Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True, but as I said earlier my problem with "agnostics" is the fence sitting 50/50 ones who are indifferent to the discussion. I find this just as irrational as religious people. You have a brain, you can't be indifferent to such a question.
So you're saying agnostics are stupid? That's what agnosticism is, is not being able to say with certainty either way and you obviously don't get it. It's relatively simple and you're trying to make it complicated. You're talking "probabilities" and that is absolutely ridiculous in trying to say that agnostics should just lean towards atheism just cause "you say so". You're no different than the religious zealots.
So you're saying agnostics are stupid? That's what agnosticism is, is not being able to say with certainty either way and you obviously don't get it. It's relatively simple and you're trying to make it complicated. You're talking "probabilities" and that is absolutely ridiculous in trying to say that agnostics should just lean towards atheism just cause "you say so". You're no different than the religious zealots.
I have to say, Ilene, that I also had some impatience with 'agnostics', which I put in quotes as it seems to refer to the way the term is popularly understood rather than the technically correct definition.
I saw it as 'fence - sitting' since the way I saw it, one either believed in God or didn't and to take 'I don't know' as a belief - position seemed to me to be logically untenable and more to do with a misunderstanding that atheism does not deny that a god could possibly exist, but does not see the evidence as supporting anything more than an unknown possibility.
Since then I have come to understand that many agnostics might have serious doubts about personal gods and their religions but still believe in 'god' of some kind. Perhaps many are what we'd call non - religious theists who are either convinced that the case for ID or first cause is persuasive or who have had a personal mystical experience.
I see them as very much under our tent as the atheists beef is with religious beliefs. not with those who have had mystical experiences or who intelectually find First cause arguments persuasive. (I do not admit ID'ers since their arguments are not good science).
I don't know quite what you angle is (or I forgot it) but as an 'agnostic' who can't buy into Holybook claims anymore, I see you as in Our camp.
I think that one day you will come to see that non belief in something without really persuasive evidence is the logical position and will accept that atheism is logically sound and accept the title.
Until then, I would, though I see the point Bibi was making, advocate patience with an 'agnostic'. You are dealing with a serious change of worldview that I never had to.
(Especially addressing ILENE WRIGHT's and then AREQUIPA's comments, right above this comment):
If someone would ask me "WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?" (i.e., in regards to whether there is a God or not, the origins of the universe or the cosmos or of life as we know it, the truth of particular religions or religious claims such as Christianity), I would say:
"I believe in the TRUTH . . . whatever the truth is, wherever it takes me, wherever it points to, whatever its implications or outcomes are for me or for anyone or anything else), that is where I go. As best as I can know or ascertain what the truth is or most likely is, that is where I go and that is what I embrace AStruth (or "likely truth"). If the things YOU proclaim to believe as truth are, in fact, "the truth", then I believe them; if they are not, then I don't believe them. In summary, I am a TRUE truth seeker (in the truest sense of the word) and only want to live in truth, not in 'belief'."
Then if they ask me: "So what IS the truth?" (they mean "what is the truth 'to ME', personally?"), I will answer:
"IDON'TKNOW (or at least in an absolute sense). And you know what? Neither do you, and neither does anyone else. But at least I have the intellectual honesty and moral integrity to say so . . . to say that "I don't know". The way I see it is that the truth is not in us; it doesn't come from us. It exists independent of us. We as humans don't "create" truth. The truth exists independent of us, outside of us. Hence, regardless of what we think is true or want to believe is true (or want to believe is not true), the truth is INDEPENDENT OF US. It stands on its own . . . regardless of what we think it is, regardless of whether we see it or whether we accept it or not. And the truth even exists INDEPENDENT OF any god or gods. Some religionists say 'God is truth' or 'God is the source of all truth' or 'whatever God says is true, is the truth'. I say that God himself or herself or itself is ALSO subject to the demands of truth. That is, the truth exists independent of even any god of any description and he/she/it is also subject to the demands and parameters of truth."
"In summary, I embrace THE TRUTH (whatever it is, however it suits me or doesn't suit me) AS truth . . . regardless of whether I like or don't like what it says or what implications it has for me or for others. What I'm saying is that I DON'T try to forge or create 'the truth' (i.e., to shape or create my own truth to suit my own needs or wants or agenda); I try to recognize it and see itAS IT IS and FOR WHAT IT IS and don't try to embellish it, reduce it, change it to be more to my liking, et al. THAT is the definition of a 'TRUE truth seeker'".
The point of all the above verbiage is to say that, on matters regarding the origins of the cosmos (i.e., the entirety of existence, whether a single universe or a multiplicity of universes) or of life at-large, of humans and human consciousness, et al, I would call myself an AGNOSTIC. At times, I feel inclined to say an "ATHEISTIC AGNOSTIC" or an "AGNOSTIC ATHEIST". I don't claim "absolutely" that "there is definitely no god or gods"; I instead say:
"I haven't thus far been presented with undeniable and convincing evidence of the existence and nature of any god or gods (i.e., real evidence . . . evidence that truly serves as evidence, as would be judged by the 'rules of evidence' as prevails in a court of law in the British and American systems of law or would prevail in the court of science). If such evidence is presented and meets the standards of evidence (as I just described), then my view can change. But until then, I would say I 'lean towards' the view that it is 'most probable' that there is an 'eternal cosmos' and that is 'most probable' to be a 'non-designed cosmos' based upon what evidences we have thus far. I don't say there 'absolutely' is and can be 'absolutely' proven to be NO GOD OR GODS but just that, with what we DO know (epistemologically and scientifically KNOW), there appears to be no role for any intelligent supreme creator being or beings to serve in the big picture . . . and said being or beings, if he/she/it does, in fact, exist, has not taken it upon himself/herself/itself to make himself/herself/itself evident to us. If evidence becomes available in the future to alter this thinking of mine, then I will re-evaluate and my views can change . . . but it is going to be based on EVIDENCE and ONLY ON EVIDENCE (not on appeals to faith, nor appeals to emotion, nor to subjective experiences, nor to depending on simple logical tautologies, nor to arguments appealing to ignorance or authority, nor to any desire or pressure to conform). I am NOT into nor concerned with what is called 'belief' but only 'knowledge' (as defined by the philosophical field of epistemology). To me, the word 'belief', as religionists use it, is a shorthand way of saying 'make-believe': literally, one 'MAKES THEMSELVES BELIEVE' something to be true that they do NOT epistemologically KNOW to be true . . . but they take it upon themselves to embrace it as truth ANYWAY and call it 'truth)."
All that I have stated above is thought of, by me, to be the view of an AGNOSTIC (i.e., an agnostic in its purest form). But note, as delineated by all I have said here and in my previous postings in this thread, that I am not what some here have called a "'50/50' agnostic". That is, I don't think it is a "50/50 probability" and therefore can swing equally in one direction or in the other direction. I view the probability of the theists/deists being right as being "near zero probability" or let's call it "unprovable or undiscernable probablity" but, being that I can't prove them absolutely wrongABSOLUTELY, I call myself an AGNOSTIC (but more like an "ATHEISTIC AGNOSTIC" or an "AGNOSTIC ATHEIST" . . . until and unless given reason to be otherwise).
I have to say, Ilene, that I also had some impatience with 'agnostics', which I put in quotes as it seems to refer to the way the term is popularly understood rather than the technically correct definition.
I saw it as 'fence - sitting' since the way I saw it, one either believed in God or didn't and to take 'I don't know' as a belief - position seemed to me to be logically untenable and more to do with a misunderstanding that atheism does not deny that a god could possibly exist, but does not see the evidence as supporting anything more than an unknown possibility.
Since then I have come to understand that many agnostics might have serious doubts about personal gods and their religions but still believe in 'god' of some kind. Perhaps many are what we'd call non - religious theists who are either convinced that the case for ID or first cause is persuasive or who have had a personal mystical experience.
I see them as very much under our tent as the atheists beef is with religious beliefs. not with those who have had mystical experiences or who intelectually find First cause arguments persuasive. (I do not admit ID'ers since their arguments are not good science).
I don't know quite what you angle is (or I forgot it) but as an 'agnostic' who can't buy into Holybook claims anymore, I see you as in Our camp.
I think that one day you will come to see that non belief in something without really persuasive evidence is the logical position and will accept that atheism is logically sound and accept the title.
Until then, I would, though I see the point Bibi was making, advocate patience with an 'agnostic'. You are dealing with a serious change of worldview that I never had to.
I guess I just don't see any problem at all with being an agnostic.....or claiming agnosticism because to me that's basically what all atheists really are anyway since god cannot be proven or dis-proven. I can't ever imagine getting to a point where I could absolutely claim that there is not some sort of god. NO ONE can, so why claim such a thing? I mean I have atheist leanings now because I really don't "think" there is a god, but I still call myself an agnostic simply because I can't prove it. So I guess I'm more of an agnostic-atheist now, but according to others there cannot be such a thing. Gotta love those "labels".
I guess I just don't see any problem at all with being an agnostic.....or claiming agnosticism because to me that's basically what all atheists really are anyway since god cannot be proven or dis-proven. I can't ever imagine getting to a point where I could absolutely claim that there is not some sort of god. NO ONE can, so why claim such a thing? I mean I have atheist leanings now because I really don't "think" there is a god, but I still call myself an agnostic simply because I can't prove it. So I guess I'm more of an agnostic-atheist now, but according to others there cannot be such a thing. Gotta love those "labels".
For someone who was once a theist, I consider agnosticism as being "on your way to atheism." Once you start doubting belief in God, that's pretty much where you are.
I guess I just don't see any problem at all with being an agnostic.....or claiming agnosticism because to me that's basically what all atheists really are anyway since god cannot be proven or dis-proven. I can't ever imagine getting to a point where I could absolutely claim that there is not some sort of god. NO ONE can, so why claim such a thing? I mean I have atheist leanings now because I really don't "think" there is a god, but I still call myself an agnostic simply because I can't prove it. So I guess I'm more of an agnostic-atheist now, but according to others there cannot be such a thing. Gotta love those "labels".
It seems like you interpreted the original statement differently than I did. It sounded to me like the original disagreement was with a specific type of agnostic who believes, based on current evidence, the odds of there being a god are the same of there not being a god. Personally, I don't know any agnostics who specifically believe that and based on what you said above, you don't appear to be that type of agnostic. Nevertheless, if I do come across that particular type of agnostic, I offer them the opportunity to come here and defend their beliefs.
Nope they are not theists or atheists. They just say "no one knows".
That's the way I always thought of agnostics. They just say, "I don't know if god exist" and do not state a belief in one because it can't be proven either way. Most atheist tend to state, "I don't know if god exist, but I don't believe in one." One states a belief, the other does not.
I guess I just don't see any problem at all with being an agnostic.....or claiming agnosticism because to me that's basically what all atheists really are anyway since god cannot be proven or dis-proven. I can't ever imagine getting to a point where I could absolutely claim that there is not some sort of god. NO ONE can, so why claim such a thing? I mean I have atheist leanings now because I really don't "think" there is a god, but I still call myself an agnostic simply because I can't prove it. So I guess I'm more of an agnostic-atheist now, but according to others there cannot be such a thing. Gotta love those "labels".
I agree - I don't think the semantics are worth fighting about. Though I might argue furiously with Boxcar about his view that a 'god' of some kind is so probable that it is (together with the agnostic label) more logical and rational than atheism about ANY kind of 'god', it is actually academic and he and I are absolutely on the same side as regards organized religion.
While I do think that you may one day come to see your reluctance to embrace the 'atheist' label rather as you do now your adherence to fundamentalist Christianity, you may well stay as you are and I wouldn't have a great problem with you over that. Those who are not against us I reckon are for us.
That's the way I always thought of agnostics. They just say, "I don't know if god exist" and do not state a belief in one because it can't be proven either way. Most atheist tend to state, "I don't know if god exist, but I don't believe in one." One states a belief, the other does not.
You are quite right. Logically correctly, agnosticism is a knowledge position 'I don't know whether or not a god exists...' and atheism is a belief position arising from that knowledge position- '...So I will not believe in one until I do know.'
But many use the label agnosticism to denote a belief position which hovers around a half - acceptance of a god of some kind based on some rather persuasive first cause arguments.
That's the way I always thought of agnostics. They just say, "I don't know if god exist" and do not state a belief in one because it can't be proven either way. Most atheist tend to state, "I don't know if god exist, but I don't believe in one." One states a belief, the other does not.
Let's say someone asked you the question "do you believe in god."? If you cannot answer affirmatively "yes, I believe in god", then you are by definition an atheist in regards to belief. You still can claim that you do not "know" whether or not god exists (agnostic), but you additionally would currently be without a belief in one (atheist). That doesn't mean that you don't think gods are "possible", just that you do not currently actively believe in any particular god. All agnostics either have a belief in god (theist/deist) or they don't (atheist). You don't have to choose to be an atheist, or purposely claim the title of atheist, to be one by definition.
Maybe we should ask the question as such: "Despite not having knowledge of any god, do you believe in one?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
