Agnosticism Is A Way To Stay On The Fence, Until It Falls

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I don't think you understand the path of the agnostic. I feel kind of sad when I read your interpretation of that noble pursuit.

Here's the true origin of the word Agnostic - - if you're interested.

There is little doubt that Thomas Henry Huxley invented the word agnostic in the Spring of 1869. However, there is conflicting evidence about when this was and what it originally meant. According to R. H. Hutton, as published in the New English Dictionary, Huxley first used the word agnostic at a party at James Knowles's house on Clapham Common prior to the formation of the Metaphysical Society. Hutton also said, "He [Huxley] took it from St. Paul's mention of the altar to 'the Unknown God.'" (New English Dictionary edited by James A. H. Murray. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1888, p. 86.) infidels.org...

The OP - IMO - is actually referring to people who choose the "Position of Agnosticism".

Not necessarily a person who is Agnostic.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I am a person of faith, but I have much more respect for an agnostic than an atheist.

An agnostic is honest and can admit to what they do not know, and seek to learn more. That is an entirely rational position.

Perhaps you should revisit the definition of an atheist? Don't assume you know what it means, read the definition, think critically and then comprehend the words you have just read.

I am unable to tell at this stage whether your decision to hold the views you have just expressed is due to ignorance or wilful ignorance, but it can only be one of those two options. If you are unaware of the definition of an atheist and hold your current views, then you are ignorant. Go educate yourself, don't listen to others, or believe what you would like to be believe about a group of people you have been conditioned to believe are your enemy. In reality, atheists are as much your "enemy" as any theist of a different religion. If you don't consider adherents of a different faith to be your enemies, then you have no logical reason to classify atheists in such a way, unless you want to choose a boogeyman that cannot fight back on equal terms.

If you are aware of the definition of an atheist, comprehended the definition and still hold your current views, then you are wilfully ignorant. This is far more dangerous because you are actively trying not to comprehend what it is you are talking about. If you are going to wilfully misrepresent the views of a group of people and have no intention to change, the people you are misrepresenting will probably choose the most obvious reason to dislike you for refusing to stop doing this: your faith.

Notice how I do not even know which faith you adhere to, but I can still provide a logical and reasonable argument that if you actually reflected upon what I have just said and still refuse to look up the definition of atheism and try to comprehend it, you are actually scared to examine the lie you have sold to yourself.

PS: You can still be honest, admit to what you do not know, and seek to learn more without needing to be an agnostic. Unfortunately, people of faith usually tend to contradict my previous sentence. Ironic, is it not?

originally posted by: ClovenSky
I don't think you understand the path of the agnostic. I feel kind of sad when I read your interpretation of that noble pursuit.

Please do explain "the path of the agnostic." Last time I checked there is no written law, no creed, no scripture, no traditions, no need for faith to authenticate the position it takes and fortunately no valid reason for anybody to purposely misrepresent the position of the agnostic. (Unless of course they want to unjustly brand a group of people of whom they know nothing about as their enemy. Hmm, sounds familiar...)

So perhaps it is not me who does not understand the position of agnosticism — not its supposed "path" or supposed book of guild-lines on "how to be a good agnostic"?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Dark Ghost

You either believe in a god or you don't.

If you believe there "could" be a god then you don't.
If you believe "maybe" there is a god then you don't.
If you "hope" there is a god then you don't.

Agnostics are either dishonest atheists or dishonest theists.

Yet everyone can make sure of their misery that it is there when they have it.


www.etymonline.com...

a reply to: eisegesis

anchors aweigh... biting any of them is sure to hook a whale of a thing to drag one around an endless sea called a self when taking such bait

:p

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Agnosticism Is A Way To Stay On The Fence, Until It Falls

Seems you found a difference between "pathological (emotionally powered/needy) agnosticism" (or anything else), and rational, logical, intellectual agnosticism.

Things are bound to collapse anyway...And the Target Logic is online..and Foaming at the mouth so to speak..Which is what Erasers are For...Indeed as a First Collapse and Second..is the common Target Bitte...indeed as an awareness and the Self

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Yes, that is me.

And on the matter of your hair, congratulations!

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
You either believe in a god or you don't.

If you believe there "could" be a god then you don't.
If you believe "maybe" there is a god then you don't.
If you "hope" there is a god then you don't.

Agnostics are either dishonest atheists or dishonest theists.

No, sorry, but the argument of "either you are with me or against me" is a LIE your theist masters have sold to you as fact. Anybody who has read and understood the very basic definition of the word atheist and the moderately more difficult definition of the word agnostic, together with possessing a basic set of critical thinking skills will easily be in the position to determine where this type of demented reasoning has probably come from.

"And let me tell you something my beloved [insert followers of relevant monotheistic religion), in the eyes of God, our lord and saviour, either you believe in him and accept him in your life, or you join others in the long line of disbelievers, rejecting his divine word and choosing to live your life in rebellion to his will. There is no "middle ground". God will not reward you for "half-believing" in his existence, or attempt to meet your requirements to prove his existence. He wants your full loyalty and trust. And do not believe the atheists or agnostics among you, when they tells you that they are just unsure and want God to reveal himself before they are willing to "confirm" their beliefs in his existence. The proof is everywhere. God wants to be a part of your life, but it is your decision whether you want him to be. The choice is yours ladies and gentlemen. Make sure it's the correct one!"

You are essentially forcing somebody who does not agree with your worldview into explicitly claiming whether they are on "your side" or not. That is what it's about, you will keep pestering them and bombarding them with questions until they get so annoyed or tired that they will say what you want to hear — which is that they are a disbeliever.

In reality, it is the theist who is angry and envious of the non-theist because the non-theist still has the choice of believing or not believing in a God, which you were deprived of from a young age and can never escape.

originally posted by: introvert
To me, agnosticism is the most honest position because it relies on the individual coming to terms with the fact they simply do not know the truth.

Is there a god? I don't know.

Is there not a god? I don't know.

Anyone that says there is or is not a god is only telling you what they believe, without knowing the complete truth.

Absolutely.

No one can prove or not prove, so what's the point.

Believe in something bigger, or a oneness........sure I'm in

a reply to: Realtruth

Exactly. For me, it is the position of the most personal and objective honesty. Choosing to follow one religious path based on faith might be fine for some, but for me, it is physically, mentally, spiritually, and logically limiting and pointless. Thus, when it comes to a specific religious, absolutist and literal definition of the truth or "god", I am very much an atheist. I do not believe Yahweh/Jehova.Allah are any more real or factual than Zeus, Osiris, Odin, or any other personified deity. These are all the attempts of bronze age and stone age people to identify, understand, and commune with a universe and reality that was puzzling and often frightening.

However, this does not mean there is nothing more out there, no greater purpose, system, super mind, entity, or process at work. It just means that so far, human attempts to actually understand the bigger picture have so far, been rooted in in a lack of understanding.

For me agnosticism is liberation from the slavery of mere BELIEF, period. It's a quest, a DESIRE for new knowledge, science. What the believers known as theists and atheists have in common is fear of the unknown, of various unexplained phenomena. Both dismiss and label the whole thing with primitive terms like "magic" or even "paranormal" and "supernatural." ("Move along, nothing to see here.")
Religions and official secrecy (along with greed) have screwed up and held back this civilization like nothing else. What else enforces and ensures ignorance in a bigger way?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
In reality, it is the theist who is angry and envious of the non-theist because the non-theist still has the choice of believing or not believing in a God, which you were deprived of from a young age and can never escape.

I'm an atheist.

And to further disprove your assertion I'm actually envious of those who truly believe.

But this isn't about forcing someone to believe something one way or the other. It's about forcing people to be honest with themselves.

If you don't know whether a god exists you cannot believe in it.
If you don't believe in it then you're an atheist.

Could my atheism be wrong? Absolutely.
Could a believer be wrong? Absolutely.
Could an agnostic be wrong? Absolutely not.

That's the problem, agnosticism was created for those too weak to make an honest stance of their own beliefs.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Divinity does not resist examination..because it simply does not exist.

The ones that play with us as toys resist examination because they are scum beyond compare..they can run but soon will be caught and cross-examined at length.

We have no more need of wondering what is TRULY going on..we just need to ASK them..with the power of a million suns.

Evade..evacuate..it matters not.the decision has been made.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I'm an atheist.

And to further disprove your assertion I'm actually envious of those who truly believe.

But this isn't about forcing someone to believe something one way or the other. It's about forcing people to be honest with themselves.

If you don't know whether a god exists you cannot believe in it.
If you don't believe in it then you're an atheist.

Could my atheism be wrong? Absolutely.
Could a believer be wrong? Absolutely.
Could an agnostic be wrong? Absolutely not.

That's the problem, agnosticism was created for those too weak to make an honest stance of their own beliefs.

I would prefer not to look like a fool if I can help it, so here is my carefully considered answer:

If you truly ARE an atheist and you are NOT lying that you are one just to make your point seem more credible/valid, then read the following:

I made a massive assumption about you when I didn't have sufficient reason to do so, for that I am sorry and do apologise. It was a clear mistake on my part. The only reason I can put into context me doing that (not excusing or justifying my mistake, but explaining why it likely happened) is that I have confused you with another member either in this thread or one from a similar themed thread. I do participate in multiple threads throughout the day, often there are several similar in theme, so it is possible I made an error of judgement based on that. What is important to note is I did not do it intentionally. It was an honest mistake that I am admitting could have ended badly if you didn't handle it as calmly and professionally as you did, so thank you for that.

In hindsight, what you say seems to make a lot more sense and I will place greater credence into what you have just clarified. Thank you for helping me to broaden my scope of insight.

If you are NOT an atheist and ARE lying in an attempt to prove your point, OR if you are attempting to troll me, read the following:

I make no apologies for anything I said and believe you have no right to speak about dishonesty being wrong if you are willing to be so dishonest just to prove a point or to try and get a rise out of me.

* * * * *

I included an apology first and a non-apology second because I don't remember clashing with you before this thread and have no reason to suspect you would lie just to prove a point and I have no reason yet to believe you are a troll. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. It is important to include the non-apology to affirm my belief that I am not a gullible person and not easily guilted into changing my mind because I feel bad.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: introvert

To me, agnosticism is the most honest position because it relies on the individual coming to terms with the fact they simply do not know the truth.

What about people who do know?

You won't accept the personal experiences of others as evidence, but for those who have had such an experience the truth is indisputable.

To deny the existence of God would be, to such individuals, telling a lie.

Let me guess: they're insane, delusional, etc., right?

What evidence is there of that?

It is NOT indisputable.

I have had experiences far beyond the norm and yet i realize no religions or beliefs here even TRY to attempt to tell the truth of this PARTICULAR existence.

What is going on here and at higher levels is of concern, beings trying to access higher powers and understanding have failed across the board..all of them believing in something they will not question..or CANNOT because it dissolved itself and stopped OBSERVING.

Religions..science..all controlled and invented carefully as was the human form..to maximize spiritual potential while remaining entirely enslaved along with the rest of ALL.

IMAGINATION needs to grow instead of the bewilderment and self fulfilling of asking ANYONE ELSE..or trying to parallel one's experiences with dogma.

Wipe the slate clean THEN have experiences...far better..far more powerful...and limitless potential.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

I'm talking about knowledge, not belief.

I know I took a different route home from work last night. I can't prove it to anyone though.

Does that mean it didn't happen?

If nobody including you ever observed an alternate route then it doesn't exist. The concept of existence requires observation.

Without observers reality does not exist. Reality is another concept which requires observation.

Reality without observation has no relevance to conscious observers.

Enter the necessary being or first cause argument.

A modern take may be once you take the alternate route the probability waveform collapses and brings the road into existence with observation.

i will call BS on part of this..you cannot prove your claims that existence needs observation...unless you fully step aside from consciousness..

I believe it has been done...the evidence remains.

This physical "reality" has moved beyond need of observation..and wants to become more real than ever

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
I'm not going back and forth with people here, as there is no point to it.

But people must understand that they think the way they are conditioned to think by others.

There is no original thought until one gets past the fact that they think no original thoughts that are not influenced by those who taught them how to think.

The student is supposed to surpass the teacher in the skills the teacher taught them.

Unfortunately, learning to think is way more complicated than learning, say, trigonometry.

In this reality the teacher believes he is helping the student...when in fact they limit at all costs and silence original thought.

The programmers are actually scared we might just surpass everything..and so limit themselves and pretend noone can find out what they are up too.

Perhaps some code is now being inserted from another "source" in an attempt to remove the chains.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: NthOther

Your experience is yours alone.

You can't pass experience from yourself to others without losing a lot of the meaning in translation, even when the one you are trying to share with speaks the same language.

I often wonder what it is all for in the end.

The explanation that it is about God and eternity just doesn't cut it, especially because eternity isn't even proven scientifically yet, or disproven.

What say we actually try to find out?

Believing it is not possible across the board IS the problem.

I agree and have uncovered alot more depth to this narrative than it appears to be allowed to speak about.

Showing everyone at once a "new reality" and giving them the tools to unbind themselves to take it slowly seems to be a good idea.....

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Most agnostics are really agnostic atheists.

Those that do not know but are afraid to find out?

I guess you can be both but it sounds rather boring..as boring as religions.