It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
My first argument is that Agnosticism involves some conviction in regards to God.
It makes the assumption that God or No God cannot be confirmed
this presupposes that some knowledge about the properties of God is to be believed, that is, that the properties of God are unknowable.
Second, agnostics claim they will await for confirmation before making any decision.
It's not falsifiable. In order to await this confirmation, one must believe this confirmation to be possible; and since this confirmation would involve God himself, we can say that agnostics are waiting for the off chance that God will prove himself, or that they might somehow become omniscient beings before they reach any conviction. This must, by necessity, presuppose that some belief that absolute knowledge is possible, and therefor some belief in God.
My first argument is that Agnosticism involves some conviction in regards to God. It makes the assumption that God or No God cannot be confirmed, or known for sure, and this presupposes that some knowledge about the properties of God is to be believed, that is, that the properties of God are unknowable. This is conjecture. The opposite could be the case.
If "agnostic", which is what the answer should be, ask yourself:
Did, not knowing "proper doctrine", really preclude me from being an agnostic.
I don't understand your post.
First you ask questions. Next, you demand that the answers come in the form of "true" or "false", much as one would see in a school test. I will your answer your questions but you will unfortunately consider them invalid.you demand that the answers come in the form of "true" or "false", much as one would see in a school test. I will your answer your questions but you will unfortunately consider them invalid.
The answer to each individual question is irrelevant.
All this talk of deities, if they did or did not exist, if they are possible, etc. are all irrelevant to an atheist.
I simply don't care if any deities exist.
Now, I am open to other possibilities regarding supernatural phenomena. I think it is far too simplistic for the human race to divide the phenomena into either "God did it" or "God didn't do it". It saps away curiosity and imagination in my opinion.
I am starting to think you don't know what agnostic means.
A baby is not theist, atheist or agnostic.
According to the definition that you gave in the OP it is "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable" and "a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something".
I doubt that babies are holding views about ultimate realities or fighting against commitment to opinions.
By the way your commitment to the opinion of what qualifies as agnostic goes against your second definition.
That's okay... your thoughts are your concerns, not mine.
That was an absolute proof that you don't understand what an agnostic is. But once again that's your problem, not mine.
Yeah... I'll admit that I don't necessarily agree with the "long wind" in that definition, either, Agnosticism is a Hell of a lot simpler than that:
A person that holds no belief regarding, both, the existence, and nonexistence, of deities.
Compare that to the new, condensed, definition above. If you disagree with that definition... that's though... and I'll get over it...
New question for all participants:
If you never heard of God, would you be concerned about His existence?
Agnosticism's conviction is that we need conclusive evidence before we can have conclusive certainty.
It's not making this assumption. It's saying if a thing is unknowable it cannot be confirmed. Clearly that's the case since at the present we cannot evaluate things outside of nature.
What kind of conclusive evidence are you waiting for or expect to find? And how do you know you will have it when you find it? How are we to be certain there is any conclusive evidence in the first place?
But what “thing” are you talking about?
If it is unknowable how do you know its unknowable, an unknowable thing?
How are you able to have any opinion on it whatsoever?
Atheism and theism I can understand, but agnosticism makes little sense.
I thought it wasn't about god.
The theists are pushing the claim. The agnostic approaches their claim with evidence-based inquiry.
Atheists tend to dislike agnostics, MUCH, more than they do theists. We are the one's that insist "atheism" is only an "Uncertain belief" that has no more validity than, the claims of theists.
We wouldn't be assuming any certainty there is conclusive evidence in the first place because that assumes that thing exists.
That's what I am not following here. You seem to be suggesting demanding evidence for the existence suggests belief in the existence. I am confused on why that would be. As for what kind of evidence we would expect to find [in the event it exists] that would depend on the particular descriptions of the 'god' in question I suppose.
Whatever 'thing' they are talking about The agnostic isn't the one making the claim said 'god' exists so they are not the ones defining that thing. The theists are pushing the claim. The agnostic approaches their claim with evidence-based inquiry.
As much as I appreciate philosophy I think we may be drifting too much into the abstract. The unknowable component is simply expressed because god has traditionally been posited as a supernatural force. Science is limited to the physical Universe. So it's unknowable to science. That's all that is meant by it. Might we transcend this plane and therefore be able to know that which had been unknowable before? Maybe.
I guess my case so far has not been compelling enough. It's my position an atheist IS an agnostic. Usually. I strongly feel they are not mutually exclusive. So no I don't agree atheism would make sense but not agnosticism. I think you're attributing some extra baggage to agnosticism it doesn't actually hold to. Hope we can iron that out in a few more posts. Or maybe you will change my mind
I disagree with all of that.
You're making assumptions regarding what atheists dislike, and more importantly, atheists disliking stuff is beside the point.
Not to mention that you've ignored my suggestions on how the matter may be resolved.
I firmly believe that a god may be examined through experimentation. Results consistent with the absence of said deity should prove conclusive, but first, we must determine the results consistent with the presence of said deity.
But surely I don't have to explain logic to you?
I'm sure you know how this stuff works.