Organized Religion

[lamplighter]

Agnosticism is an epistemological stance, not a theological stance.

I don't really see the point of an "agnostic organization," but suit yourself. And I don't see why an "agnostic organization" should replace Unitarian Universalism.

I completely agree, although I just participated in a truncated version of a "Creating your own theology" course that, among other things, listed Agnosticism as an independent system of belief about God. Which is crap. Too often people confuse "I don't know which path is correct or where the path leads" with "I can't decide which path to take." Including, apparently, some UUs.

True, there allot of people who are fundamentally agnostic in accepting they may be wrong, but there are plenty of people who refuse to accept or deny any sort of god. What theological stance would you place these people under then? There are people who need empirical evidence from the Theists as well as the Atheists, which is why Agnostic is a theological stance.

 

[madcap]

True, there allot of people who are fundamentally agnostic in accepting they may be wrong, but there are plenty of people who refuse to accept or deny any sort of god. What theological stance would you place these people under then?

I was trying to highlight the difference between religious belief and knowledge. I believe in God (in some form or another) and my approach to life is affected by this belief, but I contend strongly that it's impossible for a human being to know certain things (like the existence or not of a deity).

I think your question is one of terminology. In the extreme cases of people who stands squarely on the fence, I'd say they have not taken a theological stance at all. I would guess that these people (perhaps you) tend to lean one way or the other, perhaps inconsistently, changing frequently. But "I don't know" is not a religion; it's merely the lens through which one sees religion.