Agnostic = Nonsense

reply to post by iSHRED

However on the other hand, if God does reveal His traits to you, then of course you know Him, you sought Him and He responded therefore proving His existence (in a way that others won't understand).

I would agree with this if someone could come up with a way that a god has made himself known without it being in a way that can be explained as a natural occurrence. People could say, 'God made himself known to me by saving me from a rapist." The questions would then be,

How? Did the 40-year-old rapist miraculously suffer a heart attack? Why would it be miraculous when millions of forty-year-olds suffer heart attacks each year?

Why was this victim saved while millions of others (even nuns) weren't?

Sadly, people believe in this type of supernatural intervention when perfectly natural and logical explanations would suffice.

reply to post by Cody618

Because the only thing anyone can really know, is that there isn't anything you can know.

How do you know that?

reply to post by iSHRED


I totally agree. It's black or white on this issue. Either gods reveal themselves to you, or they don't exist, since there is just no reason to think "maybe", or, "I don't know". Are they there for you? Has something made you think they're there? What is it? For me, there are no gods. I am positive. For people who believe in gods, at least they are saying something. At least they have the guts to put their beliefs out there. Agnostics? They can't even admit that they're decisionless beings. They cover it up. Are they waiting for some revelation? Then they should put it out there that they believe in gods, and they're just waiting for them to reveal themselves.

reply to post by iSHRED


Anytime someone takes a label, whether it be atheist, agnostic, theist etc., they're merely submitting to another ideal. The agnostic submits to the belief that no one can know as easily as the atheists and theists submit to their beliefs. The only difference is which ideal they find suitable enough to believe in. It's really only a matter of taste.

Originally posted by trysts
I totally agree. It's black or white on this issue. Either gods reveal themselves to you, or they don't exist, since there is just no reason to think "maybe", or, "I don't know". Are they there for you? Has something made you think they're there? What is it? For me, there are no gods. I am positive. For people who believe in gods, at least they are saying something. At least they have the guts to put their beliefs out there. Agnostics? They can't even admit that they're decisionless beings. They cover it up. Are they waiting for some revelation? Then they should put it out there that they believe in gods, and they're just waiting for them to reveal themselves.

Why is your answer better than mine?
Because you say so?
Why do I have to approach the question of God or gods -vs- No God or no gods the same as you?
If we're in a debate, and agree to a definition of "God or gods", then there could be rules, boundaries and consensus -but- you're setting up a series of rules, here...that I do not agree to.
You've essentially stated - "pick a side!" (as if there are ONLY TWO.)
"You either believe in God (which in many circles excludes "gods") - Or you don't!"
Do you believe in bosons?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Cody618

 

Because the only thing anyone can really know, is that there isn't anything you can know.

How do you know that?

That basically sums up my OP. You can't know that something is unknowable, but you can however, know something.

Originally posted by speeddr2000
First off the first Agnostic tribes believed in God and didn't believe in church that's why they where one of the first one's killed in the crusades. I am Agnostic i believe in a God i just don't believe whats written in the bible is truth. You can't prove either way that God exist nor doesn't exist so why argue and fight about its being nonsense.

edit on 21-1-2013 by speeddr2000 because: Spelling

By merely speaking you disbelieve what is written in the bible (as your truth) You are defining yourself as something more than an Agnostic. You do not trust scripture. You believe in a God. No one being can prove to you or anyone else God exists. Anyone not being able to prove the physicality of God would be Agnostic. You are argueing a Faith based reasoning. If you seriously doubt the existance of such in the same manner believe in the existance you are a true Agnostic. Otherwise you might be in the process of real Gnosis.

Usually, I don't reply to threads whose title and OP feature flame-baiting and bigotry. Meh. Aggies rule, and I feel religious today.

So if the existence of God is unknowable, how can you know that?

As your dictionary points out, that aspect of the problem is a matter of "probably," and not all agnostics do think that. Also, there are two senses in which the term unknowable can be used: unknowable now or unknowable ever.

That the correct answer to the question of God is not knowable, at least for the time being, is frequently handy as a reply to a cliched style of counterapologetics which depicts agnostics as intellectually lazy, morally cowardly, intentionally decpetive, or otherwise personally responsible for not knowing that God exists (or that God doesn't exist, depending on the counterapologist's own personal beliefs).

So, the agnostic finds many occasions to clarify that the correct answer is unknown because the question is difficult, the evidence is thin, and the arguments are poorly made. The absence of an answer, then, cannot be attributed to any nasty personal trait of the agnostic. If it must be laid to somebody's personal failings, then it is the counterapologist who needs to get their own butt in gear and make some more effective case for their spiel, rather than complaining about the people who aren't buying it.

However on the other hand, if God does reveal His traits to you, then of course you know Him, you sought Him and He responded therefore proving His existence (in a way that others won't understand).

What has that to do with equating agnosticism to nonsense? How do you know that God has ever revealed himself to anybody? Isn't "in a way that others won't understand" your own claim that God is currently unknowable by some people? How can you know that?

Your OP, then, by your own standards, is nonsense.

adj

Admittedly, it's not a strong position

We'll see. Maybe.

Originally posted by eight bits
adj

Admittedly, it's not a strong position

We'll see. Maybe.

I meant that in terms of "I've never met a militant agnostic."

reply to post by eight bits

How do you know that God has ever revealed himself to anybody? Isn't "in a way that others won't understand" your own claim that God is currently unknowable by some people? How can you know that?

The Bible gives us a clue as to how it works.

Do a keyword search for "revealed" in the Bible.

The word is used 38 times, so it's not a daunting task if you are interested in checking it out.

I meant that in terms of "I've never met a militant agnostic."

I know what you meant, adj . Give us time, and we shall evolve a veritable Richard Dawkins of unknowing. Perhaps more like Oscar than any bulldog, but toothy all the same.

Deetermined

Yes, I'm checked out on both the Biblical and Koranic verieties of revelation. My concern was more with the OP's somewhat strident dismissal of an agnostic's confidence about the difficulty of acquiring religious knowledge, contrasted with his or her own proposal for a truly individual and personal route for knowledge acquisition, a method which closes out other people by design (in the OP's stated conception, not necessarily the same thing as what appears throughout the Bible or Koran).

Agnostic is a lose term... its impossible to be at the 50% mark, you either fall 1% into the atheist side or you fall 1% into Theist side.

I don't think anyone can be accurately describe them as agnostic, they need to add a secondary term.

Agnostic-Theist
Agnostic-Atheist

reply to post by adjensen


I call myself an agnostic, but in reality, I waver between being a Deist and an Atheist. Sometimes I think there was an original creator, but he left to go do other things, so he's not around now.

Originally posted by Wonders
I definitely agree that God is knowable.

See my signature!

Hah, some people, "Oh I'm so wise because God is a stranger." Yeah, right.

edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: (no reason given)

*Please do not consider this attack against what you wrote above, but rather a conversation about understanding.*

When you wrote,"I agree that God is knowable", are you indicating that you Know God?

If so, is this because you've personally seen, heard or witnessed God? If so, please tell me about that experience for that would be fascinating and worth a thread of it's own.

If not, is it because you can feel God's presence in your life? Or, is it because you know God through what you have read?

What I'm trying to understand is: What proof do you have to say you Know God or that God is Knowable?

I myself believe that God (the highest source of divine consciousness) exists, but cannot state that I Know God exists. I believe God blesses me, I believe I can feel God's presence in my life and I believe that God will one day reveal his true nature and glory to me when the time is right. But alas, I cannot say I Know what I believe is the truth.

Even if I were to hear, see or touch what has been presented to me as God, how do I know it's actually God or an imposter? I've heard that I would know and would be able to tell the difference, but so many before believed they knew and followed an imposter to their graves.

So in conclusion: Can God be knowable? I don't think so, because only God can know. Us humans are only capable of believing and that's all God has ever asked of us.

Originally posted by iwan2ski

Originally posted by Wonders
I definitely agree that God is knowable.

See my signature!

Hah, some people, "Oh I'm so wise because God is a stranger." Yeah, right.

edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: (no reason given)

*Please do not consider this attack against what you wrote above, but rather a conversation about understanding.*

When you wrote,"I agree that God is knowable", are you indicating that you Know God?

If so, is this because you've personally seen, heard or witnessed God? If so, please tell me about that experience for that would be fascinating and worth a thread of it's own.

If not, is it because you can feel God's presence in your life? Or, is it because you know God through what you have read?

What I'm trying to understand is: What proof do you have to say you Know God or that God is Knowable?

I myself believe that God (the highest source of divine consciousness) exists, but cannot state that I Know God exists. I believe God blesses me, I believe I can feel God's presence in my life and I believe that God will one day reveal his true nature and glory to me when the time is right. But alas, I cannot say I Know what I believe is the truth.

Even if I were to hear, see or touch what has been presented to me as God, how do I know it's actually God or an imposter? I've heard that I would know and would be able to tell the difference, but so many before believed they knew and followed an imposter to their graves.

So in conclusion: Can God be knowable? I don't think so, because only God can know. Us humans are only capable of believing and that's all God has ever asked of us.

Hi, thanks for taking the time to ask.
Can God be knowable? Yes.
I have decided to invite you to read it when I make a thread regarding the time I was filled with the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues. In that thread you'd get a glimpse of how an "impostor" operates.
According to the bible, I do not know God personally. But according to my experiences, I have many reasons to believe that God is very much real and willing to know and interact with his creation, on the basis that one truly seeks to know him personally and does not doubt in their heart. In reality it doesn't take too much faith to display God's power, faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains. But it takes perfect faith and trust in God to be God's friend, which is far more meaningful than merely having a horrible pounding headache disappear in an instant through prayer as happened for me before. The best kind of prayer is one done in secret, where only God sees what you are doing and hears what you are saying.
I believe that God has been very merciful towards me and do hope to experience the abundant life that God promises to those near and far off who trust in and obey Him.
For now I'll end with, yes, I have heard God's voice, yes, I have had prayers answered, and yes, nothing is impossible when one is with God, with being the key word there.
I know that this response may not be your favorite, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a loving God.
There is more I'd share but am a bit pressed for time. So while you're waiting (if you are):
Please, don't be afraid to go into your room alone and pray to God and ask him to show you without an inkling of a doubt that he loves you, your honesty will reward you.

reply to post by iwan2ski


Here it is:

God of wonders.

reply to post by adjensen

Sorry, that is a contradiction -- if you believe in God (any god,) you're not an Agnostic, you're a Theist.

That is actually not true.

theist/atheist determines your belief in god

gnostic/agnostic determines if you claim knowledge about your belief


Most commonly, you have gnostic theists (I believe in god and I have knowledge god exist) and agnostic atheists (I don't believe in god but I have no knowledge if god exist or not).

But you can, even though it is less common, have agnostic theist (I believe in god, but I have no knowledge if god actually exist) and gnostic atheist (I don't believe in god and I have knowledge that god does not exist.

Whenever anybody mentions "agnostic," confusion immediately sets in, which is the legacy of Robert Flint's unsuccessful attempt to word-lawyer a religious view he despised, my religious view, out of existence.

Like any other contingent yes-or-no question, "In your opinion, does God exist?" has three responsive answers: yes, no and "I have no opinion either way." Also, like any question, people will sometimes volunteer additional information beyond what the question asks, for example, a self-description of how confident they are, or some summary of the reason why they answer as they do. Nevertheless, there are three and only three responsive answers to the question asked.

Since the late 19th Century, there has been an ordinary English word for giving the non-categorical responsive answer to the question of God, agnostic. It is a pure coinage; Huxley tells the story of his coining it. It doesn't mean "I don't know," although the roots Huxley chose to use are the Greek for "not knowing."

Huxley used the word to describe himself, and it caught on in the English speaking world during his lifetime. However, as you might expect with anything anyone might coin from simple ancient Greek roots, there was indeed an obsolete philosophical term which was a homonym (same spelling) but not a synonym (different meaning) for the new, actually used word.

With Huxley safely dead, Robert Flint claimed that Huxley's coinage was illegitimate, and deliberately denied the difference between a homonym and a synonym. In other words, he was a 20th Century example of a "pious liar," somebody who serves his God by pursuing fake counterapologetics against an incompatible religious opinion.

Counterapologetics makes strange bedfellows, and atheist extremists have no more use for agnostics than theist extremists do. And so the conspiracy was born, the godly and the godless breast-to-breast, that agnostics should not exist, and therefore they do not exist.

In any case, both words, the two homonyms, are now current. Fortunately, Flint's revival is neither responsive to the question of God, nor does it add anything to the conversation. The question of God is contingent, so no human being properly knows the correct answer. It is vacuous and redundant to add that fact to any of the three responsive answers.

If you happen to be interested in whether somebody "claims" knowledge even though you know that they don't properly have it, then that's fine, but it is still not the information sought by the question of God. If you'd like to add that to your own self-description, then that's swell, too. Just don't pretend that when I describe my substantive religious opinion as "agnostic," that I'm telling you only that I participate in the universal human condition of having nothing more than a purely personal view about ultimate matters.

Plainly, in the Flint revival sense, agnostic has no "opposite" in connection with any contingent question. "Gnostic" is a folk-etymological back formation. Apart from being nonsensical in its proposed uasge, it is also confusing, since a homonym is already in use as the name or doctrinal focus of a specific set of religious sects.

Then again, confusion was exactly what Flint sought. As the saying goes, if you can't confound 'em, then confuse 'em.

However, if you court confusion, then you will not be understood. If you use words to obscure valid distinctions, rather than to illuminate them, then your contribution will be devalued, as it ought to be when you sidestep and fail to address the substance of any question.

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by adjensen

 

Sorry, that is a contradiction -- if you believe in God (any god,) you're not an Agnostic, you're a Theist.

That is actually not true.

theist/atheist determines your belief in god

gnostic/agnostic determines if you claim knowledge about your belief

No, that's not correct -- as EightBits points out, "agnostic" is a word chosen by Huxley as an intentional third point, not as the opposite of "gnostic".

The whole "agnostic/gnostic atheist" thing is a dodge used by atheists to try and give more credibility to their position, because they are wont to admit that atheism is really a statement of belief (or, rather, a statement of non-belief,) which sticks in the craw of most people who consider themselves "more rational than those moron theists, who base everything on belief."

Again, if you believe in a god, any god, you are not an agnostic, you're a theist. Period.

If you don't believe that you do (or can) know anything about said "god", then you have a position, within theism, which is most closely aligned to the Deists and/or Natural Religion types (though there are others, of course.)

reply to post by adjensen


You can believe in a god and not be a theist – you can be a deist, in fact you can dismiss bible god and allah and all the other book/revelation type religions and there by be an atheist (not any kind of theist) and still believe in a god

en.wikipedia.org...