Can One be religious and Skeptically agnostic?
Thank you Gwendolyn2018 for your help in matters of expressing plurality in another [Funeral] post. I would never have spotted that in millennia. It seem to me that you are the correct person to ask about the meaning of words. It has always been fascinating to me that there is an alternative meaning to the word religious. So often focussed on 'adhering to religions' this other meaning gets scant airing. I THINK it means fastidious, careful, pinicerty?? [Is there such a word? . It occurs to me that we can be very careful over everything that we do without all this worship and outside agency nonsense and we might get more respect from the actual religions if we were.
What do you think?
One = Singular Yes or No?
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
13 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
@Gwendolyn2018: 23rd April A very good analysis . We need to get religion out by its roots - keeping the good things (e.g. socialisation) of course.
Mcflewster
Level 8
Apr 23, 2018
0
Of course. There are man religious people who rationally question whether existence holds religious meaning. #doubtingthomas
Russberg
Level 4
Apr 21, 2018
1
I feel if one is a Christian one must be insufficiently sceptical.
JoelLovell
Level 6
Apr 21, 2018
0
There are groups of practicing Christian priests who are very skeptical but manage to just hold on to their jobs. One is called "The sea of faith" Look it up on google!
If your using the term as a verb, you can.
One can religiously wash their car.
- adverb
with consistent and conscientious regularity.
So if you have an agnostic catholic who always attends, confesses and all that goes with it, yes.
He would be skeptical of the entire religion, yet follow the traditions religiously.
Davesnothere
Level 7
Apr 21, 2018
1
No, this is just word play. Rationalised cognitive dissonance.
David1955
Level 8
Apr 21, 2018
0
Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values.
But exactly how do they rationalise it?
Yes, because this would fall under practicing a belief that one does not actually hold. Has this happened? Maybe that's contestable.
DZhukovin
Level 7
Apr 21, 2018
0
As I define “religious” as an attribute of those who value “faith” (belief without evidence asserted as “Truth” (belief in the supernatural)) equally to or over valuing my definition of truth (testable, supported by evidence). As agnostic is widely defined as a person who believes that nothing can be knows (about supernatural claims) . . . I find the idea of “religious and skeptically agnostic” to be an oxymoron. If you define “religious” differently, I suppose you could make it work.
As for “ . . . we can be very careful over everything that we do without all this worship and outside agency nonsense and we might get more respect from the actual religions if we were.”
It has been my experience that many religious people, as a part of their indoctrination process, have been conditioned to fear those without their specific version of their faith-based dogma. In other words, if you don’t attend and support their church, you are going to hell and will burn for eternity for not paying homage to their deity. After that category I have found, many (religious) will adopt the, well if you attend “a” church and have faith you may be OK and may not burn in hell forever.
Atheist (not believing in positive faith based god assertions) and even agnostic (recognizing faith based claims can not be not known) represent an anathema to the religion business model as religions achieve their money and power on faith based assertions. To maintain authority over the faithful, most religious leaders recognize we (atheists and agnostics) impose a threat to their meal ticket and promote (to perpetuate their power base) the degradation for those free from their faith based authority.
NoMagicCookie
Level 8
Apr 21, 2018
0
I agree that the churches are in fear of us, but fear baked no cookies. Getting them to use reason and logic can be an aim of ours . Why not?
@Mcflewster I regularly use logic, reason, and facts to debate theists. However, because evidence based reason and logic often flies in the faces of the faith based assertions they (because they have have been indoctrinated to internalized their faith based beliefs), often are unable or unwilling to accept reality over fantasy.
How does "It occurs to me that we can be very careful over everything that we do without all this worship and outside agency nonsense and we might get more respect from the actual religions if we were." relate to "Getting them to use reason and logic can be an aim of ours"?
Yes Atheists might "save the world" in a non 'christian salvation' way but In my opinion agnostics are more likely to do it -perhaps more slowly.
@Mcflewster ". . . agnostics are more likely to do it - perhaps more slowly."
I find your opinion. . . um not sure how to describe it Here Is an analogy to help you understand how - "interesting?" I find your assertion.
Let's consider religion a living fire that spreads and the Atheists (in this example, also anti-theists (like myself) who actively work in full fire-fighting garb (of scepticism and realization that faith is not to be valued equal or above reality) with large fire-hoses with high pressure and copious amounts of facts, effective arguments, and reason, that fight the destructive fire. These tools and have been demonstrated to be effective in extinguishing regious fires of the fire and prevent the spread of this fire. Some regions of the fire (for instance a burning fuel tank) must be left to burn itself out but these fire-fighters are free to keep surrounding structures in danger of being destroyed with their fire fighting arsenal. (I have de converted some and am rather sure (as in people have told me they were not sure but I changed their mind about religion) that I have prevented many others from catching fire).
Standing in the sidelines is a group of agnostics who are wearing fire suites of scepticism and reason and are largely insulated from the flames of faith based assertions.
How do you support the later group (agnostics) to be "more likely to do it" (in this case extinguish flames) then the Atheists.
One can be an agnostic theist.
jlynn37
Level 8
Apr 21, 2018
0
@Sealybobo Good grief, "I don’t believe theists and atheists exist."
A theist is someone who believes in a god. They exist.
An Atheist is someone who does not believe a god exists. They also exist. I am one of them.
The actual existence of a god is irrelevant in defining theist or atheist.
@Sealybobo, @atheist "An atheist is a person who rejects any belief in a god"
Many theists will define "reject" as a positive assertion that there is no god. It is much clearer to state the definition as:
"An atheist is a person who does not accept the positive assertion that a god exists." I have found this clarification very useful and necessary.
As a writer, I’ve noticed that there are two “definitions” to just about any word. There’s the denotative, and the connotative. The denotative is the actual dictionary definition of a word (which is only a ‘culturally agreed upon definition). Spirituality is a good example. Then there’s the connotative definition of the word... or what the word evokes when we hear it. This would be the emotions and the images the word conjures (even the word conjure here has certain connotations)... most people “focus” on the denotative, especially in debate, and forget that very few people actually use the denotative meaning when they choose a word.
Religion, spirituality, superstition, theology, atheism and agnosticism are also subject to this. So we choose words that best fit how we “feel” when we use them. The best example is: “I’m spiritual but not religious.” So sure, why not.
Benthoven
Level 8
Apr 21, 2018
0
There are three definition types. The third is ambiguitive. 
I wouldn't go out of my way to antagonise anyone but I sure as shit am not going to try and fit in with religious beliefs.
LeighShelton
Level 8
Apr 21, 2018
1
No one is actually asking you to do that.
I know, I was just speaking my mind
One can be anything one chooses, but I would always recommend against rationalizing or using language to murky otherwise clear waters. Context is king.
Shawno1972
Level 7
Apr 21, 2018
2
I agree it is crazy to ask whether one can be religious and not be religious but so many things about words are not logical but depend upon history. However we do have to start talking logically to the masses soon - it might clear away some of the confusions around religions.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.