Agnosticism Is *not A Rational Position To Take*

[Ziggy]

well for my 2 cents I don't have enough evidence to convince me that there is NO higher power or God. therefore agnostic. Asimov you say it is wishy washy and you are right.. thats because i am not sure Is there a way to be absolutely certain of my uncertainty?

Do you think the world would be a better place with only hard line fundy believers or hard line fundy disbelievers!?

Is there no place in this world for wonder and questions? Do you have all the answers ?

[Ouroboros]

What kind of agnosticism are we talking about? (Source: Wikipedia)

Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.

 

Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until more evidence is available.

 

Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof either of God's existence or nonexistence, but since God (if there is one) appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.

 

Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. See scientific method.

 

Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.

 

Agnostic theism—the view of those who do not claim to know God's existence, but still believe in his existence. (See Knowledge Vs Beliefs) Whether this is truly agnosticism is disputed. It may also imply the belief that although there is something that resembles (or would at least appear to us as) a god (or gods), there remains doubt over their true nature, motives, or the validity of the claim to be 'God' rather than superior, supernatural being(s).

 

Agnostic spiritualism—the view that there may or may not be a god (or gods), while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any established doctrine or dogma.

 

Agnostic atheism—the view that God may or may not exist, but that his non-existence is more likely. Some agnostic atheists would at least partially base their beliefs on Occam's Razor.

 

My position is more like Bertrand Russell's:

In Russell's 1947 pamphlet, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? (subtitled A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas), he ruminates on the problem of what to call himself:

 

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

 

In his 1953 essay, What Is An Agnostic? Russell states:

 

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

 

Basically, I'm an atheist, or weak atheist. I don't believe there is a God, but I don't this position or opinion to be an absolute truth. I don't believe there is a God or I believe there is no God, but at the same time I don't know if I'm right, but I think I am, but I can't be sure. And the only way for me to know if I'm right or wrong in this opinion is to test it. And so far the tests only show that there is no God, but I haven't seen all tests, experiments or evidences to be certain I have exhausted all the possible options to prove that God does or does not exist. Until all tests and experiments have been worked out, until all logical and philosophical concepts and arguments have be properly analyzed and completely and fully to the deepest understanding being thought out, until then I can't say we have done a complete and full job of proving the God doesn't exist. But I don't know when this will happen...

[♦ nivek ♦]

I toss this into fray:

 

"Don't know, don't care"

 

My moral philosphy of *pannism*, or simply "Whatever happens panned out" is the only way I can cope with the shit life hands out.

 

Noting seems to change the tide(s) of time and history, not prayer, action. inaction, comission, omission. "Shit Happens".

 

Best one can do is be prepared mentally, physically, and hopefully whatever version of morally for the inevitable shit that hits.

 

Folks that seek help from *on high* tend to depend on the "charge of the guys on white horses" to come fix their problems.

 

People like myself just fix shit best we can and muddle along.

 

Best we can do is attempt to learn from our mistakes, and not repeat them, best we are able.

 

kL

[Checkmate]

Hi, Luci. Welcome to the forum. Considering the hot button nature of this thread, I suggest you begin a seperate thread for your initial concern, or else it will be consumed and not dealt with accurately or fairly here. Tempers are already flaring and you're likely NOT going to get any rational replies. Also, if we dealt with your first issue HERE then that would be Thread Hi-jacking. Not fair to Asimov.

 

Now on to your reply to the OP.

.................

Hi,

This is a reply to this topic.

I have chatted to lots of so called agnostics and what annoys me is that agnostic is supposedly someone who doesnt believe in god/higher power yet doesnt dismiss the idea either. They are essentially sitting on the fence. Anyhow what annoys me is when I ask these people what they believe they actually do believe in a higher power and usually that higher power resembles the christian god. That sounds like a theist to me. Why do these people call themselves agnostics??

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Another thing that annoys me is that these people that I described above give atheists just as much a hard time as christians do.

Im only referring to the people who call themselves agnostic when they clearly arent.

.............

I understand where Luci and Asimov are coming from (going?).

 

TO ME, everyone is an Agnostic. Philosophically speaking. NO ONE KNOWS the Answer. Not me, not you. NO ONE.

 

And YET...at the end of the day, EVERYONE MUST come down off of the fence and LIVE THEIR LIVES. And IN SPITE of what you KNOW or DON'T KNOW, you WILL live your life AS IF you DO or DO NOT believe in "god".

 

The question is NOT, "Do you KNOW if there is a god?" The question is, "How do you live your life?" Do you live your life AS IF there IS a God? (Never mind what anyone KNOWS!) If you live your life, AS IF THERE IS A GOD, then this makes you an AGNOSTIC THEIST.

 

However, IF you LIVE YOUR LIFE AS IF THERE IS NO GOD, then this makes you an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST.

 

To me, it makes no sense to quibble about being an "Agnostic". We are ALL Agnostics. For NONE of us "KNOWS". It is how you live your life that determines whether or not you are an Agnostic Atheist or Agnostic Theist.

 

I hope that I have sufficiently explained my position, because I REALLY don't feel like getting into a war of words on this issue. Because, quite frankly, I don't care what anyone wants to call themselves. I'm just trying to demonstrate what seems to me a fallacious position of calling oneself "only" an Agnostic. There doesn't seem to be any such thing. Knowledge aside, you either believe or you don't. And THAT is what determines Theism or Atheism.

 

That's all I wanted to say. Hope I didn't make things worse. I'm out of here.

 

Have fun with the discussion, Asimov!

[Ouroboros]

MrGrinch, you're right, everyone is agnostic, because they don't know. But unfortunately many claims to "know" that there is a God (because they confuse believe with knowing) and also strong atheists that "know" that there is no God (but yet when asked if a God would come down, would they change their minds, they agree they would). So philosophically everyone is agnostic, but few can admit they are. So is that a sign of weakness or assertiveness? An Agnostic can admit that he doesn't know, while the majority people do claim they "know" for sure and are not agnostic.

 

But then again everyone, in one way or the other, will make a in the moment personal choice if they think there is a God or not, and hence become a deist, theist or atheist. That's why I never claim to be only an agnostic, but an agnostic atheist. I dare to admit that I'm fallible and can be wrong, even though I currently pertain a certain belief.

 

And now I'm going to stir it up even further, by claiming that strong atheists are nothing but the same kind of zealots and fundamentalists we see in the religious groups. Claiming absolute certainty about things they can't be certain about. They are the scared ones, since they can't admit they could be wrong.

 

Anyhow what annoys me is when I ask these people what they believe they actually do believe in a higher power and usually that higher power resembles the christian god. That sounds like a theist to me. Why do these people call themselves agnostics??

I don't. I don't believe there is a God or god or gawd, so I'm an atheist. But I can't be sure. And I don't think I can find a way of knowing for sure either. Can you?

 

Another thing that annoys me is that these people that I described above give atheists just as much a hard time as christians do.

I haven't... until today.

 

Im only referring to the people who call themselves agnostic when they clearly arent.

Like MrGrinch said, we all are agnostics. Unless you actually have found the ultimate proof to convince 100% of the world that God doesn't exist? Then please, make it known to all.

 

Can someone please reply to my other post too. thanks

You can start a new topic, so we don't have to derail this thread.

[Lanakila]

For some reason I think Asimov was just bored and wanted to stir up something to argue about. He does that on occasion because he is "stupid".

[♦ ficino ♦]

I'll toss my cents in, too.

 

I think this question is thorny because questions about "what counts as knowledge" are thorny. There are all sorts of strong and weak senses of "know" floating around in the universe's philosopher cafe bar. So no wonder people talk about strong and weak atheism, strong and weak agnosticism, etc. Asimov wanted to eliminate that distinction. I think many people will find it meaningful if distictions between knowing in a strong sense and weaker claims of knowing are meaningful. Which I can't think through now. Even in antiquity, "atheos" could be an epithet for someone who denied that gods existed or just for someone who did not worship the gods, i.e. treated them as if they were not.

 

I don't know how philosophy has really accomplished in nailing down epistemology. So, I'm not confident about how successful we can be in nailing down the legitimacy of agnosticism vs. atheism, to be honest with you. My suspicion is that we'd all need to agree on what can be known, and on what counts as a justification for knowledge claims, before we can agree about this, a subtopic of that.

 

I've been like Mr. Grinch since deconverting, i.e. I never thought there was much point saying I was an agnostic if I'm living my life as an atheist.

 

For some reason I think Asimov was just bored and wanted to stir up something to argue about. He does that on occasion because he is "stupid".

 

We should do a poll about how many of us on here are "stupid."

 

Once i was talking with this guy from Jews for Jesus. He said, when Jews ask him, how can you believe Jesus is the Messiah, he answers, "because I'm stupid." I've been saying "because I'm stupid" to justify all sorts of stuff I like to do. Glory!

[Ouroboros]

True.

 

Without defining what "knowledge" is or what "belief" is, we can at least say that there is a difference between "knowing" and "believing". And being agnostic only is to admit that we don't know, but it doesn't stop anyone from believing or not believing something.

 

In my mind it's wrong to use "agnosticism" as an excuse not to make up your mind to what you believe. And I think that's what Asimov was really after to being with. We can believe or not believe, but hardly be something in between. If you don't believe, then you're not believing, simple as that, and hence an atheist. To me "agnostic" is only a prefix, and can't be used by itself, like "I'm an agnostic", because it only tells that you know that you don't know, but it doesn't tell what you believe.

 

So in that context I agree with Asimov, but I hardly agree to that an agnostic (of whatever kind) is flimsy or a coward. Some people just don't care to make up their minds, its inconsequential to them.

 

Btw, here's my vote on "am I stupid?"... yes, I'm stupid, I know it and I'm darn proud of it too.

[Checkmate]

I'm glad to see that I lost no one in the translation.

Some people just don't care to make up their minds, its inconsequential to them.

"Not making a decision IS a decision." Like it or not.

[Thackerie]

I dunno, but it always seemed to me that militant atheists are just the flip side of fundamentalist xians (or fundamentalist moslems, or fundamentalist druids, or whatever belief system you want to use to fill in the blank.) That is, declaring there is absolutely no deity, no spiritual creative force, etc. and "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" is just as stupid and arrogant as declaring there most certainly is a deity and "I'm right and everyone else is wrong." Anyone who thinks they know it all actually knows very little. The only thing I know for certain is that I don't know it all -- and neither does asimov or anyone else.

[Ouroboros]

I'm glad to see that I lost no one in the translation.

Some people just don't care to make up their minds, its inconsequential to them.

"Not making a decision IS a decision." Like it or not.

True. But it is making a decision about answering the question to make a decision about if God exists, and not making a decision about the real question.

 

I met a guy that never bothered to think about if there was a God or not. And I really tried to see what he thought, he basically said he didn't know and he didn't care. So yes, he made a decision to not care, but he didn't make a decision to the heart of the question.

 

Most people have an opinion about what they believe, even if they don't know it. That's why most so called agnostics, when pressured, will admit to say they believe "there might be something out there" or "don't think there is anything out there".

 

After debating in this topic this morning I started to think that it's an incomplete answer to say that you're an agnostic when someone asks you if you believe there is a God. It's like asking someone "do you like Ford Explorers?" And then the person answers "I'm not sure, but I don't like blue cars." Which doesn't really answer the question, but it does provide a fraction of extra information. We can know that this person wouldn't like a Blue Ford Explorer, but it doesn't answer if he would like a Black Ford Explorer.

 

I dunno, but it always seemed to me that militant atheists are just the flip side of fundamentalist xians (or fundamentalist moslems, or fundamentalist druids, or whatever belief system you want to use to fill in the blank.) That is, declaring there is absolutely no deity, no spiritual creative force, etc. and "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" is just as stupid and arrogant as declaring there most certainly is a deity and "I'm right and everyone else is wrong." Anyone who thinks they know it all actually knows very little. The only thing I know for certain is that I don't know it all -- and neither does asimov or anyone else.

Yes, you can't know, but you can believe one or the other. For instance do you believe we will get world peace or do you believe we will destroy ourself as humanity? Whichever you believe, you don't know for sure, so you don't know. You're an agnostic when it comes to question about world peace, but you still can believe something.

[Bodhi-in-Training]

This is certainly a very interesting debate.

 

If I look at the attributes we attribute to the Christian idea of God, I can conclude based on my own logic that a being like that most probably cannot exist. Does it however prove there is no God? Probably not.

 

Although I may proclaim myself to be an Athiest, I don't view Agnostics as being weak. They likely struggle with the same questions all of us have struggled with in respects to the god-idea.

[Ouroboros]

Sorry to completely overwhelm this topic with my posts, but I thought of a little different illustration to how I look at one of the definitions of "agnostic":

 

If there's a new car model (X) that came out, and someone asked me, "is the X car a good car?". My response could only be "I don't know". And their next question would be "what do you think?" And still I had to answer "I don't know", and the reason is that it would take my time, interest and lots of thinking before I could come to a decision what I thought (or believed or knew). The agnostic person either don't know what to believe because they don't have the urge or time to investigate what they would think would be the most probable thought, or they don't care because they've made a decision to not make a decision. So is that person weak minded or a coward for do this? Or maybe this person is brave and strong enough to take the standpoint of not caring about trivial things?

 

For me there's no excuse, since I've spent a lot of time trying to find out. So I have enough to make up my mind what I believe. But some just decide even after the facts and reasons to still maintain the "unknown" state. (Like NULL in databases, for all you database gurus )

[Kuroikaze]

there is nothing irrational about claimning to not know something with 100% accuracy

 

I very much doubt the existance of a personal god, because it doesn't seem logicly sound, but it is posible that god exisits in some form other than we are aware of.

[Asimov]

I go to sleep and find all this stuff I have to respond to, unfortunately, I can't comment on any of it at the mo'.

 

One thing I'd like to point out is that Grinch sums up my position regarding agnosticism fairly nicely. Second thing is I'm not making a big deal out of it. The things I make a big deal about are generally bigger issues in the world than semantics.

 

If you don't really care about this discussion then I feely invite you to not shit on my thread with irrelevant comments about how you don't care, because I know the people who do post do care or want to have a discussion about it.

 

And let me add my apologies to those who took a lot of offense to this. I in no way meant to cause personal insult, but many people took the title of the thread a little too seriously.

 

I'll bbl to discuss the fine points brought up.

[Amethyst]

So philosophically everyone is agnostic, but few can admit they are. So is that a sign of weakness or assertiveness? An Agnostic can admit that he doesn't know, while the majority people do claim they "know" for sure and are not agnostic.

 

I think it's more just being honest with themselves. When pressed, many people will admit that they really don't know, but they just believe for whatever reasons (usually peer pressure).

 

And let me add my apologies to those who took a lot of offense to this. I in no way meant to cause personal insult, but many people took the title of the thread a little too seriously.

 

Apology accepted.

 

Agnostic atheism—the view that God may or may not exist, but that his non-existence is more likely. Some agnostic atheists would at least partially base their beliefs on Occam's Razor.

 

This pretty much describes where I am right now.

[white_raven23]

It's really not fair to shake your finger becasue people took the title of your thread "seriously". Most of us have been involved in the online version of communication long enough to know better than that. "Tongue in cheek"-ism, which comes across very clearly in verbal communication, doesn't readily do so in text communication. Not without using plenty of symbols to make the sarcasm clear (er).

 

As for the discussion itself- I have found that there is a large amount of discomfort surrounding the phrase "I don't know" (see my sig line). This phrase is badly disrespected in our society, when actually it should be one of the most valued and respected of communications.

 

I respect Agnostics because they have the courage in a "know-it-all" culture, to not only admit those three words, but to stand proudly by them by using the agnostic label to describe themselves.

 

Atheists are in the same camp as the agnostics, as Mr Grinch has stated, we are ALL agnostic regardless of the label we choose to live under. But athiests don't seem to be comfortable admitting they "don't know", and so take refuge under the far extreme (some of them) that ther eis NO god period, despte having no more or less evidence than anyone else does for such an assertion.

[Asimov]

I’m not going to specifically quote everyone, but will just apply a generalized “opposition” to what I’ve been saying.

 

“See, the problem is I think that Asimov's definition is very narrow. Yet those who believe in a sentient universe or a life force or even some sort of alien intelligence (worshipping aliens is silly, I know, but people like that are out there) are willing to call it a divine entity of sorts. So it depends entirely on how you define a divine entity, and the definitions are really varied throughout the world.”

 

My definition of agnosticism is not narrow, and I don’t define God so my definition of God is non-existent. If people wish to worship the universe, that’s fine for them but on a technical level (what we are dealing with), and as Bruce pointed out in his debate with Ssel calling the universe God is a fallacy of equivocation. Some kind of life force out there is not defined, but just thrown out there as if people will accept it because they don’t use God. Good for them, it’s still an incoherent belief unless it can be demonstrated that this stuff exists.

 

“I just don't see why I should have to say that there either isn't a god or there is when nobody on this planet can really prove it, especially when people's definitions of god vary so widely. On the subject of a Christian god, sure I'm an atheist. Or even a magical being sitting up in the sky with a magic wand. But something like the deist or taoist version? Who really knows?”

 

Again, having a lack of belief is not making a positive statement. It’s just the gainsaying of the person making an assertion. You, me, anyone who does not believe has no burden of proof upon them in any way. Thus, the lack of belief is in no way we should have to necessarily justify until:

 

1) A definition for God is given.

2) Evidence for God is provided.

3) Logical argumentation is provided.

 

If those are provided, and God is shown to exist then the situation is different.

 

The definition I provided for agnosticism was taken directly from wikipedia. Again, as I said in the OP if there is an issue with agnosticism and my definition of it then a clarification is really in need.

 

The definition of knowledge is a justified true belief. Any belief that is true, and we can explain why we believe it in a logical manner is considered knowledge. A belief is the “Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something”.

 

Someone brought up the clarification that there is no current evidence to suggest that God exists…this is true.

 

“Lack of evidence does not prove or disprove anything absolutely, so it seems illogical to make an absolute conclusion (ie, God does exist, God does not exist). Because of this, believing God to be unknowable seems a bit more logical since we probably wont ever have all of the information.”

 

Atheism is not the absolute conclusion that God does not exist, so your definition is a little off. We don’t need all the information to make a decision regarding the existence of God. As I said in my OP:

 

If one is to define God, then we can know whether or not, through evidence and logical argumentation whether or not this kind of God is a valid concept. If there is no evidence then we are back to square one of it being unkown and therefore the atheistic position is a natural one.

 

However, to just generically bring up the word God and say that it applies to any future and possible definition and/or concept is incoherent. It would be like saying “xingclap is unknowable”. Great, so what’s your point? Atheism is not an absolute statement, and I think I covered that one…it is helpful for certain people to actually read what is being said.

 

“See, I tend to disagree that not knowing is the same as atheism, because it doesn't seem that it is not believeing there is a god, it is not forming an opinion(conclusion) because of a lack of information. Atheism is form the opinio(conclusion) that one does not believe there is a god. See the difference?”

 

No, I don’t. Your sentence doesn’t really make sense because it seems like you are interchanging knowledge and belief. Unless it can be demonstrated that the existence of God is true, believed, and justified in being believed no one knows at this time that God exists. A conclusion regarding something is not knowledge…it’s just a conclusion based upon the available evidence, much like science is.

 

Let’s say someone is an agnostic Christian. They hold the belief regarding Christianity…but they don’t know. Agnostic is a redundant word, especially in this case because Christianity relies SOLELY on faith and not on knowledge in any way.

Let’s say someone is an agnostic Atheist. They deny the existence of God for various reasons…but they don’t know. Again, agnostic is a redundant word.

 

“I no longer even give the issue a second thought. On the rare occasion when the issue comes up in conversation I tell people to ask me some questions and they are free to define what I am.”

 

Good point, labels are generally meaningless and people keep creating new categories all the time as if it really matters – Look at what Han put up regarding agnosticism.

 

“I can no more Prove or disprove a god(s) then you can say for absolutely certain that their isn't one.”

 

Great, I don’t, so what’s your point?

 

“Do you think the world would be a better place with only hard line fundy believers or hard line fundy disbelievers!?

Is there no place in this world for wonder and questions? Do you have all the answers?”

 

Not entirely sure what you are talking about here. I am not a “hardline fundy disbeliever”…I don’t have a doctrine I adhere to so I can’t be a fundamentalist, and this isn’t an overly serious discussion that merits world review so your statement is pretty much a bunch of shit.

 

“Basically, I'm an atheist, or weak atheist. I don't believe there is a God, but I don't this position or opinion to be an absolute truth.”

 

Anyone who holds their own belief or lack of belief to be absolutely true is a retard.

 

“But unfortunately many claims to "know" that there is a God (because they confuse believe with knowing) and also strong atheists that "know" that there is no God (but yet when asked if a God would come down, would they change their minds, they agree they would). So philosophically everyone is agnostic, but few can admit they are. So is that a sign of weakness or assertiveness? An Agnostic can admit that he doesn't know, while the majority people do claim they "know" for sure and are not agnostic.”

 

Yes, many people claim to know that there is a God…but then they absolutely believe that God exists. Again, I call those people retarded. And many people claim to know that there is no God….again, those people are retarded. Unless they provide some new definition for knowledge I’ve never heard of, but then they are just redefining words to suit their meaning and applying it as if everyone thinks the same way.

 

“That's why I never claim to be only an agnostic, but an agnostic atheist.”

 

YES! That is the entire point, Han! Agnostic is not really a theological position!

 

And the final quote:

 

“there is nothing irrational about claimning to not know something with 100% accuracy”

No, but it is irrational to bandy about the word in a theological atmosphere when it really isn’t a theological position.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's really not fair to shake your finger becasue people took the title of your thread "seriously". Most of us have been involved in the online version of communication long enough to know better than that. "Tongue in cheek"-ism, which comes across very clearly in verbal communication, doesn't readily do so in text communication. Not without using plenty of symbols to make the sarcasm clear (er).

 

I'm not shaking my finger...I said "and many people took the title a little too seriously". It was a statement, not an admonishment.

 

Atheists are in the same camp as the agnostics, as Mr Grinch has stated, we are ALL agnostic regardless of the label we choose to live under. But athiests don't seem to be comfortable admitting they "don't know", and so take refuge under the far extreme (some of them) that ther eis NO god period, despte having no more or less evidence than anyone else does for such an assertion.

 

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

[Ouroboros]

I go to sleep and find all this stuff I have to respond to, unfortunately, I can't comment on any of it at the mo'.

That's what you get for stiring up old questions!

 

One thing I'd like to point out is that Grinch sums up my position regarding agnosticism fairly nicely. Second thing is I'm not making a big deal out of it. The things I make a big deal about are generally bigger issues in the world than semantics.

In this case, semantics do play an important part, since a lot of misunderstandings come from how we interpret and understand the words that are used.

 

If you don't really care about this discussion then I feely invite you to not shit on my thread with irrelevant comments about how you don't care, because I know the people who do post do care or want to have a discussion about it.

I think it is important to discuss it, since we can see there is a lot of different ideas, and the only way to get to a better understanding is to get into head-butting-conflict to figure out the differences and commonalities.

 

And let me add my apologies to those who took a lot of offense to this. I in no way meant to cause personal insult, but many people took the title of the thread a little too seriously.

I wasn't offended. But I like to discuss this topic. I don't understand the part of "taking it too seriously" thou. Wasn't it important to you to bring this up? Or was it that you just wanted to be a jackass?

 

I'll bbl to discuss the fine points brought up.[/b]

Good grief! The war is not over!

[jrmarlin]

If not for the ancients, would we even be using the word God?

Serene, I have never thought about that before. You have raised a very interesting perspective I have never entertained. After I think about this more, I'll come back with more to say....

 

Very excellent observation!

[Ouroboros]

Let’s say someone is an agnostic Christian. They hold the belief regarding Christianity…but they don’t know. Agnostic is a redundant word, especially in this case because Christianity relies SOLELY on faith and not on knowledge in any way.

Let’s say someone is an agnostic Atheist. They deny the existence of God for various reasons…but they don’t know. Again, agnostic is a redundant word.

True. And that's the conclusion I came to too. It's an adjective describing the "strength" of faith (or non faith) rather than what faith. It's more like the words "extremist" and "agnostic" are each others opposites rather being part of a sequence of faith definitions like "theist", "deist", "atheist". One describes the belief, the other what kind of adherence to which class of philosophical epistemology.

 

“Basically, I'm an atheist, or weak atheist. I don't believe there is a God, but I don't this position or opinion to be an absolute truth.”

 

Anyone who holds their own belief or lack of belief to be absolutely true is a retard.

But unfortunately we do have many that do hold their beliefs to be absolute truths, and will put them (in my mind) into the camp of extremists or fundamentalists. And strong atheists claim just as much absolute truth to that there is no god, what-so-ever, and become extremists as well. The definition of agnostic is nothing more than to say you're moderate. Like a moderate conservative as opposed to strict or strong conservative. But as you said, the word agnostic can't really be used by itself.

 

Yes, many people claim to know that there is a God…but then they absolutely believe that God exists. Again, I call those people retarded. And many people claim to know that there is no God….again, those people are retarded. Unless they provide some new definition for knowledge I’ve never heard of, but then they are just redefining words to suit their meaning and applying it as if everyone thinks the same way.

So we're basically on the same page then, or pretty close at least. Most of the confusion is because the word "agnostic" have different definitions and people use it in different ways. So maybe it's better to just drop it.

 

Maybe it's better to say "weak deist", "weak atheist" or "not decided yet" instead, and just forget the "agnostic" word all togheter, because it really doesn't have anything to do with what you believe, but only about how you (not) know what you believe.

[jrmarlin]

After reading this whole fiasco, my only contribution is to back up what Mr. Grinch said. It does appear being that no one can really prove or disprove god, that we're all agnostics -- some mistaking believing for knowing.

 

I believe it is a great human statement when one can admit they "don't know." That's daringly honest and truthful. I respect that more than someone who claims they have 'the answer.' Whether or not god exists, is not subject to personal choice. It either is or it isn't...What it is is what it is... No way you dice, slice, cut or puree it, will make it any different.

 

Calling others stupid like that for their belief labels is a fundy move. Unnecessary and closes one off from a potential of learning something new and unique.

 

Yes, personal spirituality is just that, PERSONAL. It is no one else's business to "judge" whether or not someone else's chosen spiritual path is or is not stupid. To do this is highly intrusive -- much like a lot of fundies get.... Intrusions only breed anger. Asimov, I can't buy that you didn't think this thread would incite anger and heated replies.

 

To believe that, you would have to be "stupid."

[Guest Luci]

Hi all,

I actually dont have a problem with agnostics over theists. Agnostics are obviously more intelligent because they dont fall for all the dribble that christians etc. try to force on people. Although like someone mentioned some agnostics are that way because they have never given any thought to whether there is a god or not. This also makes them more intelligent than christians because they have been able to resist christians trying to convert them.

Like a couple of people said they may not dismiss a higher power but they dont think it is the christian God. I have respect for this because they obviously acknowledge the christian god is too evil and contradictory etc to exist. That is one of the problems I have with christianity, there belief in a psychotic, evil, egotistical being.

A few people thought I was being petty over having a problem with theists calling themselves agnostics. I guess what started that problem was I went on dating sites looking for atheists or at least someone who doesnt have a definate belief in god. Do you know how frustrating it is to come across a whole bunch of theists who call themselves agnostics? I used to do a search on atheists and agnostics but because so many Theist-agnostics pop up I have had to only tick atheists.

As far as Im concerned there are only 3 main beliefs - Theism, atheism and the undecided which is agnosticism. All are very clearly defined even though within these groups peoples beliefs differ slightly. I commend all the agnostics on here for being actual agnostics.

I dont think we should pay on agnostics because there is a good chance they could be convinced to become atheist. Were hardly going to convice anyone if we are attacking them. Sorry to all agnostics if I want you to be atheist. I just want atheism to become more popular because we are such a small group and cop so much shit.

I also want to ask agnostics, do u consider other possibilities too not just two because we could come up with millions of theories on what is really going on. To name one...a little alien kid was mucking around in chemistry class and an explosion happened and the universe was created. Right now the universe is sitting on that alien kid's shelf collecting dust. Ok that was stupid and it implies a creator but you get my point. Why only consider one theory when we could come up with many equally unproovable, contradictory ones.

[Skankboy]

I've always thought of an atheist as "one who doesn't believe god exists". That's a long way from claiming to KNOW something doesn't exist. Like others have said, MOST people will either live as though there is or isn't a higher power. As such they are either acting theists(believe in god) or acting atheists (doesn't believe in god).

 

There are very few, if any, things that are KNOWN. It is those that claim to KNOW one or the other that are at fault. But with the overwhelming lack of data in support of such a being existing, I feel safe enough to call myself an atheist and just leave it at that.

[Heimdall]

I've only read the first part of this and my take on the matter is - Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, ect are allies against the evil Cult and one thing I learned in a quarter-century in the military is that you don't attack your allies! They are the ones who cover your back. - Heimdall