Agnosticism Is *not A Rational Position To Take*

[greygirl]

Would I be forcing MY "label" on someone who has same-sex intercourse by calling them homosexual or lesbian? Or am I just stating the obvious?

 

Yes, you would be forcing your label onto someone. Only the individual can know his or her own sexuality. I'm a woman who has sex with other women. I am not a lesbian. To insist that I am a lesbian would be forcing your labels onto me. Sexuality and beliefs are both very fluid. Only I can define my sexuality, and only I can define my beliefs.

[Asimov]

I am bored with this entire subject. I merely expressed my opinion, which you have utterly failed to change, that I am an agnostic, not an atheist and not a deist, based on the original meaning of these words as they are understood by me and most people. Admittedly, I may not be up on the jargon of the club members, but I think you calling my comments mute and retarded says a lot more about you than me.

 

So take your ball and go home. You haven't addressed anything or provided any opinion of value, so it's no loss to the discussion if you decide to tuck tail.

 

I called your comments moot...as in useless or baseless. And if you even read the OP, you would have noticed that I copy and pasted that entire paragraph from what I said in my first post. In context, my paragraph was a generalization and not a personal attack.

 

Hey, let's go fundy and focus only on what we want in order to back out of a conversation while pleading boredom.

 

You can't justify your position, therefore your belief is incoherent.

 

Yes, you would be forcing your label onto someone. Only the individual can know his or her own sexuality. I'm a woman who has sex with other women. I am not a lesbian. To insist that I am a lesbian would be forcing your labels onto me. Sexuality and beliefs are both very fluid. Only I can define my sexuality, and only I can define my beliefs.

 

 

That's right, Grinch. Greygirl is also not a human, she is a bipedal primate.

[Saviourmachine]

That's right, Grinch. Greygirl is also not a human, she is a bipedal primate.

So, does it deserve the label bestiality to have sex with her? I agree with her by the way.

[Asimov]

That's right, Grinch. Greygirl is also not a human, she is a bipedal primate.

So, does it deserve the label bestiality to have sex with her? I agree with her by the way.

 

I disagree...if I were to say

 

I'm a Christian Atheist, I think everyone would label me differently.

 

"Well, I believe Jesus rose from the dead and died for our sins and is the son of God, but I don't believe in God"

 

Mmmmhmmmm.....calling a spade a spade. If someone has an issue with a label I have placed upon them, then they are certainly allowed to dispute it.

[greygirl]

That's right, Grinch. Greygirl is also not a human, she is a bipedal primate.

So, does it deserve the label bestiality to have sex with her? I agree with her by the way.

 

I disagree...if I were to say

 

I'm a Christian Atheist, I think everyone would label me differently.

 

"Well, I believe Jesus rose from the dead and died for our sins and is the son of God, but I don't believe in God"

 

Mmmmhmmmm.....calling a spade a spade. If someone has an issue with a label I have placed upon them, then they are certainly allowed to dispute it.

 

This is a false dilemma. You seem to be assuming that there are only two possible choices. I have sex with women but am not a lesbian because I'm bisexual. I could just as easily be straight but experimenting. A few sexual experiences do not define a person's sexuality. Just like there are a lot more options than you've assumed here for whether people are atheists or not.

[Asimov]

This is a false dilemma. You seem to be assuming that there are only two possible choices. I have sex with women but am not a lesbian because I'm bisexual. I could just as easily be straight but experimenting. A few sexual experiences do not define a person's sexuality. Just like there are a lot more options than you've assumed here for whether people are atheists or not.

 

It's not a false dilemma, if you said "I have sex with women" and presented a qualifier such as "I have sex with women and men" or "I have sex with women as well" then maybe my conclusion that you are a lesbian would have been unjustified.

 

A generic "I have sex with women" has two options....either you only have sex with women, or you don't only have sex with women. Experimenting doesn't fit with "I have sex with women", they try things out once or twice. If you keep on having sex with women, you are no longer experimenting.

 

Making conclusions based on the information we're given is not "forcing labels" onto people. The only "forcing" is when new information is introduced and those same labels are given.

 

Amethyst, for instance, stated the reason she doesn't call herself an atheist is because of the baggage (so-called) that comes with it, and because of her family. Understandably, therefore her position isn't irrational.

 

Thackerie, OTOH, did not justify his/her position, therefore his position is irrational.

 

If we did not classify things, there would be chaos...much like the "marklars" in south park who name every person, place, or thing "marklar".

If we classify too much, such as the listed classification Han gave us with the "agnostic" bullshit...then it all becomes an incomprehensible mish-mash of over-labelling.

 

---

 

"Pay attention not only to what people say, but what people do, for deeds will betray a lie."

 

If you say you're not a slut, but you pick up random guys at a bar every night...then you are also a liar.

[Saviourmachine]

Greygirl clearly won this debate. You're muttering.

 

God is good. God is not good. Which one is it?

 

To experience how stuborn agnosts are, read this: Agnosticism

 

And your own words:

I certainly count myself among the Assertive Atheists (Strong Atheism), which combats Theism as a rational belief system. #

[Asimov]

Greygirl clearly won this debate. You're muttering.

 

God is good. God is not good. Which one is it?

 

To experience how stuborn agnosts are, read this: Agnosticism

 

And your own words:

I certainly count myself among the Assertive Atheists (Strong Atheism), which combats Theism as a rational belief system. #

 

What?

[Dhampir]

Now you understand my anally obsessive need to clarify and re-clarify everything I say.

[SunNSand4me]

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. I just don’t care anymore. With enough questions they quickly learn that I think their god is load of crap and that is all that is important to me.

 

IBF

 

Sounds like IBF the best definition of all!

 

Of course, Asimov, you can dish out whatever labels and criticisms you'd like, but why not just let people be, man? Aren't labels and criticisms and lack of tolerance the very thing we're fleeing from, labels and criticisms like the following I've read on this thread about agnostics or specific people:

 

irrational

wishy washy

non thinkers

irrelevent, incoherent viewpoint

useless, baseless commentary

retarted

uninformed

 

IMO, Mr. Grinch did an excellent job on page 2 of stating the same viewpoint w/out labeling or criticising anyone.

[Asimov]

Of course, Asimov, you can dish out whatever labels and criticisms you'd like, but why not just let people be, man? Aren't labels and criticisms and lack of tolerance the very thing we're fleeing from, labels and criticisms like the following I've read on this thread about agnostics or specific people:

 

 

Is there some deficiency in comphrehension that occurs in this thread when certain people read it?

 

Yes, I'm criticising people who call themselves agnostic for the reasons I posted in my OP. What's wrong with that? We criticize everyone else who comes onto this board yet I see a distinct lack of self-analyzation in regards to our own beliefs. These are just my observations and I think a critique of agnosticism as I view it and as I defined it was necessary.

 

Not once did I dish out labels saying people "had to call themselves" anything. If you can find a single quote where I said that I will immediately retract that statement. If ANYONE was able to justify their reasons for calling themselves an agnostic, then immediately my OP did not apply to them.

 

It's not that hard to grasp, really, if you read the thread.

 

irrational

wishy washy

non thinkers

irrelevent, incoherent viewpoint

useless, baseless commentary

retarted

uninformed

 

I did not see anyone call another person retarded. The other criticisms you just handpicked out of what you saw, without actually seeing if what they had to say was irrational/irrelevant/incoherent/uninformed. If you have any specific objections to any specific criticisms, then I suggest you present them and tell me why I'm unjustified in saying that.

 

IMO, Mr. Grinch did an excellent job on page 2 of stating the same viewpoint w/out labeling or criticising anyone.

 

Really? Well I'm not Mr. Grinch...and I do seem to remember a few people telling Mr. Grinch off for "labelling" and criticising. I really see it as a little inconsistent that some can dish it out to people who come in here, criticize and label, yet they can't turn that intellectual eye on their own beliefs and analyze themselves in the same way. Why is that?

 

I also do seem to remember apologizing if anyone was insulted by my OP.

[Saviourmachine]

Is there some deficiency in comphrehension that occurs in this thread when certain people read it?

Yes, and what, what?!

[BigToe]

Asimov- why are you taking up such issue with people who disagree with you on this topic? Let's all just stare at saviormachine and drool

[Asimov]

Asimov- why are you taking up such issue with people who disagree with you on this topic? Let's all just stare at saviormachine and drool

 

It's not a big deal per se. My biggest issue is the number of people who don't seem to be able to read what I've said and apply it in any sort of rational manner. The people who don't care about the issue...great, that's fine. They've stated their reasons and ok, I may disagree with that but it's acceptable. The people, like amethyst, who've justified their reasons...that's fine. The people who take the issue completely off topic because they haven't read the fucking thread is annoying.

 

It's like walking into the middle of a conversation and talking about something irrelevant.

[Fweethawt]

Are you sure that it doesn't have anything to do with you being stupid?

 

 

[jjacksonRIAB]

When you address agnostics the way you have, what kind of reaction do you expect? Honestly.

 

I suppose you could say "agnosticism" approximates my own lack of belief, so I would call it the best fit, though I am not a card-carrying member. Speaking only for myself, defending my agnosticism would be like defending pacificism militarily. I say "I don't know" and you respond with "why don't you know?". Is there a college I can go to that will teach me these things so I cannot, if pressed, plead ignorance? If so, which one? Do we settle this with a vote?

 

As for god being "unknowable", your response is a paradox. If saying something is "unknowable" requires me to know everything, I have already passed the first tier of godhood and proven myself wrong. If someone out there knows everything and can prove it, let them please step forward and educate us. Certainly they would persist at all times in all places (they'd "know" how to do such a thing, knowing everything) so saying it's unknowable is precise whether it is from an anachronistic viewpoint or not. Clearly we do not have the mental capacity to store all of the atoms in the universe (let's not even discuss multiverse), so physiologically it is also "unknowable".

 

If god is greater than all of the atoms in the universe, he is not knowable.

If god is greater than even all of the neural patterns that can saturate the greatest human brain, he is not knowable (except maybe as a collective harmony).

If god is "knowable", he is not god (maybe you should apply for the position).

 

Now maybe one day he'll change all of the physical laws of the Universe to make this possible, but I'm not going to hold my breath. That proposition, while possible, is so unlikely as to strike it immediately from consideration. If we didn't, knowledge would never progress due to excessive contemplation of invisible pink unicorns. 10,000+ years of rumor and speculation do nothing to persuade me to use my life (miniscule in comparison) in that pursuit. If god threw away billions upon billions of lives in ignorance, what's one more? If I gave you food and told you it would be the best food you ever ate or will eat, but it took 10,000 years to prepare would you do so? What if it required your undivided attention?

 

I think there are other more pressing matters to attend to.

 

If you want to have that 10,000 year ambrosia, you first have to find a way to live 10,000 years, and figure out how to maintain your attention span that long. If you want to know god, why not start small by knowing yourself first?

 

 

When you address agnostics the way you have, what kind of reaction do you expect? Honestly.

 

I suppose you could say "agnosticism" approximates my own lack of belief, so I would call it the best fit, though I am not a card-carrying member. Speaking only for myself, defending my agnosticism would be like defending pacificism militarily. I say "I don't know" and you respond with "why don't you know?". Is there a college I can go to that will teach me these things so I cannot, if pressed, plead ignorance? If so, which one? Do we settle this with a vote?

 

As for god being "unknowable", your response is a paradox. If saying something is "unknowable" requires me to know everything, I have already passed the first tier of godhood and proven myself wrong. If someone out there knows everything and can prove it, let them please step forward and educate us. Certainly they would persist at all times in all places (they'd "know" how to do such a thing, knowing everything) so saying it's unknowable is precise whether it is from an anachronistic viewpoint or not. Clearly we do not have the mental capacity to store all of the atoms in the universe (let's not even discuss multiverse), so physiologically it is also "unknowable".

 

If god is greater than all of the atoms in the universe, he is not knowable.

If god is greater than even all of the neural patterns that can saturate the greatest human brain, he is not knowable (except maybe as a collective harmony).

If god is "knowable", he is not god (maybe you should apply for the position).

 

Now maybe one day he'll change all of the physical laws of the Universe to make this possible, but I'm not going to hold my breath. That proposition, while possible, is so unlikely as to strike it immediately from consideration. If we didn't, knowledge would never progress due to excessive contemplation of invisible pink unicorns. 10,000+ years of rumor and speculation do nothing to persuade me to use my life (miniscule in comparison) in that pursuit. If god threw away billions upon billions of lives in ignorance, what's one more? If I gave you food and told you it would be the best food you ever ate or will eat, but it took 10,000 years to prepare would you do so? What if it required your undivided attention?

 

I think there are other more pressing matters to attend to.

 

If you want to have that 10,000 year ambrosia, you first have to find a way to live 10,000 years, and figure out how to maintain your attention span that long. If you want to know god, why not start small by knowing yourself first?

[Saviourmachine]

The very existence of this thread in "Rants" makes it already a perlocutionary speech act.

 

However, I want to point out one more person, Drange at infidels.org. I'm according:

God1 = the universe itself (all that exists). [Or, alternatively, God1 = love.]

 

God2 = the powerful being who created the universe.

 

God3 = the omnipotent creator of the universe whose highest goal regarding humans is that they believe that he has a son who died for them so that they might obtain salvation.

 

God4 = ? (No definition is possible; the word is indefinable.)

 

Now suppose there were a philosopher who examined these four responses. When asked the question "does God exist?" he might very well respond as follows:

 

In the case of God1, yes, God definitely exists, for it is obvious that the universe [or love] exists. In the case of God2, I understand the question but have no answer to it since the evidence is insufficient. In the case of God3, there is good evidence that such a being does not exist, for most humans do not believe in his son, etc., yet, if such a being were to exist, then probably he would have done things to cause them to have the given belief. And in the case of God4, I do not understand the question. Since no definition of "God4" has been given, the sentence "God4 exists" expresses no proposition whatever.

 

Given this response, we should say of such a philosopher that he is a theist relative to God1, an agnostic relative to God2, an atheist relative to God3, and a noncognitivist relative to God4. I would say that these answers to the four "does God exist?" questions are reasonable, though they are not necessarily the correct (or "best") answers.

I'm like that philosopher.

[jjacksonRIAB]

Have to agree on your snippet.

 

You're right about this area too, I know this. It just baffles me when people come in here like they're stepping into the ring -- pulling no punches -- but act suprised when their opponents aren't either

 

Image of the cowardly lion pops into my head.

[Lycorth]

I see too much emphasis on being "rational" as irrational in itself. Unless anyone on this board only chooses affordable clothing to keep themselves warm without regard to color or style, drives an inexpensive car solely for the gas mileage and basic performance without the slightest concern for its appearance or cleanliness, only eats basic nutrition as prescribed by the FDA without the slightest wasted moment on snacking or social eating, they are all being "irrational" to a degree.

 

Being completely "rational" to me implies a state of being wholly practical, ie, only what serves to secure one's survival and existence. If something doesn't serve those basic ends, the same ends all other life-forms only seek to achieve, then it is impractical, and hence irrational. Every single person on this board engages in activities, spends money on things, and expends time on things that will in no form or fashion ensure their basic survival and security in nature, hence every single soul on this board is "irrational" to some degree - and I think it's a good thing. Humans are not humans when behaving in a strict and solely practical sense. All other life on earth can behave in such a way, but not us. It is impossible to do so completely, no matter how much we try.

 

Agnosticism is therefore irrational, because it advocates a view on religion, and no religion serves a strictly practical purpose. But that makes Atheism irrational also - because it also advocates a view on religion. The strictly rational view, I think, would be to have no opinion on religion at all and disregard the concept completely. No Atheist can do that, as having opinions on a bunch of irrational and impractical things inplies time spent on them, time that can go to better use.

 

All this rambling of mine is towards one end - to show that no human being can be completely rational, ie, completely practical, and it is normal and natural to our species that we formulate views on things such as religion and alter our beliefs accordingly. It is a wasted argument to postulate that humans should be wholly practical and have no opinions or thoughts on religion, since we naturally always will.

 

The debate should not be wholly on whether or not a religious opinion is "rational" because no religion can ever wholly be, but whether or not a particular religion is healthy and positive for the society or individual that accepts it. It is in that discussion, I think, that the real truths and "rationality" of a religion is discovered.

 

If anyone's said any of this before, I apolgize - I've not kept up on the entire thread, but it's been swirling around in my mind lately and either I let it out or I get constipated

 

Rational and irrational - and quite content

[Amethyst]

Well, yes. It is possible to be a fundy...er, rationalist. I certainly don't advocate that. There has to be a balance in life, I think.

 

The strictly rational view, I think, would be to have no opinion on religion at all and disregard the concept completely.

 

But that's impossible for 99.9% of human beings. Most people have an opinion, whether they're willing to admit it or not.

 

And yet, there has to be at least *some* rationality in the thought process, or civilization as we know it would come to a complete stop as everyone bowed down to worship deities/angels/fairies/invisible pink unicorns/chocolate goddesses/fluffy bunnies/flying spaghetti monsters and the like. Not to mention, running away from things that go bump in the night, the bogey monster, and so forth. And spending money we didn't have to buy things that didn't exist.

 

You know, that might not be so bad. At least, life would be more interesting.

[Lycorth]

But that's impossible for 99.9% of human beings. Most people have an opinion, whether they're willing to admit it or not.

 

Precisely, which is why hardcore anti-religionists have to realize that formulating religious beliefs and opinions according to a strict code of "rationality" is itself irrational, and impossible for humans to achieve. It's just as bad as making a big fuss out of whatever religion you happen to accept to the point it negatively impacts your living, which is the ultimate meaning of life, I think - to live and to do so well.

 

And yet, there has to be at least *some* rationality in the thought process, or civilization as we know it would come to a complete stop as everyone bowed down to worship deities/angels/fairies/invisible pink unicorns/chocolate goddesses/fluffy bunnies/flying spaghetti monsters and the like. Not to mention, running away from things that go bump in the night, the bogey monster, and so forth. And spending money we didn't have to buy things that didn't exist.

 

You know, that might not be so bad. At least, life would be more interesting.

 

But seriously, the problem, I think, is not with whatever things people choose to bow down to, but rather how much emphasis they place on it. I know Heathens, for example, who do worship their gods but do so casually, with respect but without zealotry, if you follow me. Their religion is important to them, but not nearly so that it dominates every spare moment of time or that they think they need to believe in the purest form of it they can contrive in order to escape eternal torment in the next life. These people I would place as models of human religious behavior and yet they are both rational and irrational, according to how I described those things in my post above. If most of society, especially those with power and influence, behaved this way and did not deviate from it, religion would not be a problem and any need to nitpick the rationalities of their particular faith would be a moot point at best and an idiotic waste of time at worst.

 

Rationality and common sense of course must have their place, but to take rationality to its logical end is to eschew everything even slightly impractical. No human can do this, hence we all should just not worry about what appears to be an "irrational" point of view someone else has, unless it is taken to far.

[Amethyst]

This is the second time you have mocked my god, the flying spaghetti monster. I will send a plague of garlic powder to you if you do not watch it!

 

In that case, I will shield myself with Holey Swiss Cheese!

 

I know Heathens, for example, who do worship their gods but do so casually, with respect but without zealotry, if you follow me. Their religion is important to them, but not nearly so that it dominates every spare moment of time or that they think they need to believe in the purest form of it they can contrive in order to escape eternal torment in the next life. These people I would place as models of human religious behavior and yet they are both rational and irrational, according to how I described those things in my post above. If most of society, especially those with power and influence, behaved this way and did not deviate from it, religion would not be a problem and any need to nitpick the rationalities of their particular faith would be a moot point at best and an idiotic waste of time at worst.

 

I honestly respect those who can live and let live. It doesn't really matter to me what people believe as long as they do not try to force their beliefs on another person, physically or manipulatively.

[Lycorth]

Irationality is linked in our mind with inbred hicks and religious nutjobs. We don't want to be seen as "irrational" so we overcompensate in the other direction.

 

So very true; I was like that, myself. After having to endure the completely irrational and fear-based diatribes and attacks launched on me by my ex when we were together, as well as finally getting fed up with a religion and its accompanying holier-than-thou attitude, I for a time saturated myself in a "rationality only!" mindset. But even then I knew I was kicking against the goads, and have been letting go of the overcompensation, realizing that it is unnatural and foolish for me to start blaming the very concept of religion with the faults of only a few religions, and have let myself define my own gods as I see fit.

 

I feel much more free, even more so than when I left Xianity, now that I am truly using my reason and not letting it use me.

 

This is the second time you have mocked my god, the flying spaghetti monster. I will send a plague of garlic powder to you if you do not watch it!

 

In that case, I will shield myself with Holey Swiss Cheese!

 

I've heard Spatini works wonders with pasta sauce...

 

I honestly respect those who can live and let live. It doesn't really matter to me what people believe as long as they do not try to force their beliefs on another person, physically or manipulatively.

 

If everyone thought like you, this world would be markedly better

[Asimov]

When you address agnostics the way you have, what kind of reaction do you expect? Honestly.

 

I suppose you could say "agnosticism" approximates my own lack of belief, so I would call it the best fit, though I am not a card-carrying member. Speaking only for myself, defending my agnosticism would be like defending pacificism militarily. I say "I don't know" and you respond with "why don't you know?". Is there a college I can go to that will teach me these things so I cannot, if pressed, plead ignorance? If so, which one? Do we settle this with a vote?

 

As for god being "unknowable", your response is a paradox. If saying something is "unknowable" requires me to know everything, I have already passed the first tier of godhood and proven myself wrong. If someone out there knows everything and can prove it, let them please step forward and educate us. Certainly they would persist at all times in all places (they'd "know" how to do such a thing, knowing everything) so saying it's unknowable is precise whether it is from an anachronistic viewpoint or not. Clearly we do not have the mental capacity to store all of the atoms in the universe (let's not even discuss multiverse), so physiologically it is also "unknowable".

 

I think it's a little premature to say that God is unknowable, ESPECIALLY when we do not even have a working definition of God, as well as for the reasons you stated in your second paragraph.

 

If god is greater than all of the atoms in the universe, he is not knowable.

If god is greater than even all of the neural patterns that can saturate the greatest human brain, he is not knowable (except maybe as a collective harmony).

If god is "knowable", he is not god (maybe you should apply for the position).

 

Not sure exactly what you mean by these statements.

 

 

 

Most agnostics are also atheists. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism with belief. They are not positions in conflict, they are complimentary, dealing with two different issues.

 

I am agnostic. I dont' know and I dont' believe we can know, and for that reason I am logically an atheist because in absence of the ability to know I do not believe in any literal deities. However on the flip side of that, I do not actively DISBELIEVE either. We live in a wonderfully mysterious world and I won't rule things out on the basis of my knowledge alone. (well unless it's a particularly stupid idea that can easily be disproven.)

 

Not entirely sure how you can actively disbelieve...unless you mean you don't carry strong convictions as to the non-existence of any particular deity.

 

I'm aware that they are not positions of conflict...that's not my issue with it. My issue is that because agnosticism in a practical sense refers to everyone, it is redundant to call oneself an agnostic, particularly if the question is "do you believe?" and not "do you know?"

[Padreko]

If beliving and knowing are two seperate things then I can say I believe god exists, but I don't know that god exists. If you want to think about this from an epistemological point of view, that statement is accurate if one subscribes to TAK (tradition analysis of knowlegde)

 

S knows p = df

 

1. S believes p

2. P is true

3. S is justified in believing p

 

Belief = anything you take to be true (you believe it).

Rational = consistent with or based on or using reason

Reason = an explanation of the cause of some phenomenon

 

So then Asimov's claim reads like:

 

Agnosticism is not consistent with or based on an explaination of the cause of some phenomenon.

 

If I reason that, there is no convincing evidence to support or deny the existence of god( then I cannot believe or not believe in the existence of god), then i satisfy the requirments of what it is to be rational.

 

If you agree with me thus far then agnosticism is a perfectly acceptable stance to take. Agnostics cannot believe god exists or that god doesn't exists. They just cannot take those claims to be true.