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.
I avoid calling myself an agnostic because that comes with an implication that I think the god/no god theories are equal and either has the same chance of being valid. That is not what I think, I see zero chance of the religious theories being true.
I personally do not see Agnosticism giving equal weight either directly or by default to religions and their corresponding deities. I see it as not knowing if there is a deity, higher alien life force, or simply some sort of grand design or plan beyond random free floating chaos and chance.
Erring on the side of caution or by simple lack of present day evidence with the theory that it is chaotic random chance until some person, deity, alien life force or other convincing evidence of grand design presents itself.
I thought agnosticism re: god was the position that it is impossible for anyone to know whether or not there is a god. One can believe there is a god(s), or lack belief in a god, but one cannot know with certainty either way. So agnosticism is not just a personal statement of lack of knowledge, but a statement that no one can have such knowledge.
Too nitpicky?
Yes,that is a definition I have heard. Without checking, I suspect it is a philosophical definition (like philosophical naturalism that insists on it being certain that there is nothing other than material actions going on. The more practical/scientific and I would think logically tenable position is that no workings other than material -natural workings are known.
To say that knowledge of God is impossible sounds far too big a claim as a god could certainly make itself known if it wanted. True one could say that it could all be in the imagination, but I consider the solipsist argument practically untenable too. So the evidence of a god making itself known would be convincing enough that it could hardly be doubted.
Snce this hasn't happened in any way that stands up to scrutiny, I consider the 'don't know - and no persuasive evidence so far' is the more practical and logically tenable position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...?
I personally do not see Agnosticism giving equal weight either directly or by default to religions and their corresponding deities. I see it as not knowing if there is a deity, higher alien life force, or simply some sort of grand design or plan beyond random free floating chaos and chance.
Erring on the side of caution or by simple lack of present day evidence with the theory that it is chaotic random chance until some person, deity, alien life force or other convincing evidence of grand design presents itself.
I personally do not see Agnosticism giving equal weight either directly or by default to religions and their corresponding deities. I see it as not knowing if there is a deity, higher alien life force, or simply some sort of grand design or plan beyond random free floating chaos and chance.
Erring on the side of caution or by simple lack of present day evidence with the theory that it is chaotic random chance until some person, deity, alien life force or other convincing evidence of grand design presents itself.
I've no problem with the above view, but would point out it still required a paragraph of explanation regarding how you define agnosticism, for you to introduce yourself as an agnostic.
And that was my point. The faithful have convenient labels..I'm a Methodist....I'm a Shiite. Even the eccentric breakaway groups can still get the idea out there in a relatively few number of words...like "Second Reformed Eucharistic Covenant Friends" or such.
We who are cursed with being more thoughtful and less accepting, are left saying "I'm a Blankest provided that you understand Blankism to mean this, that and the other thing, but not to mean that, this and the other thing."
I've no problem with the above view, but would point out it still required a paragraph of explanation regarding how you define agnosticism, for you to introduce yourself as an agnostic.
And that was my point. The faithful have convenient labels..I'm a Methodist....I'm a Shiite. Even the eccentric breakaway groups can still get the idea out there in a relatively few number of words...like "Second Reformed Eucharistic Covenant Friends" or such.
We who are cursed with being more thoughtful and less accepting, are left saying "I'm a Blankest provided that you understand Blankism to mean this, that and the other thing, but not to mean that, this and the other thing."
I thought agnosticism re: god was the position that it is impossible for anyone to know whether or not there is a god. One can believe there is a god(s), or lack belief in a god, but one cannot know with certainty either way. So agnosticism is not just a personal statement of lack of knowledge, but a statement that no one can have such knowledge.
Too nitpicky?
It could be mean that. Most dictionaries I've seen usually have 2 possible definitions, if not more.
Usually one definition is as you suggested. That knowledge of the existence of gods is not known, or possibly unknowable. The other definition is to be uncertain of t he existence of gods. And a sometimes 3rd....is generalized uncertainty or lack of opinion (e.g. I'm agnostic to the choices for president).
We have to understand that "Agnostic" in popular use means something other than the correct use. Just as 'Theory" is used in popular parlance to mean "An idea, belief or hypothesis" when it really means a validated explanation that is above even a scientific Law, since we know what the law does but not how, but the theory knows both. Which is why we have a Theory of relativity but only a Law of gravity.
Agnosticism (applied to the god -claim/question) correctly means not knowing whether there is a god or not: a knowledge position. From that depends the belief -position - don't know but believe or don't know but not believe.
In popular use "Agnostic" appears to mean being pretty sure there is some kinda something more than just science recognizes, even if they don't have any time for personal gods, Holy books or organized religion.
This is a very respectable misuse of the terms since it covers Einstein, Spinoza, Anthony Flew (after conversion) and a few others whose names escape me. They are logically wrong and deeply resent being told so. But they could be right even though evidence and logic does not actually support their faith. And it does seem that their belief on sorta persuasion does get mixed up with a need for self -justification and is taken personally if this is shown to be rationally untenable.
Einstein's belief in a sorta god was undermined by Quantum and he rejected it on Faith grounds ("God does not play dice") and he spent ..wasted...the rest of his life in a futile effort to make a non quantum system work. Anthony Flew has no such problem as he did not believe on personal conviction but been persuaded on (since debunked) evidence that there was a Creative designer.
You have a point. "Agnostics and irreligious theists" requires a separate holding -pen since they are (like Floating voters) a large body (The "Nones") that atheism needs badly to woo (Not to be confused with Woo) and the Chump -voters would dearly love to win back for Jesusgod.
Couldn't rep you twice in one day so it's a public rep for you!! Great post!
I personally do not see Agnosticism giving equal weight either directly or by default to religions and their corresponding deities. I see it as not knowing if there is a deity, higher alien life force, or simply some sort of grand design or plan beyond random free floating chaos and chance.
Erring on the side of caution or by simple lack of present day evidence with the theory that it is chaotic random chance until some person, deity, alien life force or other convincing evidence of grand design presents itself.
There's faith in that thought. There might be but there isn't today, but there could be tomorrow. Erring on the side of caution. lol Christians also err on the side of caution, that there is something out there.
Labels get so confusing I find them frustrating. I wish we could just drop the labels but then how would we know what sub-forum to visit.
I've no problem with the above view, but would point out it still required a paragraph of explanation regarding how you define agnosticism, for you to introduce yourself as an agnostic.
See Below regarding labels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
There's faith in that thought. There might be but there isn't today, but there could be tomorrow. Erring on the side of caution. lol Christians also err on the side of caution, that there is something out there.
Labels get so confusing I find them frustrating. I wish we could just drop the labels but then how would we know what sub-forum to visit.
The human psyche is an ever evolving slippery slope, how many of us are 100% of an idea, ideal, set of parameters or category all of the time?
You could have two Agnostics, one holds out faith (erring with caution) that there is something more while the other states "I am going with any higher power, etc. being 100% false until proven otherwise to me" (lack of evidence stance). Does the second Agnostic still have a form of faith? And does each Agnostic maintain their stance 24/7 never even for a second having "mental drift" into the either the others category or category totally Un-Agnostic?
And what percentage of probability in an Agnostic that assigns it would be enough to constitute faith? I can see one stating the following:
"I mostly do not believe Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon religion was approached by two deities (Jesus Christ and God The Father) nor do I believe the Golden Plates ever existed or that the Nephites and Lamanites waged a big battle in Upstate New York. There is, however, a one billionth of one percent chance that it is true".
These identification problems stem from a primary false perception.
The proper default position for the riddles of the origin and operations of the cosmos is.....I do not know. Primitive humans who had no substantial information on the universe beyond their immediate environment, came up with answers which best fit their perceptions. They postulated invisible entities controlling matters and assumed that these entities were subject to more or less the same sorts of human emotions and judgments as we are. These wild guesses became codified into gods and the supposed wishes of those gods became codified as religions.
So well established were these assumptions, that when enlightenment came for some, they were not perceived as the "I do not knowists", they were perceived as heretics or apostates. The word atheist describes someone who does not subscribe to the theist concepts, or in short, the opposition to the generally perceived norms. All that leaves the religious view appearing to be the proper default position, and the people saying "I don't have the answers, but obviously these religious explanations aren't the correct answers" in the perceived appearance of opponents of the default position.
Consequently, an atheist is defined by what he or she does not believe, not by what he or she actually believes. And the only way to correct this would be to start all over again, but this time with the correct default position....I do not know.
And of course that isn't possible, so we are stuck with a negative based identification.
The human psyche is an ever evolving slippery slope, how many of us are 100% of an idea, ideal, set of parameters or category all of the time?
You could have two Agnostics, one holds out faith (erring with caution) that there is something more while the other states "I am going with any higher power, etc. being 100% false until proven otherwise to me" (lack of evidence stance). Does the second Agnostic still have a form of faith? And does each Agnostic maintain their stance 24/7 never even for a second having "mental drift" into the either the others category or category totally Un-Agnostic?
And what percentage of probability in an Agnostic that assigns it would be enough to constitute faith? I can see one stating the following:
"I mostly do not believe Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon religion was approached by two deities (Jesus Christ and God The Father) nor do I believe the Golden Plates ever existed or that the Nephites and Lamanites waged a big battle in Upstate New York. There is, however, a one billionth of one percent chance that it is true".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
These identification problems stem from a primary false perception.
The proper default position for the riddles of the origin and operations of the cosmos is.....I do not know. Primitive humans who had no substantial information on the universe beyond their immediate environment, came up with answers which best fit their perceptions. They postulated invisible entities controlling matters and assumed that these entities were subject to more or less the same sorts of human emotions and judgments as we are. These wild guesses became codified into gods and the supposed wishes of those gods became codified as religions.
So well established were these assumptions, that when enlightenment came for some, they were not perceived as the "I do not knowists", they were perceived as heretics or apostates. The word atheist describes someone who does not subscribe to the theist concepts, or in short, the opposition to the generally perceived norms. All that leaves the religious view appearing to be the proper default position, and the people saying "I don't have the answers, but obviously these religious explanations aren't the correct answers" in the perceived appearance of opponents of the default position.
Consequently, an atheist is defined by what he or she does not believe, not by what he or she actually believes. And the only way to correct this would be to start all over again, but this time with the correct default position....I do not know.
And of course that isn't possible, so we are stuck with a negative based identification.
Yes and yes. A confusing bit of logic but in the end none of us know what cannot be proven to our intellectual capacity. We just speculate in one direction or the other. Ah, labels and humans need to categorize drive me crazy. Even I'm guilty of it.
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.
You have a point. "Agnostics and irreligious theists" requires a separate holding -pen since they are (like Floating voters) a large body (The "Nones") that atheism needs badly to woo (Not to be confused with Woo) and the Chump -voters would dearly love to win back for Jesusgod.
Couldn't rep you twice in one day so it's a public rep for you!! 
Great post!
