We’ve all heard religious people subgroup themselves within layer after layer. At what point are they not a heretic? I know “Christians” that I’d swear would kill each other for their religious insistance. Each one probably beginning by accusing the other of not really being Christian.
Religions, like sciences, evolve in the same way. New questions arise which beg for a subgrouping. I think that’s a good thing, adding to the diversity of ideas which brings new information, despite the conflict of stubbornness.
So anyways: I’m Agnostic. I’ve never heard Agnostics refer to themselves as more religiously than that simple term. I also don’t know what initiation might be ideal to become Agnostic other than simply waking up one day and saying “Hey, I’m that.”
So I’m curious. Would it be so sacriligious to the religion if one were to create subgroupings of Agnostics? There are books with titles such as: “The Christian Agnostic” which I guess tries hard to cater to opposing views. What about “Buddhist Agnostics.” Agnostics that don’t assume themselves to be Buddhist but still subscribe to its basic ideology. Or “Seikh Agnostic” etc.
I could live with other Agnostics referring to themselves in this way and not consider them heretics. I think I’d be a “Pantheist Agnostic.”
I’m not sure why an agnostic would have a need for organized agnostic activities, such as meeting other agnostics etc. Being part of a community is an important part of religion, but in my opinion it is rather strange for an agnostic to yearn for a community where he can express his agnostic convictions. Doesn’t he have more important things on his mind, or is he unsure of his belief?
There are many atheistic “free thinker” clubs in the western world who actively try to oppose all religions by spreading the word of atheism. I don’t really understand the purpose of these clubs in a secular society where everyone is free to ignore religion if he so wishes. To me they are not that far removed from religious congregations, they have their own community spirit and their fixed beliefs, their members are not any stronger or any more free-thinking than religious believers.
In my opinion, intelligent people (whether religious, agnostic or atheist) should build their beliefs through learning followed by introspection. After that, their opinion can be respected. Opinions (religious, agnostic or atheist) which are blindly accepted without appraisal are not worthy of equal respect.
I guess I strayed a bit off the topic. Of course people are free to form whatever associations they want, but as an individualist agnostic I believe that the need for community in agnostic circles is probably much smaller than in religious circles. I could be wrong.