Atheists? Have you been feeling a bit "agnostic" lately?

reply to post by BenReclused

Special question for "Agnostic Atheists":
How would Mr. Huxley respond to that? (Answer is available upon request.)

I already know what you will say. You will quote him talking about his position in respect to atheism. Saying he didn't want to identify as an atheist. None of that will conflict with what I am saying. You'll notice in his quote how he describes the atheist. He is specifically talking about the 'strong atheist' to which I have both acknowledged and said is an unintelligible position. He's talking about the atheist that is making a claim of knowledge that god doesn't exist. He's not addressing the atheist that lacks the belief in god but isn't making that claim.

Here I will post it. And then most importantly quote his further explanation of agnosticism.

First. Your 'ace up your sleeve':

"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis"--had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion …"

He is clearly talking about the atheist who is claiming gnosis. The atheist that says that problem of existence has been solved. That's 1 of 2 kinds of atheists. As has been shown to you now numerous times. Even your own definition of atheism you used in the other thread stated the two separate positions of atheists.

Let's now quote his description of agnosticism:

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him."

He would very much relate to the atheist that disbelieves in god due to a lack of evidence. What he wouldn't agree with is that atheist asserting certainty in that belief in an objective way since it wouldn't be intellectually honest to do so. The agnostic atheist is not asserting that certainty.

Again. Belief and knowledge are related but separate on this topic.

"Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry.[16]"
Additional reading.link

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I'm not sure how seriously we're supposed to take you after a post like that.

I'm being as serious as heart attack. But, I have no desire to "force" someone to take me seriously. I feel that everyone should "judge" for themselves. Don't you?

It sounds like you're making fun of being serious about this stuff.

I am, but it's only a method of conveyance. Why do you seem to feel that it's wrong? I feel that it's, a sight, better than ridiculing people because of their personal beliefs. Don't you?

I guess I'll just bite: what is your ulterior motive?

I'm not ready to tell you, yet, but I can assure you that, if you pay close attention, and decide for yourself:
You will have taught yourself a new way of "looking" at things.

When someone decides what it is, I'll let you know. It's all good...

See ya buddy,
Milt

PS:
Welcome to the discussion! I'm more than happy to have you here.

reply to post by BenReclused


And now you're just toying with me.

reply to post by BenReclused

I'm not ready to tell you, yet, but I can assure you that, if you pay close attention, and decide for yourself:
You will have taught yourself a new way of "looking" at things.

If we pay close attention, and decide for ourselves, but don't end up looking at things in a new way… what's the implication? We lack the faculty of mind to discern your teaching?

reply to post by boymonkey74

Hello "Monkey Boy",

Welcome to the discussion, as well!

I feel honored by your presence, and am looking forward to our usual "Troll Competition". I most certainly hope that you've been practicing... I'd enjoy some competition, for a change. You'll have to wait a bit though, I've got people at the "front of the line" to take of, first.

His location is under a bridge and his mood trollish...why bite dude?.

Uh, huh... You, once, apologized to me, for that... I see how you are...

See ya buddy,
Milt

NOTE TO ALL PARTICIPANTS:
I am truly sorry for the delay. And, I'm heading back to "the front".

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Lack of definition affords a greater opportunity than absolute definition. To put it another way, a room with one door offers far less possibilities than a room with no walls.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I'm certainly not married to the definitions.

I enjoy this quote from Sam Harris:

“In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”

I'd like to think I'm in a room without walls as I try my best to make sure my beliefs have a strong foundation in reason. If evidence presents itself my views change in accordance to them. It all depends on the evidence and that is constantly in flux as we progress our understanding. I'd really like to think I am open to the possibilities reality holds in secret. We shall see. Or not

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I think it all starts with being honest with ourselves about what we really want. No one has ever followed a god the didn't like, so theoretically, it could be argued that we choose the god who appeals to us. This is further propagated by the values instilled in us by previous generations. So here is another question: do we emulate our gods, or do our gods emulate us?

I've considered myself an agnostic atheist. If you asked me if I believed in god, I'd have to say "Not exactly."

If you then asked me if I believed there was no god, I would then say again "Not exactly."

I've never liked the IMAGES of god most religions have proposed. They just don't appeal to me. The theist half of me would probably lean towards deism.

Sorry guys, but this one IS a "MUST DO":

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

HI "LUCID"!

I am, ESPECIALLY, happy to see you join us! You are, indeed, the "Guest of Honor"! AND, I mean that, with the UTMOST of sincerity!

You caused me to question, why I couldn't get my points across to you, and some of the others. I now know why that was:
The concepts of atheism, and agnosticism, are, for the most part, easily understood. But, that understanding always gets screwed up by subjective interpretations. The "Little Experiment", that you inspired, is capable of demonstrating those concepts, without the normal "protective coating" of subjective reasoning.

If one wants to mine for diamonds, they'd better be willing to kill a few flowers.

I, most sincerely, thank you, for helping me to learn that.

If we pay close attention, and decide for ourselves, but don't end up looking at things in a new way… what's the implication?

If you don't do as you say, you will never "see" things, in a new way. All that I can do is point, but it's up to you to see "it".

We lack the faculty of mind to discern your teaching?

You're looking in the wrong direction. I'm not the teacher, I'm just a guy that happened to find "it", and I'm only trying to show you where "it" still is.

See ya buddy,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


What is "it" that you're trying to help us see? You keep talking about understanding atheism and agnosticism without subjective coloring, but what is it about this objective understanding that you want us to appreciate?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I think it all starts with being honest with ourselves about what we really want.

Not quite, but you're getting mighty damn close...

That's the way to go...



See ya buddy,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

Not quite, but you're getting mighty damn close…

Agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive and we actually believe in Yahweh even if we do not yet see it.

Warm?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Ill reply to your post in just a bit. Have to do a beer run. It keeps my mind sharp ^_^

reply to post by AfterInfinity

What is "it" that you're trying to help us see?

That new way of looking at "things".

You will find it when you look in the proper place. Here's a hint: Think about your own personal answers, to the questions in the OP, and try to honestly answer as many as possible. You don't need to post them. Then ask yourself: What is that old bastard trying to get me to do?

Your interest pleases me to no end! And, you ARE, indeed, right on the verge.

See ya buddy,
Milt

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

Lack of definition affords a greater opportunity than absolute definition. To put it another way, a room with one door offers far less possibilities than a room with no walls.

I actually like the koan you have there. But what is a Room with No Walls??? You need 1 wall minimum for a room don't you??

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive and we actually believe in Yahweh even if we do not yet see it.

Warm?

Nope! Not at all! Your beliefs are none of my concern. Nor, should they be... Try again...

See ya buddy,
Milt

BenReclused
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

What is "it" that you're trying to help us see?

That new way of looking at "things".

You will find it when you look in the proper place. Here's a hint: Think about your own personal answers, to the questions in the OP, and try to honestly answer as many as possible. You don't need to post them. Then ask yourself: What is that old bastard trying to get me to do?

Your interest pleases me to no end! And, you ARE, indeed, right on the verge.

See ya buddy,
Milt

It sounds like you're suggesting atheists are just in denial...I'm reading into your posts and making assumptions because you've left me no choice - unless, of course, I just walk away. But I'm not ready to do that yet.

BenReclused
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

What is "it" that you're trying to help us see?

That new way of looking at "things".

You will find it when you look in the proper place. Here's a hint: Think about your own personal answers, to the questions in the OP, and try to honestly answer as many as possible. You don't need to post them. Then ask yourself: What is that old bastard trying to get me to do?

Your interest pleases me to no end! And, you ARE, indeed, right on the verge.

See ya buddy,
Milt

You're trying to show that Athiests aren't really athiests because they "Believe"???

reply to post by mOjOm

But what is a Room with No Walls???

A really big room?