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

reply to post by Words


It is not the agnostics' job to define any gods. That task belongs to those who would emulate and promote those gods. But it seems that the thought of testing their idols in such a manner is so presumptuous as to be repellent. Just one more facet of the truth that captures my interest. You can learn a lot about a society by studying its gods and heroes, its villains and demons.

This is obviously a contentious subject but let's dispense with the personal commentary and off topic posts

reply to post by BenReclused


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.

As an atheist there is one answer I can give to all of your questions including the bonus ones. 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.

reply to post by Words

My first argument is that Agnosticism involves some conviction in regards to God.

Agnosticism's conviction is that we need conclusive evidence before we can have conclusive certainty.

It makes the assumption that God or No God cannot be confirmed

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. Will this change? Perhaps. Nothing in agnosticism presupposes that's an impossibility. It's merely asking for an honest reflection of our current limitations. Should those limitations always be true it wouldn't translate to agnosticism assuming it.

this presupposes that some knowledge about the properties of God is to be believed, that is, that the properties of God are unknowable.

Not sure I follow. Discussing hypothetical properties means said person believes them to be objectively true? The only reason "god" is determined to be unknowable is because we are discussing the idea with the traditional framework of "god". Which is a supernatural force i.e outside of nature. If you want to define a "god" that isn't outside of nature then by all means we can potentially drop the unknowable aspect.

Second, agnostics claim they will await for confirmation before making any decision.

Before they will make any decision on the certainty of the truthfulness of the proposition. It doesn't prevent the person from having the proposition to begin with. That's the point being discussed about 'agnostic atheism'.

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.

That's a non-sequitur.

The futility of seeking confirmation, or waiting for confirmation, in no way necessarily presupposes belief in 'god'.

Someone claims there is an alien spaceship in our solar system. They have advanced tech that allows them to remain cloaked. We currently lack the ability to evaluate the claim so it's for now unknowable. We would be waiting for evidence in order to believe the claim was true. You're essentially saying everyone to some degree would believe that alien ship is in our solar system and cloaked because they are awaiting the evidence. Waiting for it doesn't necessarily imply they believe the evidence is coming..

If I misunderstood anything let me know.

reply to post by Words

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.

Yeah, I can understand your concern over that one. I've been agnostic my whole life, but I didn't know it until I read that "kind of crap", many years ago... and didn't believe it. That's just philosophical nonsense that doesn't mean... well... you know...

I've got to do some other things for a while, but I'll address the rest of your post as soon as I can.

See ya buddy,
Milt

Thought experiment for everyone:
Read the quoted material above, and ask yourself if that would have meant anything when you were born. Then:
When I was born, was I an atheist, an agnostic, or a theist?

If "agnostic", which is what the answer should be, ask yourself:
Did, not knowing "proper doctrine", really preclude me from being an agnostic.

Thoughts...

I'll be back...

reply to post by BenReclused


In answer to your question, doctrine is merely an instance of that which has lead me to atheism. I have never once asked myself about god and decided the answer was impossible. I have only ever questioned whether the answer was worth the question...because its so much more than just a question. Its a plea for significance and meaning, to most people.

BenReclused
If "agnostic", which is what the answer should be, ask yourself:
Did, not knowing "proper doctrine", really preclude me from being an agnostic.

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.

reply to post by My_Reality

I don't understand your post.

Yep, it sure seems that way...

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.

I didn't demand a damn thing. Participation in this "Little Experiment" is only by choice. If you don't want to play, that's perfectly fine.

The answer to each individual question is irrelevant.

I agree! I was more interested in reactions, than answers.

All this talk of deities, if they did or did not exist, if they are possible, etc. are all irrelevant to an atheist.

Bull... If that "talk" weren't relevant to atheists. There would be no atheists. True agnostics are the ONLY one's that don't have a "rabbit" in that dog race.

I simply don't care if any deities exist.

Heck, I know that... Atheists only care that they don't 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'm sorry, but your beliefs, are not my concern. I am, ONLY, interested in focusing on the difference between agnosticism, and atheism.

If you don't want to participate in that "focus", don't...

Though you don't know that you did, thank you, very much, for participating.

Good bye,
Milt

reply to post by daskakik

I am starting to think you don't know what agnostic means.

That's okay... your thoughts are your concerns, not mine.

A baby is not theist, atheist or agnostic.

That was an absolute proof that you don't understand what an agnostic is. But once again that's your problem, not mine.

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".

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.

I doubt that babies are holding views about ultimate realities or fighting against commitment to opinions.

Compare that to the new, condensed, definition above. If you disagree with that definition... that's though... and I'll get over it...

By the way your commitment to the opinion of what qualifies as agnostic goes against your second definition.

Huh...

Thanks for participating...

See ya buddy,
Milt

New question for all participants:
If you never heard of God, would you be concerned about His existence?

See ya,
Milt

BenReclused
That's okay... your thoughts are your concerns, not mine.

Never said they were yours.

That was an absolute proof that you don't understand what an agnostic is. But once again that's your problem, not mine.

No it wasn't and that is your problem.

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.

The new definition is just a twist to fit your claim. It is worthless.

Compare that to the new, condensed, definition above. If you disagree with that definition... that's though... and I'll get over it...

Guess you'll have to.

Huh...

That about sums it up.

BenReclused
New question for all participants:
If you never heard of God, would you be concerned about His existence?

I thought it wasn't about god.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


A fair analysis.

Agnosticism's conviction is that we need conclusive evidence before we can have conclusive certainty.

Yes but my question is "on what grounds"? 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? I am being sincere with these questions.

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.

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? Something outside of nature? How do you know this unknowable thing is outside of nature? This is what I cannot wrap my head around. The agnostic is convinced that this unknowable thing is unknowable, an assumption, but on what grounds? According to whom? These are assumptionsSeriously, what conclusive evidence does any agnostic have that points to this unknowable thing as being unknowable? and that one needs conclusive evidence to deny it?

There seems to be enough conclusive evidence that points to it being a story in a book, or a fairytale. There is many instances of this same occurrence throughout all cultures.

Atheism and theism I can understand, but agnosticism makes little sense. It’s starting to sound a little like superstition, and it also sounds like agnosticism is simply a refusal to let go.

reply to post by Words

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?

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.

But what “thing” are you talking about?

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.

If it is unknowable how do you know its unknowable, an unknowable thing?

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.

How are you able to have any opinion on it whatsoever?

What you're saying is fair insofar as it brings up the absurdity of defining a 'god'. But again it's the theists that make the claim it exists, and they each give their religious descriptions of it. So the skeptical agnostic surely can have an opinion on those. This opinion can simply be the lack of belief in the existence absent of any certainty whether the belief is true or not.

Atheism and theism I can understand, but agnosticism makes little sense.

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

reply to post by daskakik

I thought it wasn't about god.

It isn't, and that was point of that question.

See ya buddy,
Milt

Question for all:
If one never heard of God, how could it be about God?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

The theists are pushing the claim. The agnostic approaches their claim with evidence-based inquiry.

No we don't!

Agnostics don't have a belief in God, nor do we "approach" anyone's claims. We, quite honestly, don't give a damn, EITHER WAY.

However, when ANYONE does "approach" us with a claim, WE WILL, indeed, ask for substantial objective evidence, before we can consider that claim to be a "Certain Believe". We ARE the ultimate skeptics.

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.

Regarding your "agnosticism":
Until you can dismiss "atheism" as an "Uncertain belief", you will never be anything other than an atheist. And, I wish you, and buddies, would quite trying to hijack my "ism". I sure, as Hell, don't want yours.

See ya buddy,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

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.

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.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

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.

Yes. I'm saying the only evidence for God, any God, is that God himself. Awaiting for that type of evidence is literally awaiting for God.

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.

But the agnostic is making the claim (not outright, but implying) that it could exist, based on no evidence-based inquiry whatsoever.

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.

But its not unknowable. It's not knowable and its not unknowable, and assuming any of these is based on zero evidence. Simply because it is posited as supernatural does not make it so. Once again, evidence should be looked at, and we could discuss fairly reasonably the attributes and properties of God, according to the evidence we do have, not according to the evidence we don't have. Excuse the philosophy, but it is a philosophical and abstract topic after all.

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

Yes I would argue that agnosticism is a simple refusal to participate in the debate. Yet here we are asserting that God is unknowable, that the other positions are foolish, all within a forum dedicated to religion.

Cheers.

reply to post by Words


God himself might be unknowable, but the existence of said god is not. It can be tested.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I disagree with all of that.

I knew that you would. After all, atheists tend to feel that they are the smartest of the smart, and the best of the best.

As an agnostic, I can only consider that to be a subjective truth, that I do, indeed, BELIEVE. And, I KNOW that a great many of your posts will, ONLY, confirm that belief.

You're making assumptions regarding what atheists dislike, and more importantly, atheists disliking stuff is beside the point.

No, that was not an assumption. That was a valid conclusion that was based on personal experience. You played a huge role in that determination. And, I can link to a number of your posts that would, indeed, confirm that conclusion. Should I, do so?

Not to mention that you've ignored my suggestions on how the matter may be resolved.

You didn't need to mention that, as I am very well aware of it. Below, please find the reason why:

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.

I'm not interested in "resolving" that "matter". Nor, is that "matter" the subject of this "Little Experiment". Agnostics aren't interested in PROVING ANYTHING ABOUT GOD. Because WE DO NOT HAVE A BELIEF IN GOD, WE, quite honestly, DO NOT GIVE A DAMN. That "issue" only concerns atheists, and theists. Unless you're willing to dismiss that "issue", as a "FIGHT OVER NOTHING", YOU CAN NEVER BE AN AGNOSTIC.

But surely I don't have to explain logic to you?

You are correct! Unfortunately, your EXTREMELY SUBJECTIVE LOGIC (?) dictates that you must ignore the topic of this thread: AGNOSTICISM.

I'm sure you know how this stuff works.

I'm not sure if I do, or not. What was "this stuff" in reference to? (Though, that question is sincere, it is also intended to be an example of agnostic thinking)

You seem to have forgotten the focus of this discussion, so no star, this time...

See ya buddy,
Milt