So much for the separation of Mosque and State!
Meanwhile, here is an idea how to celebrate Islamic History Month:
UPDATE: Binks, the Webelf, has more on the Canadian Islamic Month.
Recent Comments
RSS feed
So much for the separation of Mosque and State!
Meanwhile, here is an idea how to celebrate Islamic History Month:
UPDATE: Binks, the Webelf, has more on the Canadian Islamic Month.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
October 2, 2010 at 19:24
[…] Canadian Congress welcomes Minster Mackay’s decision to bar CIC Imam”‘ XANTHIPPA brings the funny; then Backseat Blogger comes out […]
October 2, 2010 at 22:32
This December is “Agnostic History Month.”
(athiests are also welcome)
Please help us celebrate it. And god bless!
Xanthippa says:
Thank you for the invitation.
However, I will have to respectfully decline.
I’m afraid being an ‘agnostic’ is just as irrational as holding any other religious belief.
And, please, make no mistake: to be classified as an ‘agnostic’, a person MUST hold a very specific theological belief. In particular, by definition, an ‘agnostic’ BELIEVES that it is UNKNOWABLE whether God(s) exist or not.
I take a very serious exception to this philosophical fallacy: and it IS a logical fallacy to hold a belief that just because one has not come across anything convincing (one way or the other) regarding the existence of divine beings that one could not possibly come across such an experience in the future. Unless one is permanently dead already, of course…in which case she or he is classified as ‘deceased’ and not ‘agnostic’.
(Here, I use the term ‘experience’ in the broadest possible terms: it includes any possible events, perceptions, feelings, emotions, thoughts, chains of reasoning or anything else that could potentially make one’s mind up one way or the other.)
I have met a number of militant agnostics….. They are no different in their arrogance and self-righteousness than any other people who hold specific theological beliefs. As such, they do not differ substantially from any other form of religious zealots and I hold them in roughly equal esteem.
To take it one logical step further: to believe that it is unknowable whether God(s) exist, one must first have a concrete and finite belief in what God(s) actually ARE: if one does not BELIEVE in a specifically defined God(s), one cannot possibly hold a belief as to whether or not they will encounter something that will permit them to ‘KNOW’ these exist!
This is a matter of definitions, nothing less, nothing more. One who considers the whole concept of ‘deities’ to be irrelevant and not commonly definable (rendering the whole concept of ‘God(s)’ irrelevant) is a ‘I’gnostic – not an ‘A’gnostic.
To sum up: an ‘A’gnostic holds a number of theological beliefs. She/he holds a belief as to what constitutes ‘God(s)’ – an irrational belief to say the least. She/he then holds an additional belief as to the NATURE of these ‘God(s)’ – UNKNOWABLE.
So, while AGNOSTICS (A=apart from, GNOSIS=mystical knowledge) do not hold any belief as to the existence of God(s) (and are thus technically ‘atheists’=’apart from the belief in the existence of God(s)’), they are far from being unshackled from illogical theological prejudices and beliefs.
Harsh – I’m afraid – but true.
October 4, 2010 at 19:42
Have to disagree, Xanthippa. Of all the philosophical positions one can hold on religion agnosticism is the most rational. Based on what an agnostic rationally ‘knows’ about the world s/he forms an opinion that the objective evidence available to date does not conclusively prove the existence of a supreme being who consciously and deliberately created the universe as we know it and now, in some fashion or other, watches over and/or guides its existence. That last part would be my definition of “God” which I think covers most others’ definition also (if you can propose a more satisfactory one, please do).
Those who worship God, or just “believe” in God’s existence, do so based on their own objective knowledge of the world plus subjective internal “feelings” which are not directly accessible to anyone else. Their subjectively formed convictions are, by definition, unconvincing to non-“believers” who, clearly, have no similar “feelings”. A weak agnostic is one who is not convinced yet, but who thinks it possible that some time in the future, through new knowledge or, who knows?, even a religious experience or revelation, God’s existence will be satisfactorily proven (to him/her). A strong agnostic, on the other hand, believes that knowledge of the existence of God is forever beyond the human mind to grasp – it can never be objectively “proven”. Neither form of agnosticism constitutes atheism which I understand to require an absolute conviction or “belief “ in the non-existence of God – no “maybe” about it. The atheist requires an extremely strong faith – because there can never be any objective proof of a negative.
Your notion of a “militant agnostic” is interesting. I’ve never encountered one of those. It sounds oxymoronic. Is there an on-line example?
Xanthippa says:
JR,
I suspect we are closer philosophically than things appear: it is our ‘labels’ that are ‘crossed’!
To clarify, I needed to write up a whole post…
October 3, 2010 at 02:03
HA! Hilarious, Xanthippa! Best rap video I’ve seen in a long time.
October 6, 2010 at 10:36
[…] XANFIPPER– Islamic History Month in Canada …. […]