You have to see if from their point of view.

It's like they were sold this car, and the salesman told them is would go faster than any other.

So they buy the car and they head down the highway.

The truth is, their car is no faster than the others.

What do they do? Admit they have been sold a car which hasn't lived up to the promise? Or do they try to persuade themselves our cars are slower?

You see, it's essential for a believer to think his belief gives him an advantage, because that's what's been promised to him.

If he doesn't see an advantage, what is the point of his religion?

I just thought I'd inform you that, judging by the beliefs you describe, you are not in fact an agnostic. "A-" (Greek for "not") and "-gnostic" (Greek for "knowledge-having"). This means you doubt ALL spiritual claims, but at once do see see ANY of them as refutable. This means not merely that you believe in some species of cosmic spirituality but don't know what KIND of God or force there MIGHT be (e.g. personal, cosmic, pantheistic, monotheistic, a force, Om, Yahweh, Allah, etc.). Rather agnostic means that you have no idea WHETHER there is any supernatural force or being in the universe, and doubt it but do not think proof positive (one way or the other) exists. To be an agnostic is to have the philosophical position that one is skeptical about ANY kind of claim supernatural power or God or gods or spirits or souls, including being unbelieving about the very kind of claims you describe in reference to your OWN spirituality. To be agnostic is to doubt all supposed non-material existence, and to function as a philosophical materialist, though one willing to say that he/she doesn't know the answers concerning supposed gods and spirits etc. It's also to say that one is committed to the proposition that one CAN'T know that kind of inormation as a human. Thus, if you were an agnostic, (1) any sort of spirituality would be an unintelligible and contradictory notion to your belief system, and (2) since agnosticism entails a claim of utter ignorance to all spiritual (non-material) issues for all you know any one of the major organized religions (Islam, Christianity, etc.) could be the right one--as an agnostic, you must be willing to admit, since you don't know the answer, that any one of these could be the true "religion" or religious understanding of the universe. The problem the agnostic has is not that these religions are false; rather that they have no proof, and the agnostic has no proof. The agnostic believes all such questions hover in a skeptical state of gridlock. Thus, you couldn't be an agnostic if you dispute (1) and (2) as you do in your article. Lastly, there is of course, a difference between atheism and agnosticism, though it is not, as you seem to think, a big one in practice (just a minor philosophical one). Also it is not the difference you think it is. The atheist believes prove positive can be had (and that he has it) that philosophical materialism is true (i.e. there is no God or souls or anything other than atoms in the entire universe). The agnostic thinks proof is impossible (that's the minor philosophical difference), but in the absence of proof for a God (bearing in mind the burden of proof is on the believer not the doubter), functions for all practical intents and purposes as an atheist. If you don't believe me look up some debates on the internet between theists and atheists, or theists and agnostics, or any other combination of the three. As far as your own belief system, the name you are looking for is "pluralist" or perhaps "agnosticism, but only when it's convenient and doesn't apply to my own case."

right on there, I agree with all you said, lots of people do, we are tired of religious people telling us how to live and getting involved in our politics, which write laws, that inforce their ways on us , there are those like us , who want freedom and those who try and take our freedoms away from us by trying to force their beliefs on us, God gave us freedom of choice , they are controllers who think everyone should foolow their way of life.

Well put, OmegaMom. Thank you.

"Non-agnostic": label shmabel. it's just a word. Your 'correction' is irrelevant to the point of the post.

Couldn't have said it better myself

Busted! You've all caught me red-handed demanding that words actually be given meanings! Are we all then at liberty to use words that actually have a meaning, but use them in ways utterly differnt from their meaning? If I begin to describe my cat, and mention how he barks at intruders, you all, knowing well what "cat" means, will (rightly) correct my understanding. Likewise, if someone says "agnostic" (which term just means skepticism toward non-material existence and a commitment to the idea that no one can know ANYTHING about supernatural existence), then begins to talk of spirituality and which religions are right or wrong, such a person is saying things completely contradictory to agnosticism. We don't get to have words mean whatever we want them to. If you all don't believe me, look it up in a theological or philosophical lexicon.

Also vis-a-vis labels and forcing ideas, Who says I am "one of those people" as someone says (meaning a hyper-religious sort, I guess)? I said nothing about my own beliefs, rather you have "forced" some category on me. In fact, I like atheists who know what they're dealing with in thought and have a clear notion of things; my point is not about whether there is a god, it's about knowing what you're talking about (like some atheists and theists both do but not all of either camp) vs. treating the question lightly and mishmashing together contradictory ideas to suit one's own fancy.

Nicely done. I wrote Rabbi Gellman upon reading his column, and expressed many of the same sentiments. It's unjust to assume that a lack of religion is the product of some trauma, amounting to the belief that the only reward of life is death. Atheists of my acquaintance (I actually call myself a Humanist) do not "expect too little" of life on earth - we expect EVERYTHING of it, because to us, there's nothing else. If I appear angry, it's really more that I am (as you say you are) threatened by the incursion of the proselytizing fundamentalists into spheres both public and private. Moreover, many of us are frustrated by the exclusion of our viewpoints from many discussions of religious issues (e.g. "Islam v. Christianity," as though those viewpoints comprise the entire universe of human thought on The Big Subjects).

Anyway - more than I intended to write. All I came to say was "great job."

My husband often says, "I like Jesus. I just have a problem with his fans." (I'm paraphrasing, but, hey.)

Jess

I hear you on this!