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

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Geez man, relax.

But let's go through this.
I'm dishonest because you've made the assumption that I don't care how I'm perceived?
Perhaps you should stop assuming what I believe, I'm happy to answer honestly.

You have said that you identify as an agnostic in your previous post.
And your view of atheism with the possibility of being wrong is fine. I feel the same.
But it's not agnosticism, it's atheism.

As for the WOW question...
As much as I'd like to research that and impress everyone I'll have to fight that urge and say I have no opinion nor interest in the question.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Geez man, relax.

Just because I was forceful on an internet forum does not mean I am upset or unrelaxed in real life. (I have tried being calm, reasonable, apologetic, AGNOSTIC, defensive etc. nothing had worked in regard to you clarifying an accusation you made about me, so I figured it was time to stop playing the nice guy that can just be pushed over.)

But let's go through this.
I'm dishonest because you've made the assumption that I don't care how I'm perceived?
Perhaps you should stop assuming what I believe, I'm happy to answer honestly.

Now you know how it feels to have an unwarranted assumption made about you, so how does it feel?

You have said that you identify as an agnostic in your previous post.
And your view of atheism with the possibility of being wrong is fine. I feel the same.
But it's not agnosticism, it's atheism.

When did I say I currently identify as an agnostic in this thread? As I said in a previous post of mine, I did identify at one time in the past that I was agnostic, but I specified that fact both in the opening post AND in my previous reply. If you still don't believe me, go ahead: where is it, please quote me so that I can acknowledge I did something you have now claimed twice I did, but have not shown evidence of.

As for the WOW question...
As much as I'd like to research that and impress everyone I'll have to fight that urge and say I have no opinion nor interest in the question.

So your view on the topic of WOW in general is...kinda...AGNOSTIC, isn't it?

Edit:

Here is the full definition of Agnostic, if you need help working out my last statement:

agnostic

noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

adjective
4. of or relating to agnostics or their doctrines, attitudes, or beliefs.
5. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
6. not taking a stand on something, especially not holding either of two usually strongly opposed positions (often used in combination):
to take an agnostic view of technological progress; fuel agnostic energy policies.
7. (especially of digital technology) not limited or dedicated to a particular device, system, etc. (often used in combination):
platform agnostic software.

Dictionary.com Definition

Focus on the NOUN section, see if that helps.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

So what exactly are we arguing?
You're claiming to be atheist whilst also pushing the definition of agnosticism.

I also don't claim that a question on some silly game is unknowable. I just claim it's irrelevant.
There's a difference.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

So what exactly are we arguing?
You're claiming to be atheist whilst also pushing the definition of agnosticism.

In relation to the existence or non-existence of God:
Atheist: I do not believe in the existence of a God or gods.
Agnostic: I cannot confirm or deny the existence of God because I cannot confirm or deny whether such an assertion is possible for me to know.

In relation to topics that involve absolute knowledge (other than the one above):
Atheist: What does that question have to do with my label? If you want to know my views on a topic about absolute knowledge, let's discuss the specific topic and I'll tell you my views.
Agnostic: I cannot confirm whether the existence of absolute knowledge is even possible, therefore I cannot make a definitive statement on any topic involving absolute claims. How about we discuss a topic for which I can make informed claims about?

In relation to ANY other topic:
Atheist: What does that question have to do with my label? If you want to know my views on a specific topic, tell me what the topic is and I'll answer.
Agnostic: I usually don't comment on topics I know little about. What is the topic in question? If I don't know anything about that topic, I'm happy to participate if you can lead me to information about this topic and allow me to make an informed decision before we commence discussing the topic. If you don't want to, you can consider my position on that topic to be what it is presently.

No more deflection buddy, it's time to face the facts. It's all been spelled out for you. There is NO escape. Admit you were wrong, or that you were dishonest, or that you mischaracterised my position, or that you are trolling. I don't even care which one it is at this point, just point to the truth. This is getting a bit ridiculous now...

I also don't claim that a question on some silly game is unknowable. I just claim it's irrelevant.
There's a difference.

Then, in regards to my question about WOW, your position is an agnostic one. You hold at least one agnostic position by default. Congratulations. Don't worry, you won't self-implode. You may end up fighting on the internet about the fact that you believe agnosticism is a dishonest position while upholding an agnostic position yourself — which would by extension mean that at least one of your positions is a dishonest one, and by refusing to do any research on the topic AND not giving a YES OR NO answer to the question asked, despite being able to access the information easily and being able to make an informed opinion, you are choosing to be dishonest by choice. THAT may happen, but at least you have your health, right?

I actually might feel bad at this point, but you forced my hand. You gave me no choice. I had to do it.

Think about the WHOLE thread and read every reply of yours and mine carefully. Come back and ask yourself this: Is Dark Ghost sorry, does he feel the need to apologise for doing what he just did? My answer: YOU tell me?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Dude your looking at Christian based websites.

Gnostic = With the knowledge of god.
Agnostic = Without the knowledge of god.

Nothing to do with beliefs!!

Gnostic and Agnostic are opposites.

Theist and Atheist are opposites.

Semetrical and Asemetrical are opposites.

Typical and Atypical are opposites.

The Greek prefix of A at the start of a word means without or non.

Super simple English language interpretation digger.

Coomba98

originally posted by: coomba98
Dude your looking at Christian based websites.

Is Dictionary.com considered a Christian based website? It's the only website in this thread I have used as a link. If you think so, can you please explain why it meets such a definition?

Gnostic = With the knowledge of god.
Agnostic = Without the knowledge of god.

It seems you are using an archaic definition of a word that no longer applies accurately to its current usage in the modern English language. I could be wrong, but that's what it appears like.

Nothing to do with beliefs!!

So then the dictionary definition of agnostic should not even mention God at all. If agnostic literally means "without the knowledge of god", why does it in modern usage even make reference to a monotheistic single God? Shouldn't it only be used in reference to an old Greek god, or at least a religion that has lesser gods besides a single God?

If the question of whether a single monotheistic God does or does not exist (a belief) is brought into the definition of a word that literally means "without the knowledge of god", why does every modern English definition make reference to anything in relation to a monotheistic single God?

The only way it can be explained is that the original word and its meaning has evolved into a different meaning in the modern English language. How else?

Gnostic and Agnostic are opposites.

Agreed.

Theist and Atheist are opposites.

Agreed.

Semetrical and Asemetrical are opposites.

Agreed. What is the relevance to this thread?

Typical and Atypical are opposites.

Agreed. What is the relevance to this thread?

The Greek prefix of A at the start of a word means without or non.

Does that prevent an individual word from evolving into having a different meaning in its new language compared with its original meaning in the language it was first created? Hmm, I wonder if that has ever happened before?

Super simple English language interpretation digger.

I agree. I think my understanding and interpretation skills of the English language are extremely lacking. How much do you charge for lessons?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Thanks.

My definition of God in this thread is in reference to the generally accepted monotheistic definition of an omnipotent and omniscient . . . deity.

So, the definition as a Western-Abrahamic idea of a monotheistic, self-aware god, a deity with mostly human traits that happens to be omnipotent, omniscient, etc?

Personally, I DO believe the existence of God is possible.

Which is why I asked you to define God (according to you). You believe it's possible there is a Western-abrahamic type deity. Possible, sure. Got it. Thank you.

As I have just done as you asked, I request that you please return the favour and give me YOUR own definition of God.

I don't have a definition, per se. I use others' definitions when talking with them about their own beliefs (a reason I asked your definition) but I generally lean more toward an eastern interpretation of god in which there is no personification involved, such as the godhead/void.

Therein lies a difference between theism and agnosticism.

a reply to: SirHardHarry

Perhaps, in hindsight, I should have specified in relation to the small section that focused on the existence of God that I was referring to the single Western-Abrahamic God specifically.

However, I really am curious as to why you chose to press me on something that, in relation to the opening post as a whole, I do not believe is a significant detail by any stretch of the imagination. I am on a Western-based website, with a majority Western-based audience, with an audience that is predominately made up of adherents of a Monthesistic Abrahamic religion as well as irreligious, agnostic and atheist people among them. A tiny minority of my audience may be more familiar or in support of an "Eastern interpretation of god" and it didn't even cross my mind to consider their sensibilities when making this thread, because the significance of me doing that in relation to its relevance of the thread is probably smaller than the number of people who do have that view. So Why do it?

If you wish to create a thread that is more Eastern focused in terms of philosophy and belief systems, I highly recommend you start a thread about it and see where it goes from there. Even though this is a Western website with a majority Western audience, if you feel passionately about the topic then create a thread about it and see what happens. (As far as I know there is no T&C preventing anybody from doing so? If you are unsure, message a moderator and ask before.)

I have studied a unit on Eastern Philosophy while I was at university for one of my minor subjects, and while it was very interesting and fascinating in its approach to say its Western counterpart, I personally found it to be very low on logic and reason and very prioritised with leading the learner into accepting that ultimately everything is connected and even the tiniest of seemingly insignificant actions should have greater scrutiny placed on them just because they have the potential to lead to greater benefit or misfortune down the road.

I only did one unit, so my opinion on the topic cannot be taken as gospel, but for me, that one unit was enough to realise I was personally better off investing my time in Western Philosophy, which upon reading the first paragraph of the first text in class hit me with a light bulb moment that has yet to be extinguished to this day.

To be clear on my own position: In terms of my views on a "Westernised" God concept and an "Easternised" God concept, I do believe Eastern philosophy is more accurate and more in line with what would meet MY definition of a God if he did exist. The trouble is I don't believe there is, at present, strong evidence to confirm the existence of an Easternised concept of God either. So, while neither can be struck out, just because I think the Eastern version is more plausible, does not mean I ought to give it my backing and disregard other beliefs that are not compatible with that one.

I have actually made a thread in the past that I believe might interest you:

Our Big Mistake: The Personification of 'God'

(Keep in mind that thread is from 2014. Although my self-identification has changed from an agnostic then to an atheist now, I think my views are still very similar overall. From memory, I think I had just stumbled upon the concept of Deism and was excited that my previous, narrow-minded views on the concept of God and his nature had been made much broader in scope.)

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Annee

Your reply confims my point.

Agnostic just mean 'without the knowledge of god'. Full stop. Im agnostic with regards to Hindu, Nordic and Mesoamerican myths.

I don't think that is what I said.

I said: There is no confirmed knowledge of god or confirmed knowledge there is no god.

God can not be proven or unproven - - by believers or those who lack belief.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
In relation to the existence or non-existence of God:
Atheist: I do not believe in the existence of a God or gods.
Agnostic: I cannot confirm or deny the existence of God because I cannot confirm or deny whether such an assertion is possible for me to know.

If you cannot confirm nor deny the existence of a God or gods then you do not believe in the existence of God or gods.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Then, in regards to my question about WOW, your position is an agnostic one. You hold at least one agnostic position by default. Congratulations. Don't worry, you won't self-implode. You may end up fighting on the internet about the fact that you believe agnosticism is a dishonest position while upholding an agnostic position yourself — which would by extension mean that at least one of your positions is a dishonest one, and by refusing to do any research on the topic AND not giving a YES OR NO answer to the question asked, despite being able to access the information easily and being able to make an informed opinion, you are choosing to be dishonest by choice. THAT may happen, but at least you have your health, right?

I actually might feel bad at this point, but you forced my hand. You gave me no choice. I had to do it.

I'm sure there are nerds with the correct answer to the WOW question.
I don't believe it's unknowable. And by not researching I believe I'm taking the honest route of accepting my ignorance of the subject. It's not agnoticism.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Think about the WHOLE thread and read every reply of yours and mine carefully. Come back and ask yourself this: Is Dark Ghost sorry, does he feel the need to apologise for doing what he just did? My answer: YOU tell me?

I've already got one apology out of you, I'm happy with that.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

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

Explain. Present a clear rebutte.

There is no way to explain anything without observer.

If no observers exist no "concept" or "definition" of reality exists.

No proof of reality exists without observers.

Once an observer is present a probability waveform exists and has a potentional for a collapse into "reality"

It's one explanation.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
If you cannot confirm nor deny the existence of a God or gods then you do not believe in the existence of God or gods.

Who is arguing with that? Not many people at all. Reasonable people are arguing with the conclusions people such as you are drawing from when others say that.

For example: do YOU see a difference between the following two statements:

1) I do not believe in God.
2) God does not exist.

If you do or you do not, please explain?

I'm sure there are nerds with the correct answer to the WOW question.
I don't believe it's unknowable. And by not researching I believe I'm taking the honest route of accepting my ignorance of the subject. It's not agnoticism.

You don't even need to be a nerd to find out the question. In fact, if you have never played a PC game in your life, but know how to use an internet browser and a search engine, it would take you no longer than 5 minutes.

I STILL don't believe you have grasped the point I was making in that reply. Why don't you read over it again and try.

I've already got one apology out of you, I'm happy with that.

Was it a genuine apology? Why don't you read over the thread again and find out.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

However, I really am curious as to why you chose to press me on something that

Because I wanted to know what your definition was for the sake of this thread.

If you wish to create a thread that is more Eastern focused in terms of philosophy and belief systems, I highly recommend you start a thread about it and see where it goes from there.

I don't.

I only did one unit, so my opinion on the topic cannot be taken as gospel, but for me, that one unit was enough to realise I was personally better off investing my time in Western Philosophy, which upon reading the first paragraph of the first text in class hit me with a light bulb moment that has yet to be extinguished to this day.

What works for you is fine with me. Personally, my enlightenment came after, having questioned the Western-abrahamic concept of god pretty much entire life, reading Ken Wilbur's The Spectrum of Consciousness.

I have actually made a thread in the past that I believe might interest you:

I'll check it out.

Hence why philosophy categorized two versions of atheism. Hard and soft.

Because some atheists do make claims of belief that there is no God. Which is indeed different than I don't believe in a god.

a reply to: luthier

The irony is that even those atheists who claim strongly that God does not exist, cannot exist and that the man's "need" for the concept of God explains all why he has ever been referenced...will be choking on their words and be filled with an instant indescribable fear IF God does decide to show himself and turns out to be anything like Western monotheistic religions describe. There will no longer be an option to deny God's existence.

In my opinion, the hard assertion that "God does not exist" when it is said with the intent to demonstrate a 100% irrefutable statement of fact is WORSE than having a strong believe in God and maintaining a tiny morsel of doubt.

I have very little respect for people in terms of their intellectual capabilities (NOT their character, personality or other attributes that make up the person they are) when they make, what they believe are, irrefutable claims about such significant topics. It is pretty much the height of intellectual arrogance that I can fathom.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

will be choking on their words and be filled with an instant indescribable fear IF God does decide to show himself and turns out to be anything like Western monotheistic religions describe.

So, basically, better safe than sorry?

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: Dark Ghost

will be choking on their words and be filled with an instant indescribable fear IF God does decide to show himself and turns out to be anything like Western monotheistic religions describe.

So, basically, better safe than sorry?

There is a philosphical argument that goes like that but I don't find it convincing.

Basically if you believe in god and live with a little piety and it is false no harm no foul maybe you missed out on some glutany that would have been fun.

But if it's true and your damned to hell it's a pretty big loss.


I think what he is saying is atheism that makes a claim without proof is worse than having faith. Maybe because of the hipocrisy involved.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
So, basically, better safe than sorry?

No., that is not what I was arguing at all. Keep in mind I mentioned the whole thing was IRONIC before I made my argument.

originally posted by: luthier
I think what he is saying is atheism that makes a claim without proof is worse than having faith. Maybe because of the hipocrisy involved.

That is very close to what I am saying, but let me clarify so that there remains no confusion:

In my opinion (as an atheist), atheists who make a definitive claim without proof (There is no God. God does not exist) AND expect others to accept and not challenge that claim when the discussion of God's existence takes place are WORSE than theists who make a definitive claim without proof (God does exist. There is no question that God exists.) BUT still maintain a morsel of doubt that they are willing to acknowledge it's possible God might not exist when they enter a topic involving the relevant discussion.

In the buddhist view; we are all chained to a life trying to seek freedom; all slaves to the links of causation. The first cause that led to any life? Irrelevant... life is here already. So how does one carry it? Typically by form as some type of life... attached to a specific form? Then one could think themselves anything; from a germ to a god/goddess of course awareness... says all at once in all possible conceivable forms and non forms.

But that is aside the point... freedom means not in bondage to any of them, nor any system of belief or idea or concept that would leave one stuck in bondage to any specific form.

The start of life is typically called conception... an idea an ideology and attachment a concept that can be clung or desired too... of course in such grasping? Those before us? Hey didnt want to be alone... so conglomerating together started conspiring and accepting a standard of concepts as reality.

This was and is language... it all varies. Even from person to person... relative to the observer; do have have to conspire to anything as a reality? NO only to do one thing: Communicate when in contact with another.

Otherwise? Chains, not chained? It just is what it is as it arises and passes in awareness. Thats it... you do not make any of it conscious, your sense doors do... grasping with the eye the mind reflects nothing but concept the agreed conspiracy not the truth. The other senses do the same, in that conspiracy of chosen concept hey this seems real... but there is all of this unexplained... thats because it is all concept not real ephemeral a phantasm.

The grasping one has done at life deluded that it stays in one specific form? only experiences knowledge not life.

Letting go of all form then hey one is also formless... eventually over time and practice of not conspiring? One will become formless... emanate when they feel like it not bound by the constraints or conspiracies if what anything is. When it all just is and thats it.

Over time of this letting go? Powers known as "god like" can arise... and what happens? Abuse. One gets stuck in the damned cycle some not even aware they are stuck wandering around as a ghost. They go bump in the night being a roommate not knowing they are a roommate being a family not knowing they are just a ghost.

Sadness, such have done one thing... stopped they stopped going the way of in letting go... carry whole decades of zombies and past moments and memories unfolding the entire world of delusion around them... wont seem like it because of the conspiracy of language. It rarely changes... the concepts seem to stay the same in communication so hey who would know?

So let go keep going... no matter what arises and passes it just is. These bonds and relationships are just that. They are also temporary and what we suffer... being infinite beings? We must assume another form desiring only permanence having lost the understanding of our true infinite nature in the dream of the conspiracy the nonsense we take as real.

Of course consent or no consent? No one has any right over you what so ever you are not nor are ever anyones property. The idea of control comes from accepting the conspiracy of the concepts as reality.

So accepting any of it? Controlled... until it is finally seen that one cannot be; and then one is finally let go... no need to fight against it or cause anyone harm... impermanence just work on letting go so much so? No one else has anything that they could possibly grasp as an existing you. Then one also just is the same as everything else as it just is. Reality finally presents itself...

Too many have stopped short using knowledge and concept to control when they get to a certain point of release.

Temptation... dont bite, keep going or else no freedom. Keep letting go and letting go and it occurs, then just pure awareness, as all else grasps but unless you grab back? A puff of smoke a bubble pop moment over and it vanishes back into the next moment forgotten not held.

Those that have stopped short, "gods" of the past "godesses" of the past? Shame on you. Worked to free oneself so far only to then turn around and to place others into bondage. Admonishment is a good thing... once a slave turning into a slaver only serves to sell oneself as a slave right into the same system... then what? Bye try again if you can make it past the mind erase called death... the illusion of a new form and "family" having allowed oneself to attach and to abuse?

Thats exactly what one deserves as an inheritance.