Diary of an Agnostic

Good work agnostic. Though believing God may make you a non-agnostic but still i think you are like those who are spiritual but not religious

Never be content with anything that is not the absolute unshakable solid truth. Freedom of choice is something we have been given, I respect your choices, I hope you make informed decisions. I hate religion. Jesus hated religion too, he was a radical.

I have a relationship with Jesus and it`s not about rules and regulations. It`s about unconditional love, forgiveness and acceptance. I pray you will find the reason you were created. Love Emma

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

(...meaningful silence...)

The eavesdroppers have been sacked! Hallelujah!

Addendum: They are not fire torpedos but
bug vomit heated to near-fusion temperatures,
and packeted in nice aKhroT shells with
outer naariyal casings (to keep them cool).
Our upgrade to Jahannam 98.

maTha:

Evesdropping on the Celestial Court, according to the Quran, is punished by shooting stars (which presumably are fire torpedos) that the guardian angels shoot at demons who dare to tune in on the sub-space frequency...Have you been hit yet?

Overheard on sub-space frequency 24434.....

God`s reaction to such vile, perhaps facetious, remarks:

(God, of course, is NOT an agnostic, maybe just a bit schizophrenic at times)...

Articles of Faith

1.God is neither cruel nor a bully. I cannot worship a God who is.

Response: Oay Izrael! oh dus number da littar
kithay ay?

2.God is the best of everything good and noble that I wish to be.

Response:
tobaa tobaa! kiya fazool makhlooq buN gayee
hai! I should have never forgotten my medication....

3.God is not passive and absent. I shall pray when I need, for myself and for my loved ones rather than for God, because I cannot reason a motive for such a being to desire my worship.

Response: Aik to salay ibaadat naheeN kartay,
oopar say turraa yeh keh ``humeiN`` ibaadat kee
zuroorat naheeN kehtay phirtay! What am I supposed to do for
comic relief? Subscribe to Comedy Central?!!!
Aik do ko bhuTTee meiN jhoNko, sub keh Chauda
tabaQ rauShuN ho jayaiN gay...

Aur is loTay ko koh-e-toor wala video dikhwao, haaN haaN same old dream sequence..

4.Prayer is a state of mind, not a procedure.

Response: State of mind, my arse (oops, I am
supposed to be all metaphysical)...
Dimaagh meiN falooda bhara huwa hai ghadoN
keh! baRay aayay aaQil!! I should have listened to .. *beep * khaRR khaRRR *beep *..
and never started this stupid experiment...

5.Emotions are a bad excuse for thoughtless behavior.

Response: ChoTay!!! Aglee dafaa is ChooChay
ko kaheeN sahee zaleel karwaeeN! Aglee dafaa
jab yeh apnee kakee kay saath khajoor pay
jayay to is ko payChiSh lagwa deyeeN...
We`ll see about thoughtless behavior then!

6.I dont need to be threatened or rewarded in any enormity to be a decent human being.

Response: Luqmaan! Update my oxymoron list
please! This is probably already in there but
what the hell! Decent human being, khee! khee!

7.The Zoroastrian`s have an axiom: ``Good thoughts, Good words, Good deeds``. There are worse ways to live. It is not enough to be well-intentioned, my actions must be good too.

Response:
pataa naheeN kiya ol fol bak raha hai!
Tis pay yaad aaya, yaar iblees, woh sooraj
kee battery is dafaa WAPDA waloN say please
mat badalwaNa, pehlay hee do teeN sooraj
barbaad kar Chukay haiN is tarah! Aur is
lulloo kay kiraman katibeeN say bolo kay
thoRi hera pheri karaiN is kay hisaaB meiN!
Action reaction sab pataa Chul jayay ga
roz-e-qiyaamat!

8.There is no perfect man, and no perfect woman. There is just myself trying to be the best I can. I expect to fail occasionally and when I do, I`ll try again.

Response: abay israfeel, yay phooNkeiN
marna band karo! tumheiN kitnee dafaa kaha
hai keh abhee rehearsal meiN kuCh din baqee
haiN, aChCHa, jao aur Khizar sahib ko DhoonDo, uN say kehnaa kay unheiN aik
GhamaR ko Khuwaab meiN ja kar kuCh Darana
dhumkana hai! If I just wanted bloody algorithms I could have stuck with computers, there was no need to...oay
daJJaal nay phir yeh mic on ChoR diya hai,
saThThya giya hai, lagtaa hai is ko duNya
meiN bhaijnaa hee paRay ga, BUND karo isay!
There is no privacy here anymore, jis ko
dekho khaRRR khARAR sssssssssssssssssss....

``You show an agnostic 200 million lights in the night sky, and tell him they`re stars and he`ll believe you, tell him there`s a god and he has no way of knowing`` -Terri Windling.
(possibly slightly mangled)

Hear! Hear! Very heartening to see all these open-minded Muslims. More power to us all!
Organized religions, however, are not the only dogmatic and oppressive institutions. We must remember that any ideologies we subscribe to (feminism, socialism, environmentalism, science-ism) are all vulnerable to becoming dogmatic and destructive.

Safwan,

As mentioned in my last post, your idea of perception having positive or negative emotional valences is very pertinent. Faith gives us hope when nothing in our lives would suggest it.
I take issue with one idea though. These rules are only effective for me. As they develop, they concentrate my idea`s of ``good`` and ``evil``. I didn`t expect them to suffice for anyone else. Are they less valuable because I wrote them than if they were scribed by a putative God or his messengers? I don`t think so.
The underlying question is: Do you believe there is a need to live by a set of rules, whatever your religious orientation?
I would like to hear more about those rules you think are lacking though.

Sohail,

I am using the `shorter Oxford` definition of Agnostic. ``Someone who believes that nothing can be known of the existence of God``, and adding some more constraints, as you have.
My constraints don`t preclude faith, even if that faith is in a Jungian construct as my last sentence implies.
My objective is to build a set of ``rules`` that I am happy living by, and to codify them. I find ``agnosticism`` as an euphemism for behaviour that simply gratifies me unsatisfactory.
I admit that my motives are not entirely consistent, but again, I don`t want to be an ``axiomatic agnostic`` even if the axiom is that God is disinterested. The issue of the existence or absence of an overarching entity is less relevant than the idea of an ethical standard.
Finally where you echo Safwan`s statement that ``the need is ours``, you have no dispute from me. Safwan implied that some aspects of reality are not meant to be seen head on. Why deny a need? The harsh, cold light of empiricism has its own rewards, but I`ve been there and I`m not sure its where I want to live.

Dear Agnostic:

You are honest and courageous for sharing your philosophical doubts. I do, however, find a contradiction in your stance.

You clim that you believe in God, yet you claim to be an agnostic. It seems you are a little unclear about the extent of your doubts.

Perhaps, all you want to say is that you don’t buy the popularly held beliefs (of muslims, or christians, or jews, or hindus etc.) because they do not make a lot of sense to you. If that is the case then you may only be looking for a more refined doctrine than that which is presented to you by your culture.

To claim being an agnostic is a statement of absolute doubt, which must, of necessity, include God. I shall attempt to elaborate.

Whereas it is possible to describe and summarize the theological doctrine of any established religion (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc), I`m not sure if the same can be done for “agnosticism” because it is not an established system. It is merely a label given to those who refuse in any established faith system.

Just as the state of being COLD is nothing in itself but merely the
absence of HEAT, similarly being agnostic means that one does not
possess any particular faith.

Notice that I use the term FAITH and not RELIGION. Here, I define “faith” as the unquestioning, unwavering and non-negotiable beleif in a set of axiomatic assumptions.

The other word is “religion”. In the traditional sense religion is one of the several established sets of assumptions in human civilization that masses of people take for granted.

Thus if you believe there is an all powerful, all knowing Super Being who created the whole universe and who had a son who lived among people, in human form, some two thousand earth years ago, and that the son gave people a body of literature then your religion is christianity.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the same Super Being is neither a parent nor a child of anyone and that he chose, as his special messanger, a man who lived in Mecca 14 centuries ago and inspired him with a body of literature and that one is supposed to lead one’s life under the guidance of that literature then you are a muslim.

Those who refuse any of these popularly held systems and reject the existence of God are labeled “atheists”. However, even atheists do have a religion, they just don’t have faith in God. They don’t have doubt any more than the muslim or the christian does.

I define a religion as “the sum total of one’s beliefs, concepts of reality, and ideas of one’s own place in the the universe and the resultant attitudes one adopts towards the environment.” Religion does not have to include faith necessarily. However, it is commonly observed that many people do have faith in their respective religions. This is ususlly the case among the adherents of traditional religions. Lets us examine the basics of traditional faith systems.

The lowest common denominator of most traditional religions is belief in a Super Being who is all powerful, all knowing and immortal. If one accepts the proposition that such a being exists, only then can the rest of it follow. Under most circumstances one will simply adopt the prevailing system of one’s birthplace and early childhood environment. Some may change from one variation to the other, but the basis are the same.

Now in order to examine the doubts of the agnostic, one must understand the arguments that support the existence of such a Super Being (God).

I personally believe that one begins to believe in the existence of God during childhood when one cannot think for one’s self and is not critical about the fallacies of the arguments presented by adults. Thus the assumption is already in place when one rationalizes it to one’s self upon growing up. Be that as it may, let us examine the arguments supporting the assumption.

The most widely held argument is “the argument of First Cause.” It goes something like this: Every thing that happens is an EFFECT of some CAUSE. That cause, in turn, is the effect of yet another cause, and so on and on and on, ad infinitum. Since every thing we know has a beginning and an end, we cannot perceive infinity; it is hard concept to grasp. Thus, we tell ourselves that the chain of cause and effect must have a beginning somewhere. This is where the argument takes a leap of faith and holds that there is a God who created all this. Simple and tidy explanation, no loose ends.

Ah, but as a child, if one is perceptive, one may question: but where did God come from? The answer is: that only God knows and no one else can conceive. Or, as in Islam, one is strictly forbidden to question the origins of Allah (God); that is the work of Eblees (Satan). Quickly, the child learns not to ask THAT question. Everything else is neat and tidy.

The agnostic, however, is not satisfied with this “double standard” of the argument. Why not apply the same question to God as to the Universe? Whereas the argument begins by questioning “who created all this? ” (to which the answer is: God), it stops dead in its track mid-way and does not apply the same question to the existence of God. This is a rather curious mental gymnastic that the faithful are capable of doing.

To the honest agnostic it is very unsatisfactory because it only removes us by one step but does not answer the mystery. We are none the wiser for having conceived God. To the agnostic, the bottom line then becomes: WE DON`T KNOW. That phrase is the agnostic`s password! When you ask the question: who created all this? The agnostic saves himself one step and instead says right away: we don`t know.

Humans, as a species, have a very big ego. Perhaps it is that we have not entered adulthood as a species. Children are very self centered. As a child one believes one`s self to be very unique and special. One sees the whole environment from one’s very personal perspective. One also take everything very literally.

Likewise, we as a species since our early infancy, have felt ourselves to be special and chosen. We need the comfort of having strong allies in the sky who could watch over us in the face of enormous hardship imposed by our hostile environment. Thus we residents of the third planet around a mediocre star in the remote periphery of an ordinary galaxy amid this immense universe take comfort in believing that there is an all powerful, all knowing creator who has special links with us. Not only that, we believe, he also created us as SPECIAL. This has a tremendous tranquilizing effect, and frankly, many people really NEED to beleive it.

We are often powerless and we are also terribly ignorant about ourselves and our universe. That is painful and hazardous. But if we are allies with someone who has all the power and knowledge, hardships become easier to swallow. Like an insecure child we seek the comfort of someone bigger who can protect us.

The so-called EVIDENCE of Gods existence which is pointed out by the faithful, is controversial. For example, if I were God, and if I also wanted people to believe in me (as the faithful say he does), I’d do a lot better job than what they claim he has done. If God is there (which is an unknowable issue), being all knowledgeable and all powerful, he obviously knows about the possible doubts of agnostics and could rectify them if he were inclined to be believed in. This not being the case, the agnostic remains unconvinced.

Another argument is the “argument of justice.” In fact this is a weak argument, because it already sort of assumes a God. Any way it goes like this: since there is so much cruelty, injustice and evil in the world, therefore God the Just has to has to rectify and redressed all of this later on. Thus heaven and hell, day of judgement etc, and of course, God.

I have always found this to be a rather most convoluted line of
reasoning. The world that we observe and experience is the only world we know of. Whatever else there may or may not be in the universe, we don’t know. Whatever, we extrapolate or conclude about the unknown parts of universe (of which heaven and hell are presumably a part) we can do only on the basis of what we observe.

Let us suppose you bring home a crate full of mangoes. As soon as you open the crate you only see the top layer of mangoes since the rest are hidden underneath. Now let us suppose that the top layer
consisted of rotten mangoes. What would you conclude? Would you say that because the only layer you can see is rotten therefore the deeper layers must be good in order to redress the balance? Or would you say, ‘O f luck the whole consignment is bad’?

Wishful thinking might compel some to conclude that there is justice and fairness in God’s universe. But I see no evidence of it.

The faithful also refer to miracles as evidence of God’s existence. Those miracles, alas, are only to be found in word of mouth reports recorded decades (if not centuries) after the alleged events happened and those recordings were made centuries ago. To the agnostic that is shaky proof at best. Very unbecoming of a being who is alleged to have all power and knowledge. The agnostic thus concludes that given the circumstantial evidence, the existence of God is not an obvious reality. If God exists, he’s done an excellent job of mystifying his existence. Therefore, the final conclusion is: proposition neither proved nor disproved; there is simply not sufficient uncontroversial evidence.

Thus the only God that I can conceive of is one too preoccupied with the rest of the universe to where he has neither time nor interest for me; nor do I for him.

Re: Beatnick`s

So, it would be fair to say that one can be a good human being without ``signing-up`` or affiliating with ``any`` religion? Entirely in line with with the ``Agnostic`s`` viewpoint - ``...I refuse to accept any scripture as absolute, I need beliefs and a code of conduct to aspire to.``

Assuming that the ``Agnostic`` is right and assuming that one can become a ``good human being`` with as simple a charter as proposed, then what is the need for religion? Why not just expand the charter to account for all important issues of life and get on with it?

Not that simple, in my opinion. Religion answers or gives the perception of answering far too many questions than it leaves out. Even though the reference text is simple, practicing it is far far more difficult than adopting a religion. Religions simplify life by providing direct ``leap-of-faith`` answers to questions that we can probably never answer. Religions simplify life because they save us from grieving over questions that neither science nor history can answer. Life within the confines of a religion is far easier than life outside those confines. It is not without reason that this is the case. And it is not without reason that people who are not satisfied with the ``known`` answers find themselves suffering and agonizing over ``trivialities`` which a ``moored,`` non-agnostic, would calmly brush aside as irrelevant.