag, because I wanted to celebrate such a special place. It was the first time I actually felt really, really good about donating. I felt like I was really supporting all the wonderful things going on there. So, I guess I have been pushed even further away from the fence.

Mission accomplished, Steve.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Love

So, I guess I have been pushed even further away from the fence.

That's the whole point opf this site -- to gain a deeper awareness of your choices, regardless of what you actually decide.

[Liminal Chris]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

That's atheist not agnostic. I use to think that agnostic is somehow between atheist and theist BUT, agnostic is another dimension. You've got atheist-theist in one dimension and agnostic-gnostic in the other. Each person that thinks about this subject a little bit more falls in one of the 4 sections created by the 2 axes.
Theist-gnostic: knows that God exists
Theist-agnostic: doesn't know if God exists BUT believes that God exists
Atheist- agnostic: doesn't know but believes that God doesn't exists
Atheist-gnostic: knows that God does not exists.

Agnostics tend to be less aggressive.

Can you just chalk yourself up to straigh Agnosticism?

You don't know if God exists, and any further speculation is entirely irrelevant and pointless?

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by Liminal Chris

Can you just chalk yourself up to straigh Agnosticism?

You don't know if God exists, and any further speculation is entirely irrelevant and pointless?

I have my intuition... and that gives me extra information. I know this extra information is highly subjective but that doen't mean that I have to keep it all to myself.
I can express my point of view, share with you a perspective that I enjoy.

Without the spiritual perception it would be pointless to "speculate"... but that dimension exists. I believe that each of us has inside something searching for something higher. I know some people consider this component as something to be repressed but, nevertheless, I believe it is there, in all of us.

[Liminal Chris]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

I have my intuition... and that gives me extra information. I know this extra information is highly subjective but that doen't mean that I have to keep it all to myself.
I can express my point of view, share with you a perspective that I enjoy.

Without the spiritual perception it would be pointless to "speculate"... but that dimension exists. I believe that each of us has inside something searching for something higher. I know some people consider this component as something to be repressed but, nevertheless, I believe it is there, in all of us.

What do you mean by intuition that gives you extra information?

Why is there a need to share it? It just seems like trying to explain color to a blind person. They aren't going to get it, and it could be frustrating on both sides.



I don't know, but I just sort of disagree using myself as an example. I don't think everyone is searching for something higher. I know that I don't know, and I know that I will never know, so to me there is no point in worrying about it. I mean i definately enjoy talking about it because I think its a fascinating topic of discussion. If that is atheist/theist or agnostic/gnostic even apathy, I don't really know.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Liminal Chris

What do you mean by intuition that gives you extra information?

Why is there a need to share it? It just seems like trying to explain color to a blind person. They aren't going to get it, and it could be frustrating on both sides.



I don't know, but I just sort of disagree using myself as an example. I don't think everyone is searching for something higher. I know that I don't know, and I know that I will never know, so to me there is no point in worrying about it. I mean i definately enjoy talking about it because I think its a fascinating topic of discussion. If that is atheist/theist or agnostic/gnostic even apathy, I don't really know.

If you don't search now, you will on your death bed.

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by Liminal Chris

Why is there a need to share it? It just seems like trying to explain color to a blind person. They aren't going to get it, and it could be frustrating on both sides.

I would think that is more like seeing something very far away. If someone points in the right direction an you look more attentively in that direction you might see something that you just miss when you simply scan the area.

But than again, I might be wrong

[Liminal Chris]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

If you don't search now, you will on your death bed.

I mean I have searched, but everything has led me to the conclusion that I won't and possibly can't know. I know that's really unSocratic.

I don't see how that conclusion would be changed just because Death is closer than it is now. As soon as we're born, we start dying anyways.

Plus, its not like there is anything to fear in death anyways.

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by Liminal Chris

Plus, its not like there is anything to fear in death anyways.

This is like... SO TRUE!

[Natsu]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

That's atheist not agnostic. I use to think that agnostic is somehow between atheist and theist BUT, agnostic is another dimension. You've got atheist-theist in one dimension and agnostic-gnostic in the other. Each person that thinks about this subject a little bit more falls in one of the 4 sections created by the 2 axes.
Theist-gnostic: knows that God exists
Theist-agnostic: doesn't know if God exists BUT believes that God exists
Atheist- agnostic: doesn't know but believes that God doesn't exists
Atheist-gnostic: knows that God does not exists.

Agnostics tend to be less aggressive.

Huh? I only agree with the last sentence, though I'd rephrase it as "agnostics tend to be less proud", at least the atheists I've known were somewhat proud (not bad or anything, just had pride in managing "on their own"), the agnostics are easygoing, and the believers are humble. The good ones, of course... the fanatics of all kinds are just fanatics.

But, I disagree in your definition of agnostic as opposed to gnostic. Agnostic can be a way of approaching spirituality on its own, without any need of defining it as opposed to "gnostic". I don't think we need to define something by bringing up an opposite.

Atheist: From the Greek prefixA- (less, without), and Theos (God), means the ones who believes, states and claims there is no god.
Agnostic: From the Greek prefix A- (-less, without) and gnosis (knowledge), means "the one who doesn't know".
Believer: the one who believes.

I consider myself agnostic because I don't know if there is a god or not, if there are supernatural and paranormal stuff or not. I have always considered agnostic means "the one who doesn't know". I never opposed it to "gnostic" or anything. You can be agnostic without being theist or atheist. I am agnostic: I don't believe because I don't know. I disagree in that division of terms: you can be just agnostic without being theist or atheist. I consider myself agnostic and I certainly consider myself far, far away from both atheism and theism or any kind of faith whatsoever. I just don't know.

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by Natsu

I am agnostic: I don't believe because I don't know.

belief = confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

If something can be proven it doesn't need belief. This is why the atheist-theist dimension exists. I also like the following story very much:

"Tell me," said the atheist, "Is there a God— really?"
Said the master, "If you want me to be perfectly honest with you, I will not answer."
Later the disciples demanded to know why he had not answered.
"Because the question is unanswerable," said the Master.
"So you are an atheist?"
"Certainly not. The atheist makes the mistake of denying that of which nothing may be said... and the theist makes the mistake of affirming it.

[Liminal Chris]

Originally Posted by pdamoc

If something can be proven it doesn't need belief. This is why the atheist-theist dimension exists.

I like your story as well, I think it does a nice job. However, and I might have missed it, I don't see how it affirms the need for the atheist-theist dimension.

You are saying Beliefs are based on Faith because they concern things that cannot immediately be proven. I think what I missed is why you must lean to one side of the fence? Or is that not what you were saying?

Wouldn't a true agnostic not even concern himself with atheism or theism? Or are you saying because he said he doesn't believe that that makes him an atheist?

[pdamoc]

Originally Posted by Liminal Chris

Wouldn't a true agnostic not even concern himself with atheism or theism? Or are you saying because he said he doesn't believe that that makes him an atheist?

I believe this is a question that cannot be left unanswered but... I might be wrong. I see it as going down a path and at one moment the path divides in 2. You have to continue the journey. Which path do you choose?

If you consider yourself a true agnostic and consider that this question could be left unanswered, what is your view on the meaning of life? Does it have a meaning?