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.
Correct, a 'true' agnostic does not have enough information to make a claim either way. My guess is that many who say they are agnostics would have a little more confidence in one of the positions, theist or atheist, but that is just guess.
Interesting and confusing at the same time. You are agnostic about a god but not the Christian god?
I am theologically agnostic.
In other words I don't know what theology most accurately articulates God.
Please think!
In general, people may or may not believe any particular thing.
But no particular person may or may not believe any particular thing simultaneously.
At any point in time any person either believes any particular thing or does not.
Do you believe that the program/AI the Google developer who was fired for claiming was conscious, actually conscious?
Please think!
In general, people may or may not believe any particular thing.
But no particular person may or may not believe any particular thing simultaneously.
At any point in time any person either believes any particular thing or does not.
It is still important not to conflate not believing in a thing with DISbelieving in it. It is possible to not believe in a particular god, while remaining equally unconvinced that it can be completely ruled out, at least technically.
To add further nuance to the stew: it is possible not to believe in a god, not to disbelieve in it, but to live no differently than AS IF one disbelieved. That is basically me. When it comes to gods in general, there is some small possibility open for one to exist, but I think it so unlikely that it doesn't cause me to join that god's followers in any way, to pray to it even provisionally or to follow any of its alleged rules. It never rises to the level of, say a nagging doubt or causing me to wonder in the dark watches of the night if I'm mistaken.
The more specific the god, the truer this is. For me the probability that anything like the generally described Christian god exists is so tiny as not to matter in any practical way. BUT I do not claim personal infallibility either. Even in the face of total absence of valid evidence, it is important to maintain epistemological humility. One can do that while not affording belief to things that don't support belief.
Each of us, theist or not, agnostic or not, make life decisions on what we reason is likely to be true -- that is, what we believe. Beliefs are important but they are not a binary yes/no up/down proposition. They are just probabilities. A devout Christian puts the probability of Jesus / Jehovah as so high that it's a virtual certainty. A confirmed atheist puts the probability so low that they're functionally certain the same god doesn't exist. To be a non-agnostic atheist the probability would have to become zero; to be a non-agnostic theist it would have to become 100%. In between 0 and 100 there is some degree of possibility admitted that one could be mistaken in this calculus.
Weirdly (to me anyway), many people today have forgotten what agnosticism is and call themselves that because they put the probability somewhere close to 50%. To be an agnostic all one has to do is not be a know-it-all, basically. You can think it's 99% probable there's no Jesus up there in heaven, and that is still agnosticism.
I therefore submit that almost everyone is an agnostic. Whether it matters or not in practice -- well, often it doesn't. Enough Christians are sure enough to call it for Jesus; enough atheists are sure enough to call it against him. A few, for better or worse, are kok-sure they are absolutely right.
The kind of thinking I am seeing in this thread -- arguing over tiny differences in a definition -- is the same problem I see within christianity (and other religions, as well) that result in thousands of different christian sects, multiple Buddhist sects, etc. Does whether a person is 100% sure of his religion or 99% sure of his religion really make that big a difference?
The kind of thinking I am seeing in this thread -- arguing over tiny differences in a definition -- is the same problem I see within christianity (and other religions, as well) that result in thousands of different christian sects, multiple Buddhist sects, etc. Does whether a person is 100% sure of his religion or 99% sure of his religion really make that big a difference?
Not in practical terms, no.
For me it is mostly a question of not diluting Huxley's original concept of agnosticism and applying the label to something rather different, and thus confusing terminology and muddying the waters -- plus not giving any purchase to dishonest arguments that atheists are arrogant know-it-alls.
Per the sticky FAQ here we agreed on these definitions years ago anyway.
It's important to acknowledge that persuasive tactics are not limited to theists; individuals from diverse belief systems, including atheists, can engage in persuasive behavior when discussing their viewpoints. Active listening does not necessitate adopting someone else's beliefs; it means respectfully considering their perspective without feeling obligated to embrace it. I have applied this approach throughout my life, except when dealing with certain multi-level marketers who sometimes exhibit cult-like behaviors, including shunning. I've witnessed friendships strained or lost due to MLM involvement. Similar dynamics can occur with other persuasive individuals. However, meeting everyone's expectations or taking on their burdens is impossible. The key is ensuring the person feels heard. I am still learning how to avoid offending others when declining to adopt whatever they are promoting.
The question of the existence of God is a deeply personal and often complex matter. As I mentioned earlier, while some individuals seek external proof, it is also valid to examine the natural world, reflect on personal experiences, and contemplate one's existence to arrive at an individual conclusion regarding the existence of God. Different people discover meaning and answers through various pathways.
Belief in a god may be personal, but it also means its anecdotal and thus should never be stated to others as fact. This is another form of injecting belief in something as part of the existence equation, which renders it unprovable.
I can say purple is the best color as much as I want, but it will never be a provable or disprovable because it requires a belief that purple is the best color. I can thoughtfully listen and take into consideration another's viewpoint on best color as much as is possible, but it is still irrelevant because its opinion (as is mine).
We can believe things that are true and we can believe things that are not true, but we can never, ever believe in something to make it true or untrue.
For me it is mostly a question of not diluting Huxley's original concept of agnosticism and applying the label to something rather different, and thus confusing terminology and muddying the waters -- plus not giving any purchase to dishonest arguments that atheists are arrogant know-it-alls.
Per the sticky FAQ here we agreed on these definitions years ago anyway.
Ah, no, "we" didn't agree on these definitions...we accepted them as part of belonging to the forum.
Ah, no, "we" didn't agree on these definitions...we accepted them as part of belonging to the forum.
No we didn't all take a vote but no one objected either. Words have meanings and definitions are important or we end up talking past each other. So ... we have a definition for purposes of discussion in this space.
At this point I'd almost rather someone would agitate to revise that document, change the definition or just avoid making one. The topic has gotten old for me too.
IIRC the FAQ does mention that the other definition exists. But most folks can't be arsed to think about definitions or seeking clarity in their terminology and usage -- they just want validation for their own preconceptions or needs around what a thing means (I'm speaking generally here, not about you or anyone in particular).
So we end up talking about two (or more?) different things and calling them both agnosticism when they have very different practical implications. So it goes ...
You refer to me as a chick and think it's okay. I assume it's okay that I refer to you as a biddy. I don't know why you expect my posts to align with your desires. I've told you repeatedly you are of no relevance to me. You need to deposit your anger elsewhere; I am not a safe space for you to release your 70+ years of anger.
So hateful. Almost seems as though you have a complex and hate atheists. The bolded has got to be the most insane nit-picking bs ever (I think you might be Tzaph using another name) to desecrate the intelligent nature of C-D. Ok, so are you trying to say I'm old? Huh. You seem pretty invested in my business since you replied and you know how old I am. It's a serious issue, this lack of ability to not be offended. Here chick, chick, chick!!
You have no idea what my gender preference is, and going there is low class.
What in the hell are you talking about? Where did I say anything about gender preference? So are you a they, them, it.....what? Since you are "Hayle", which is very girly, most would assume you are, in fact, a girl. I'm baffled by this bizarre response.
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.
Where did I say anything about gender preference? So are you a they, them, it.....what? Since you are "Hayle", which is very girly, most would assume you are, in fact, a girl. I'm baffled by this bizarre response.
