Happy Atheist Forum

I am curious as to why agnostics label themselves as such, or as agnostic atheists.

With regard to the tooth fairy, would a (theistic) agnostic describe their position as an agnostic afairyist or simply as an afairyist?

With regard to the easter bunny, would a (theistic) agnostic describe their position as an agnostic abunnyist or simply as an abunnyist?

With regard to every other fictional character ever invented in the history of homo sapiens, do (theistic) agnostics qualify their unbelief with the prefix "agnostic"- afictionalcharacterist?

I suspect that they do not. And this makes me wonder why they make an exception in the case of the most absurd work of fiction in history.

As I see it, the use of the word agnostic in relation to god, but not in relation to every other fictional creation ever invented, confers a slight credibility to the god story. The agnostic seems to be leaving the door slightly ajar to the possibility, however I'm sure that the door is not ajar in the mind of the agnostic with regard to the tooth fairy.

I would be interested to hear from agnostics as to why they choose to save this term exclusively for describing their stance on matters religious.

Now here's an interesting topic worth exploring.

I have never believed in god or gods. Not really, maybe a bit when I was 7 or 8 and they taught a little about God at school. Back then I didn't realise that teachers lied or told untruths or told theory as if it were fact.

Up until a week ago or so I had heard the term Atheist before and I had heard the term Agnostic before, but never really knew or cared what distinguished these terms. My own beliefs were mine and I didn't need to put a label on them.

This new pope has made a recent statement that condoms are OK for male prostitutes. This bizzare revelation made it into my country's national newspaper and hence into my awareness. So religion became top of mind again for me.

I was motivated now and searched for the terms. I now think that I could probably be given the religious label of agnostic atheist. I am not an atheist because I don't have an unproven belief that there is no God. I am kind of an agnostic because I know there is currently no conclusive proof one way or the other. But then again I am very close to being Atheist because instead of simply sitting on the fence and saying I don't know, I actually put the proof of burdon onto the theory side of the argument.

Without any theories there is no God, we just all exist and get on about our business. There are many theories about god or gods all with fantastical stories and no proof, nothing to suggest how the theoriest reasonably came up with the theory. With the boundaries put on to a god creature being able to pretty much do anything, i.e. no boundaries, I don't think it would be reasonable to suggest that there will ever be conclusive proof that there is no God. Sure you could pick apart the Bible, the Koran and all such scriptures and although the majority of these books could be proven wrong given logic and boundaries that science puts on known things in the universe, if you take the logic that a God can do anything then who is to say that a God did not bend or even break these boundaries of known things in the universe. I really think that it is extremely unlikely that any of these unproven unfounded unreasonable theories of a God creature are correct. But maybe it is true, I can't absolutely say for sure. Maybe what they term as God is the programmer that created the simulation that we all exist within, may be God is the Architect that instructed the programmers what they needed to develop, maybe God is the University lecturer who suggested to a Doctorate student to create an AI similation of a civilisation just to see if they would come up with theories of a god or gods that were similar to the theories of god or gods in the real world in an attempt to prove if there really is a God. There are an infinite possibilities and maybe one of them is correct.

With regards to Santa, Toothfairy, Easter bunny, just because I am agnostic atheist with regards to God creature/s does this mean I have to be agnostic atheist with regards to these other creatures too? Is Santa a god?, Can Santa break the boundaries of the known universe? Why did Santa stop giving me presents once I found out that my parents had been posing as Santa? With regards to Toothfairy, I have instructed my wife not to pose as the toothfairy when my daughter looses her baby teeth. So the truth will be known soon here, me thinks. I will keep you guys posted as events unfold.

An agnostic atheists is someone who lacks a belief (atheist) in god/s and yet unsure (agnostic) about the existence of god/s.
Another definition is a person is atheistic toward certain god/s/religions/spiritual philosophies and agnostic towards other god/s/religions/spiritual philosophies.
Some of these people claim to be open minded. But atheists are also open minded. Even the most staunch hard atheist, when presented with 'absolute' proof of a god would have to admit that that god exists. If given incontrovertible proof of the existence of a god, it would be delusional of one to say that that god does not exist in the same way that no good evidence for the existence of a god is worthy of belief. IMO, open minded is good. But Sagan, I think said, don't be so open minded that your brain falls out....or something like that.

Agnostics are fence sitters, waiting to fall to one side or the other. As Stephen Colbert says: Agnostics are just atheists without balls. On the other hand, there are theists without balls.

Quote from: "Ivan Tudor C McHock"I am curious as to why agnostics label themselves as such, or as agnostic atheists.

Good question, I've wondered this as well.

Quote from: "Gawen"Agnostics are fence sitters, waiting to fall to one side or the other. As Stephen Colbert says: Agnostics are just atheists without balls. On the other hand, they are theists without balls.

If in doubt consult your balls, if you don't posses them, thank Jeebus for small mercies.

Quote from: "Stevil"I now think that I could probably be given the religious label of agnostic atheist. I am not an atheist because I don't have an unproven belief that there is no God.

I don't think absolute proof is required.  It is often said that one cannot prove a negative.  How do you prove, after all, that something which does not exist, does not exist?

Quote from: "Stevil"I am kind of an agnostic because I know there is currently no conclusive proof one way or the other.

Put aside, for the moment, the lack of conclusive proof and ask yourself if you think God is likely, or unlikely.  On Dawkins' 7 point scale he says this of agnostics: 4. Exactly 50 per cent (probability of God).  Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

Do you stand by the philosophical view that God is as likely as not to exist?  If you do then you are an agnostic.

Quote from: "Stevil"But then again I am very close to being Atheist because instead of simply sitting on the fence and saying I don't know, I actually put the proof of burdon onto the theory side of the argument.

Ah, then you may be a five on the Dawkins scale: 5. Lower than 50 per cent (probability of God) but not very low.  Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'  Does that sound like you?  Then perhaps you are an agnostic-like atheist (am I defeating my own argument? Perhaps 'agnostic atheist' is a useful term.  :)

Quote from: "Gawen"An agnostic atheists is someone who lacks a belief (atheist) in god/s and yet unsure (agnostic) about the existence of god/s.

Or is unsure of the existence of Hell?   :)

Quote from: "Stevil"I have instructed my wife not to pose as the toothfairy when my daughter looses her baby teeth. So the truth will be known soon here, me thinks. I will keep you guys posted as events unfold.

I feel sorry for your daughter.  The tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa are among the joys of childhood.  I taught my children to believe in all three and today they are grown, fully committed atheists.  They can't imagine how I ever could have believed in God.  You already know the tooth fairy doesn't exist, and even if she has that pleasant little deception played on her she will never resent having been permitted the fun of believing.

QuoteI am curious as to why agnostics label themselves as such, or as agnostic atheists.

Because honesty demands as much.

Long story short:  Atheism/theism regard belief.  Gnosticism/agnosticism concern knowledge.

I am an agnostic atheist because while I cannot say that I have eliminated every possibility that a god or gods may exist, the evidence that god(s) exist is absent, and I therefore lend such claims no credence.

Quote from: "Gawen"Agnostics are fence sitters, waiting to fall to one side or the other. As Stephen Colbert says: Agnostics are just atheists without balls. On the other hand, they are theists without balls.

That's a pretty stupid quote.  I've got 'nads to beat the band.

Quote from: "Cycel"How do you prove, after all, that something which does not exist, does not exist?

√-2

I've always looked at agnosticism as a shade of grey between theism and atheism. Granted, an agnostic does not actively believe in a deity, which also equates to atheism, that being the lack of a belief in god(s). I think it boils down to something like this:

Theist: Reasonably certain there is a god
Agnostic theist: Don't know for sure, but methink there is a god (Technically a believer, thus theist)
Agnostic: Don't know. (technically, not a believer, thus atheist)
Apatheist: Don't know. Don't care/don't wanna know. (I'd say that one deserves its own cathegory, although technically an atheist as well)
Agnostic atheist: Don't know whether god(s) exist(s), but I doubt it (Technically an atheist)
Atheist: Reasonably certain there are no such things as gods.

So, depending on what descriptor comes after the word, agnostics are either technically theists or atheists, only not as strongly, yes..?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"√-2

...Does, indeed, exist.

It's √2i, since it can be written as √2√-1

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"√-2

...Does, indeed, exist.

It's √2i, since it can be written as √2√-1

And 2*<imaginary number> = real number?

Very well:  âˆš-1.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"And 2*<imaginary number> = real number?

Very well:  âˆš-1.

That exists as well. As I stated in another thread somewhere, this is not ye basic algebraic number within real (Geometric 3D) value. This is a complex number, having coordinates in more than the three geometric dimentions.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"And 2*<imaginary number> = real number?

Very well:  âˆš-1.

That exists as well. As I stated in another thread somewhere, this is not ye basic algebraic number within real (Geometric 3D) value. This is a complex number, having coordinates in more than the three geometric dimentions.

So you've proved that it doesn't exist in our space?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"So you've proved that it doesn't exist in our space?

LOL! ME? No, I have proved nothing.  

And if by our space, you mean the three geometric dimensions, then does time exist in our space? What about something like a singularity? Gravity..? Or, for that matter, anything at all that can not be fully explained by a combination of 3D coordinates and vectors..?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteI am curious as to why agnostics label themselves as such, or as agnostic atheists.

Because honesty demands as much.

Long story short:  Atheism/theism regard belief.  Gnosticism/agnosticism concern knowledge.

I am an agnostic atheist because while I cannot say that I have eliminated every possibility that a god or gods may exist, the evidence that god(s) exist is absent, and I therefore lend such claims no credence.

We are all familiar with the definitions of the words, but that is not the point of this thread. I will repost the key points from my OP:

With regard to every other fictional character ever invented in the history of homo sapiens, do (theistic) agnostics qualify their unbelief with the prefix "agnostic"- afictionalcharacterist?

I suspect that they do not. And this makes me wonder why they make an exception in the case of the most absurd work of fiction in history.

As I see it, the use of the word agnostic in relation to god, but not in relation to every other fictional creation ever invented, confers a slight credibility to the god story. The agnostic seems to be leaving the door slightly ajar to the possibility, however I'm sure that the door is not ajar in the mind of the agnostic with regard to the tooth fairy.

I would be interested to hear from agnostics as to why they choose to save this term exclusively for describing their stance on matters religious.

Quote from: "Cycel"

Quote from: "Stevil"I have instructed my wife not to pose as the toothfairy when my daughter looses her baby teeth. So the truth will be known soon here, me thinks. I will keep you guys posted as events unfold.

I feel sorry for your daughter.  The tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa are among the joys of childhood.  I taught my children to believe in all three and today they are grown, fully committed atheists.  They can't imagine how I ever could have believed in God.  You already know the tooth fairy doesn't exist, and even if she has that pleasant little deception played on her she will never resent having been permitted the fun of believing.

The bolded bit is the point of this thread. I'm sure agnostics would have no trouble agreeing with the bolded sentence. But replace the tooth fairy with an almost infinitely more ridiculous story, god, and they find themselves compelled to qualify their lack of belief with the word "agnostic".

Why?

Quote from: "Ivan Tudor C McHock"But replace the tooth fairy with an almost infinitely more ridiculous story, god, and they find themselves compelled to qualify their lack of belief with the word "agnostic".

Why?

I think most agnostics view Deism as plausible but unverifiable, so they claim agnosticism toward Deism.  Ask them if Christianity or Islam are plausible and they will generally say no, I think, and so they reject those creeds outright.  I welcome correction by any agnostic who disagrees.  Meanwhile, what I'm describing is an epistemological stance.  The plausible but unverifiable is retained in a "pending verification" category.  No sane adult views the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or Santa Claus as plausible, so the agnostic rejects them outright.

I'm not agnostic.  I reject the unverifiable as readily as the implausible or the demonstrably false.  I have a "pending verification" category, but nothing gets placed there unless a path to verification is feasible.  That which must forever elude empiricism and logic is deemed non-existent and promptly jettisoned.

QuoteYou already know the tooth fairy doesn't exist, and even if she has that pleasant little deception played on her she will never resent having been permitted the fun of believing.

Just a side note, that is definitely not always the case.

It's my view that atheism and agnosticism is largely the same thing most of the time -- really, it's a matter of what you want to call yourself.

Quote from: "Ivan Tudor C McHock"We are all familiar with the definitions of the words, but that is not the point of this thread. I will repost the key points from my OP:

With regard to every other fictional character ever invented in the history of homo sapiens, do (theistic) agnostics qualify their unbelief with the prefix "agnostic"- afictionalcharacterist?

I suspect that they do not. And this makes me wonder why they make an exception in the case of the most absurd work of fiction in history.

As I see it, the use of the word agnostic in relation to god, but not in relation to every other fictional creation ever invented, confers a slight credibility to the god story. The agnostic seems to be leaving the door slightly ajar to the possibility, however I'm sure that the door is not ajar in the mind of the agnostic with regard to the tooth fairy.

Why even have the term 'atheism', for that matter?

*points at 'worldview' tag* ------------------------------------------------------------>

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Ivan Tudor C McHock"We are all familiar with the definitions of the words, but that is not the point of this thread. I will repost the key points from my OP:

With regard to every other fictional character ever invented in the history of homo sapiens, do (theistic) agnostics qualify their unbelief with the prefix "agnostic"- afictionalcharacterist?

I suspect that they do not. And this makes me wonder why they make an exception in the case of the most absurd work of fiction in history.

As I see it, the use of the word agnostic in relation to god, but not in relation to every other fictional creation ever invented, confers a slight credibility to the god story. The agnostic seems to be leaving the door slightly ajar to the possibility, however I'm sure that the door is not ajar in the mind of the agnostic with regard to the tooth fairy.

Why even have the term 'atheism', for that matter?

*points at 'worldview' tag* ------------------------------------------------------------>

How dare you not believe in smurfs! Look at all the evidence for them! Haven't you seen "The Smurfs"?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Ivan Tudor C McHock"But replace the tooth fairy with an almost infinitely more ridiculous story, god, and they find themselves compelled to qualify their lack of belief with the word "agnostic".

Why?

I think most agnostics view Deism as plausible but unverifiable, so they claim agnosticism toward Deism.  Ask them if Christianity or Islam are plausible and they will generally say no, I think, and so they reject those creeds outright.  I welcome correction by any agnostic who disagrees.  Meanwhile, what I'm describing is an epistemological stance.  The plausible but unverifiable is retained in a "pending verification" category.  No sane adult views the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or Santa Claus as plausible, so the agnostic rejects them outright.

If some agnostics do indeed view deism as plausible, but not the tooth fairy, I would love to hear their reasoning.

If I had two stories presented to me, one of which involved a fairy exchanging money for teeth on one tiny little planet, and the other involving a different fairy who zapped up a universe with a magic wand, and I had to describe one of them as plausible, then my money is on the tooth fairy.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"It's my view that atheism and agnosticism is largely the same thing most of the time -- really, it's a matter of what you want to call yourself.

Yes I agree. I think Dawkins' new religious scale is much more useful now. How many agnostics like this do we see?  

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscienceblogs.com%2Fpharyngula%2Fupload%2F2010%2F11%2Fagnostics_have_the_virtue_of_a%2Farmageddonish.jpeg&hash=f34487ce9d20b33e3abf620f9cbbeb01d4d4a969)

Quote from: "Sophus"I think Dawkins' new religious scale is much more useful now.

His scale doesn't work for me, unfortunately.  Here's his scale, according to Wikipedia - source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability#Dawkins.27_formulation -

Quote from: "The Article"1.Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2.Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3.Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4.Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5.Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
6.Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7.Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

The above doesn't fit me because I refuse to even consider the question of whether God exists, on the grounds that, since in discussions of this sort I think I'd have to define God as, "that which, not of nature, is nature's author," the hypothesis of God's existence is unfalsifiable.

Quote from: "elliebean"Why even have the term 'atheism', for that matter?

*points at 'worldview' tag* ------------------------------------------------------------>

Because "worldview" could mean anything.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "elliebean"Why even have the term 'atheism', for that matter?

*points at 'worldview' tag* ------------------------------------------------------------>

Because "worldview" could mean anything.

Not sure I follow, Gawen.  

Quote from: "elliebean"Not sure I follow, Gawen.  

Well, you said:
Why even have the term 'atheism', for that matter?
*points at 'worldview' tag* ------------------------------------------------------------>

Then I said:
Because "worldview" could mean anything.

I was going to say...So I'm not following why you're not following...*chucklin*

But now I get it. I was the one not following...sheesh...sorry.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"The above doesn't fit me because I refuse to even consider the question of whether God exists, on the grounds that, since in discussions of this sort I think I'd have to define God as, "that which, not of nature, is nature's author," the hypothesis of God's existence is unfalsifiable.

How would that differ from a living as an atheist de facto though (number 6)? Or do you mean to say you are an apatheist?  

Quote from: "Sophus"How would that differ from a living as an atheist de facto though (number 6)? Or do you mean to say you are an apatheist?  

I don't think there's a better word for me than atheist.  I certainly don't believe there's a God.  The only interesting thing about me is my reason why.  I don't believe there's a God because I refuse to consider the question as to whether there is or not, because God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.  I agree that comes close to apatheist, but it doesn't quite go all the way there.  I'm not apathetic.  I'm militantly opposed to considering unfalsifiable hypotheses.  I strongly assert that considering them is epistemological treason.  I could call myself a scientarian atheist.

Atheists and Theists, in my opinion are similar in that they all hold onto a religious belief and do not require any proof what so ever to substantiate that belief.

Agnostics don't make a hard claim unless there is substantial proof.
If a scientist puts forward a new interesting theory then generally lots of people rush around trying to prove or disprove that theory. I feel science gets into trouble and reaches dead-ends with regards to progression when they start to hold onto these theories as beliefs and never doubt them.

In essence there may not be a huge difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic, Agnostics aren't likely to live their lives based on rules made up as part of an unproven theory. Unless they have a huge fear of eternal damnation and are willing to live up to rules based on the unlikely eventuality that the theory was correct after all. But Agnostics won't make bold statements and ridicule or try to convert others into the opinion that there is no god as they know they cannot present substantial proof of that.

With regards to Santa, Toothfairy etc, has anyone heard statements from surprised and bewildered parents with regards to presents or toothfairy money appearing without it coming from the parents? I am sure if this happened there would be a great fuss otherwise it is one of the worlds best kept secrets.

Quote from: "Stevil"But Agnostics won't make bold statements and ridicule or try to convert others into the opinion that there is no god as they know they cannot present substantial proof of that.

Someone can be atheist and agnostic...

Since atheist means without belief in god as long as you stay away from the gnostic definition all agnostics default to atheist since they do not have a belief.  Atheist doesn't mean someone who knows there isn't a god.

My bad.  I'm new to all these labels, just trying to make sense of them myself. Your post now makes me wonder what the difference is between agnostic and atheism?

Quote from: "Stevil"My bad.  I'm new to all these labels, just trying to make sense of them myself. Your post now makes me wonder what the difference is between agnostic and atheism?

Agnostic is without knowledge ( a meaning without, gnostic meaning knowledge)...so an agnostic is someone who doesn't think it is possible to know if a god exists or not.

atheist is the opposite of theist...so atheist is someone without a belief in god.

atheist/theist: belief (or lack of)
agnostic/gnostic: knowledge

while I did say before that agnostics default to atheist I was being a bit too general, it's possible for a theist to be agnostic too.  My previous comment was more towards agnostics who think they are neither atheist nor theist.

Quote from: "Whitney"Agnostic is without knowledge ( a meaning without, gnostic meaning knowledge)...so an agnostic is someone who doesn't think it is possible to know if a god exists or not.

atheist is the opposite of theist...so atheist is someone without a belief in god.

atheist/theist: belief (or lack of)
agnostic/gnostic: knowledge

while I did say before that agnostics default to atheist I was being a bit too general, it's possible for a theist to be agnostic too.  My previous comment was more towards agnostics who think they are neither atheist nor theist.

Hmmm.  I struggle to comprehend how a person can think it is not possible to know if a god exists but also believe that a god exists.
Probably because I equate belief with a personal "unproven" knowledge.
e.g. If you asked me if I believe in extra terrestrial life. I would say that it is most likely, given the amount of stars and planets in our galaxy and the universe and having the possibility that there are many other universes (I consider a Universe to be the result of one big bang, if there was one). But I would say that I don't have a belief for or against extra terrestrial life as it hasn't been proven either way. For me, the same goes for god/s.
How can a person say that they believe in God but don't think that it is possible to know that God exists?
How can a person say that they believe there is no God but don't think it is possible to know that God doesn't exist?

If you are looking for the swing vote then I guess it depends which way the wind is blowing

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"So you've proved that it doesn't exist in our space?

LOL! ME? No, I have proved nothing.  

And if by our space, you mean the three geometric dimensions, then does time exist in our space?

Yes, if there is motion in the system.

QuoteWhat about something like a singularity?

Cygnus X-1

QuoteGravity..? Or, for that matter, anything at all that can not be fully explained by a combination of 3D coordinates and vectors..?

The attraction of masses has physical evidence.  The square root of -1 does not, to my knowledge, have any analog in space.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

The action of gravity -- to wit, the motion of masses towards each other -- is explicable precisely in terms of co-ordinates and vectors.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Stevil"My bad.  I'm new to all these labels, just trying to make sense of them myself. Your post now makes me wonder what the difference is between agnostic and atheism?

Agnostic is without knowledge ( a meaning without, gnostic meaning knowledge)...so an agnostic is someone who doesn't think it is possible to know if a god exists or not.

atheist is the opposite of theist...so atheist is someone without a belief in god.

atheist/theist: belief (or lack of)
agnostic/gnostic: knowledge

while I did say before that agnostics default to atheist I was being a bit too general, it's possible for a theist to be agnostic too.  My previous comment was more towards agnostics who think they are neither atheist nor theist.

Okay, here goes. (should've had that cup of coffee first)
Correct me if I'm wrong: Agnostic is someone who doesn't know if god exists.
You stated "Someone who doesn't think it's possible to know if a god exists or not."
I don't know if god exists... period. I think anything is possible, although sometimes highly unlikely. You are over-complicating things, IMHO. What I think is possible is not quite the same as "I don't know". Agnostic simply means without knowledge, yes/no? I stand by the fact that I don't know, and neither does anyone else. No one has that "knowledge".

I concur with Stevil in a way. It seems contradictory to say "I don't know if god exists, but I believe god exists."

Granted, I don't have the mind-boggling mathematical equations laid out to make any argument of importance, but I still stand by the one thing I know... "I don't know." To me, it's the only true answer.

Maybe there should be subcategories to the subcategories of Atheist, Theist, Agnostic, and so forth.

Cheers,
Holly (maybe I would know more if I'd had that cup of coffee)  

Edit: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic)
I stand corrected on the actual definition of agnostic. (knew I should've had that coffee) Still stand by my previous statements.

Belief is a contradictory term.

If someone asked me the question "Do you believe in trees?", i would likely respond by saying something like "I know they exist, that was a bloody strange question buddy"

But if you ask a theist if they believe in God the answer would be "Yes"

So in my mind the Theist knows that their conviction on whether God exists is only as strong as a belief and not a fact. Therefore they know there is no proof. Which would mean they don't know that God exists.

Given the above they are saying "I don't know that God exists however I believe that God exists", which as we have postulated is a contradiction in its own right.

Quote from: "Stevil"Given the above they are saying "I don't know that God exists however I believe that God exists", which as we have postulated is a contradiction in its own right.

Some theists, the more sophisticated ones, will say, "I don't know that God exists, but based on what I know of the universe, I think the probability of God's existence is higher than the probability of God non-existence."

It would be hard to find a Deist, for example, who disagrees with the above as stated.

Probe that position and what you inevitably find is the intuition that organisms are too complex to have arisen without prior planning.  Staunch Darwinists will claim that natural selection and time are sufficient explanations, but the Deist's intuition still balks.  My response to the Deist at that point would be, "Fine, then don't accept the natural selection plus time hypothesis.  Replace it with a more comprehensive proto-hypothesis, namely, that the laws of physics constrain chemistry, and chemistry constrains mutation, and then natural selection constrains perpetuation.  And then start doing science to explore your proto-hypothesis, in the hope of gathering data that will suggest a serious, testable hypothesis, or more than one.  Do science!  Not theology."

QuoteYou stated "Someone who doesn't think it's possible to know if a god exists or not."

There are some agnostics who hold to this belief.  I reject it.  History is full of things once thought "impossible" and yet are now commonplace.

In short, such a position can only be one of faith, because knowing the future is not possible with our current technology.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"You stated "Someone who doesn't think it's possible to know if a god exists or not."

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"There are some agnostics who hold to this belief.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"In short, such a position can only be one of faith

I feel Agnostics hold their position because they want to hold onto proof and if there isn't proof they are willing to stay open minded until such proof comes along, hence they do not take upon themselves any belief. With this in mind it doesn't make sense that an Agnostic would ruin their stance by taking on a belief that there will never be proof.

However in saying that I myself struggle to see how you can ever get proof that there is no God simply due to the theory that God can do anything and hence there are no boundaries to test. If you disprove every single sentence of the bible does this prove that God doesn't exist? I think not. Why would God be bound to the words in the edited compilation of various peoples literature called the Bible? The Bible is pure Here-say which has been tainted by the editor and the various translators and the various interpreters. However I do actually believe that one day there might be proof that God exists. Maybe God will all of a sudden configure a huge group of clouds in the sky to form the shape of his/her/its face and move the lips in synch with the message that it is saying. Oh and also simultaneously make all blind people see and all deaf people hear and all mental people coherent and reasonable enough to be able to see, hear and understand this proof. That would be pretty amazing, I certainly would become a believer.
Post edit: Actually not a believer but instead I would then know that there is a God like intelligence capable of performing miracles

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Some theists, the more sophisticated ones, will say, "I don't know that God exists, but based on what I know of the universe, I think the probability of God's existence is higher than the probability of God non-existence."

It would be hard to find a Deist, for example, who disagrees with the above as stated.

So would a more accurate term for these people be Agnostic Theists or Agnostic Deists, just as I am feeling comfortable terming myself as an Agnostic Atheist?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The square root of -1 does not, to my knowledge, have any analog in space.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

Not exactly wrong, no. The dimension added to one by square rooting its negative is not a geometric one. Oh, a complex number may well have a geometric part, but that is only a part of the whole.

QuoteThe action of gravity -- to wit, the motion of masses towards each other -- is explicable precisely in terms of co-ordinates and vectors.

"What is gravity" can indeed be explained by a number of vectors. However, it is not a full explanation. A full explanation would require adding extra dimensions, such as mass and/or time. However, both are something a human can easily contemplate since both are something we are very used to.

Quote from: "Stevil"With this in mind it doesn't make sense that an Agnostic would ruin their stance by taking on a belief that there will never be proof.

I agree.  The fact remains that there are indeed agnostics who hold this untenable position.

QuoteHowever in saying that I myself struggle to see how you can ever get proof that there is no God simply due to the theory that God can do anything and hence there are no boundaries to test.

Pardon me for saying so, but your bias is showing.  Agnostics of the sor described above believe that there can be no knowing one way or the other, i.e., they believe that they can be no evidence at all, either positive or negative.  "No boundaries" does not mean no testing is available.  I can think of several tests which may shed light on the question, although they cannot provide defintive answers.

My point is that anything that interacts with our reality can be subject to analysis, given the proper conditions, and that is why this "hard agnosticism" is to my mind a faith-based position.

Quote from: "Asmodean"A full explanation would require adding extra dimensions, such as mass and/or time.

Yes, as I said earlier, motion is required for time to be meaningful.  

Also, I'm unsure why mass is not simply an area of the three geometric dimensions with an above-average number of atoms.  I'm not trying to be obdurate, I'm just not well-educated in the matter.  How are any extra dimensions required?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"How are any extra dimensions required?

I'm not really good at explaining this, but I shall try.

Imagine you have a cube. To describe it geometrically, you would need to place it in three dimensions, as it has a certain height, length and width. Now, when you want to assign other properties to it, for example degrading mass, you can not express that attribute meaningfully within the LWH-dimensions, so you would need to add another system of coordinates which represents mass over time, thus adding a couple of dimensions to the three. You may not SEE the changes in the cube, but that doesn't mean they are not there. Mass, for instance, has in general (and very crudely presented) one property: it's "heavy". By the same, you can have a point in space which has another property, the main attribute of which is "imaginary"

A somewhat lacking explanation, for which I apologize, but I DID sleep through some lectures on this matter.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Pardon me for saying so, but your bias is showing.  Agnostics of the sor described above believe that there can be no knowing one way or the other, i.e., they believe that they can be no evidence at all, either positive or negative.  "No boundaries" does not mean no testing is available.  I can think of several tests which may shed light on the question, although they cannot provide defintive answers.

My point is that anything that interacts with our reality can be subject to analysis, given the proper conditions, and that is why this "hard agnosticism" is to my mind a faith-based position.

LOL, I certainly do not attest to being perfect. I do struggle to understand how something that can do anything, (which has no rules, physical, logical, moral or otherwise to bind it), can be proven outright to not exist. However I won't go so far as to say this is impossible, maybe someone can come up with a test that has not been thought of yet that everyone including theists would agree that a certain re-creatable consistent result would prove categorically that God/s do not exist. Seems unlikely though, but then again why did the world forgo the belief in the Greek Gods, was it  proof driven?

Over two weeks now since I started this thread and not one agnostic has addressed the key points.

Not one.

Not surprising either, given the fact that their position is untenable.

So I must answer on their behalf. I suspect that agnostics sit on the fence for exactly the same reasons that believers swallow the god story. That is, fear, greed and stupidity.

Fear:  The threat of hell has got them just a little spooked so they figure maybe they'll play it safe and hedge their bets. Maybe the magic poof will go easy on them if they don't flat-out reject him.

Greed:  The promise of heaven has got them just a little moist. Hmmmmm.......everything forever courtesy of the big cheese who looks just like us. Sounds pretty sweet..........better climb up on this fence.

Pascal - 1  Agnostics - 0

Stupidity:  The fact that agnostics use the term "agnostic" to describe their position on matters of faith but not on every other work of fiction shows us that they have made an exception for the greatest crock of shit ever told. But not for much, much smaller crocks of shit. They will confidently dismiss the tooth fairy and the easter bunny, but show them the most absurd work of fiction in history and all of a sudden they become all wishy washy and open-minded. I hate to say it, but this is garden-variety stupidity.

I suspect that the ad-populum argument sways a lot of agnostics too. I think that if millions of adults believed in the tooth fairy, the poor old agnostic would hop up onto the fence on that subject too.

I don't like to go too hard on the fence-sitters because they are a pretty harmless lot. However, their very fence-sitting lends a credibility to religion, a credibility which they correctly do not bestow on every other crock.

Religion is not deserving of your fence-sitting. It's not even close to deserving it. Don't give it to the bastards.

Quote from: "Ivan Tudor C McHock"Over two weeks now since I started this thread and not one agnostic has addressed the key points.

Hmm.  I guess your key point was that God and the Easter Bunny are equally implausible, so if we categorically reject the latter, we should categorically reject the former.

The premise is false.  We know for a fact that parents pretend to be the Easter Bunny, filling baskets with candy and hard-boiled eggs.  Nobody sane or competent pretends to be God.  Furthermore, there is no reason for anyone to think the Easter Bunny exists.  No data, logic, or intuition suggests its existence.  It doesn't serve as the solution to any perceived problem.  By contrast, some people argue that there is in fact a reason to think God exists.  They offer as their reason the intuition that biology reflects far too much functional complexity to have arisen without sapient intent.  God serves as the solution to a perceived problem.  God and the Easter Bunny aren't equally implausible.

When someone says to us, "My intuition demands God's existence due to biology's complexity," what that person has said is either true or false, and then, if true, either reasnable or unreasonable, and then, if reasonable, either testable or untestable.  The statement, being a reference to the fact that the person intuits something, can be taken as true, if we doubt the person is lying.  It can be taken as reasonable, since biology's complexity is certainly astonishing in the absence of sapient intent.  But it must be taken as untestable, so long as we denote by the word God something unempirical in nature, since the unempirical must forever elude empirical testing, and empirical testing is the only testing we or anyone can perform.

No one sane or competent says, "My intuition demands the Easter Bunny's existence."  Again, everyone sane and competent knows that parents pretend to be the Easter Bunny; moreover, the Easter Bunny doesn't serve as a possible solution to any perceived problem.

My guess as to why you perceive the Easter Bunny and God to be equally implausible is this: you take it as self-evident that the non-empirical cannot exist.  Pick anything non-empirical, it can't exist, period.  Unfortunately, while it's true that the non-empirical cannot be known, and while it's true that the forever unknowable cannot reasonably be treated as relevant, it isn't necessarily true that the non-empirical cannot exist.  The limits of possible knowledge do not equal the limits of possible existence.  Or, if they do, you'll have to explain why.

I wore the Agnostic label for a while.
Don't think I was measurably stupider then.
Agnosticism was avoiding the arrogance of knowing.
Those guys that know do all the harm you know.
Dismissed the worlds religions, bunnies, Santas and Satans as our creations.
I'm not meaning to be mystical.
But I think open is better than closed.

Quote from: "Ivan Tudor C McHock"Over two weeks now since I started this thread and not one agnostic has addressed the key points.

Not one.

Not surprising either, given the fact that their position is untenable.

So I must answer on their behalf. I suspect that agnostics sit on the fence for exactly the same reasons that believers swallow the god story. That is, fear, greed and stupidity.

Or perhaps it is because we don't have any "fence sitting" agnostics on the forum...because that would be a more reasonable answer to why none have responded to you.

Most of our agnostics are also atheist and therefore aren't "fence sitters."

It's only honest to admit that ultimately we don't know if something right to call god exists (we wouldn't even know if a deist god did exist, for example) so there is nothing wrong with agnosticism in general.  You can't compare a generic creator god to an easter bunny and pretend like it's not apples to oranges.

Quote from: "Whitney"You can't compare a generic creator god to an easter bunny and pretend like it's not apples to oranges.

Why not? They are both the same - BS.

Agnostics who KNOW (how?) that the Easter Bunny is not real, claim to "not know" that God definitely does not exist because it cannot be proven? You can't prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist either. Yet we "know" one is false and "don't know" the other?

Agnosticism seems to be a bit of a cop out to me.

Budgerigars are a bird of arid regions.  They can go a few years without breeding, but come a good year and they can breed several times.
Well good times for budgies are here.  I never have seen a wild budgie, maybe one day I'll see a bunch of them.
Sorry if this post make less sense than the preceding one.

Considering that we don't know how the universe started I wouldn't consider a deist creator utter bs; it's really no less philosophically justified than any other origins theory that has yet to be proven.  The possibility is there since a deist god is philosophically sound (unlike more specific gods which are not) aside from not having physical proof, we just don't have a way to decide how likely one is and there just isn't a reason to actually believe in a god unless one is proven.  A deist god would basically just be a supernatural force anyway...none of that anthropomorphic religious crap.

The Easter Bunny is just a stupid myth made up to amuse children on Easter instead of telling them that eggs are fertility symbols...there no reason to even entertain it as possible because it can't even start to be philosophically justified.  We can reasonably prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist by pointing out that parents hide the eggs, where the story originates from and that no accounts of it were in place before x date etc to the point that someone would have to have a child mind in order to still refuse to admit it s not real....much in the same way that the Judeo-Christian God can be shown to be false.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Budgerigars are a bird of arid regions.  They can go a few years without breeding, but come a good year and they can breed several times.
Well good times for budgies are here.  I never have seen a wild budgie, maybe one day I'll see a bunch of them.
Sorry if this post make less sense than the preceding one.

It certainly did.

Quote from: "Whitney"Considering that we don't know how the universe started I wouldn't consider a deist creator utter bs; it's really no less philosophically justified than any other origins theory that has yet to be proven.  The possibility is there since a deist god is philosophically sound (unlike more specific gods which are not) aside from not having physical proof, we just don't have a way to decide how likely one is and there just isn't a reason to actually believe in a god unless one is proven.  A deist god would basically just be a supernatural force anyway...none of that anthropomorphic religious crap.

The Easter Bunny is just a stupid myth made up to amuse children on Easter instead of telling them that eggs are fertility symbols...there no reason to even entertain it as possible because it can't even start to be philosophically justified.  We can reasonably prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist by pointing out that parents hide the eggs, where the story originates from and that no accounts of it were in place before x date etc to the point that someone would have to have a child mind in order to still refuse to admit it s not real....much in the same way that the Judeo-Christian God can be shown to be false.

I agree.

Quote from: "Whitney"...much in the same way that the Judeo-Christian God can be shown to be false.

And how is that exactly? You say you can reasonably prove that the 'Judeo-Christian' God can be shown false how so? I don't mean to derail the thread, perhaps you would be willing to discuss this via PM?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Whitney"...much in the same way that the Judeo-Christian God can be shown to be false.

And how is that exactly? You say you can reasonably prove that the 'Judeo-Christian' God can be shown false how so? I don't mean to derail the thread, perhaps you would be willing to discuss this via PM?

In short because the only source for knowing about that god, the Bible, has numerous problems many of which should be enough on their own for any reasonable person to drop the belief.  I'm actually not interested in discussing it privately because I'm pretty much permanently burnt out on debating Christianity (not interesting anymore)...there are a lot of threads on that topic here alone in which I've participated and you are free to browse them.  I also participated a lot on the old wwgha forum you can search for "laetusatheos" here:  http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php)

In further response to the OP...

Comparing the tooth fairy, or the easter bunny to a generalized god is, for lack of a better word, incorrect.

I can reject the Christian/Jewish/Islamic God or the Greek Gods in much the same way as the easter bunny or tooth fairy. They all have no evidence of existing and mountains of evidence of not existing. You can also trace them all back to a point of human origin.

But I cannot totally reject the concept of God in the same way that I cannot totally reject the idea that fairies exist. Both are un-empirical statements and cannot be proved or disproved beyond all doubt. Therefore, it would be intellectual dishonesty and arrogance for me to say that they cannot exist whatsoever. The fact that there is not evidence for a claim does not make it false, if there is no evidence in relation to the claim at all, it is an unfalsifiable claim, and cannot be proven or unproven. I do not believe such claims should be given credibility, but at the same time, they should not be dismissed as impossible. At some time in the future, we may possess the knowledge to disprove the idea of God, but even so, that time is not now.

As a side note, I do not label myself an agnostic atheist, or an atheist, because I do not see the point of the word. I prefer free-thinker, or nihilist.

Also, you say religion does not deserve our fence-sitting. There is a stark difference between religion and theism.

Quote from: "Whitney"In short because the only source for knowing about that god, the Bible, has numerous problems many of which should be enough on their own for any reasonable person to drop the belief.

This doctrine is known as Sola Scriptura, one to which I do not subscribe to.

For me the existence of God relies in history, philosophy, personal experience, so and so forth.

Most agnostics are only agnostic toward one theological framework - Deism.  Ask them about Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, and they won't claim agnosticism; rather, they'll acknowledge that they reject those frameworks out of hand.

Being agnostic toward Deism is really just a matter of being unable to answer one question definitively.  Was the universe created?  Unknown and unknowable.
 
Does the Easter Bunny put eggs in baskets?  No.  How do we know?  Because people put the eggs in the baskets, and any household where no people do so, has no baskets with eggs come Easter morning.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Ivan Tudor C McHock"Over two weeks now since I started this thread and not one agnostic has addressed the key points.

Hmm.  I guess your key point was that God and the Easter Bunny are equally implausible, so if we categorically reject the latter, we should categorically reject the former.

No, my key point is that they are not equally implausible. The god crock is vastly more implausible than the easter bunny crock. To illustrate this point, I offer this challenge: Try to invent a story which strays further from the natural world than a magic invisible poof zapping up the entire universe and all life with a magic wand.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"The premise is false.  We know for a fact that parents pretend to be the Easter Bunny, filling baskets with candy and hard-boiled eggs.  Nobody sane or competent pretends to be God.  Furthermore, there is no reason for anyone to think the Easter Bunny exists.  No data, logic, or intuition suggests its existence.  It doesn't serve as the solution to any perceived problem.  By contrast, some people argue that there is in fact a reason to think God exists.  They offer as their reason the intuition that biology reflects far too much functional complexity to have arisen without sapient intent.  God serves as the solution to a perceived problem.  God and the Easter Bunny aren't equally implausible.

You have missed my point here. If the easter bunny analogy doesn't float your boat, then pick any fictional character from any fiction book ever written.

The "biological functional complexity" argument presumes to have identified the threshold of complexity above which a god is necessary and below which a god is not necessary. To presume to identify this threshold, in the absence of any other life-bearing worlds with which to compare ours, is absurd.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"No one sane or competent says, "My intuition demands the Easter Bunny's existence."  Again, everyone sane and competent knows that parents pretend to be the Easter Bunny; moreover, the Easter Bunny doesn't serve as a possible solution to any perceived problem.

No one sane or competent says, "My intuition demands a god's existence".

Moreover, the potential problem-solving ability of fictional creations is utterly irrelevant to the likelihood of them actually existing. Evidence is what matters.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Ivan Tudor C McHock"Over two weeks now since I started this thread and not one agnostic has addressed the key points.

Not one.

Not surprising either, given the fact that their position is untenable.

So I must answer on their behalf. I suspect that agnostics sit on the fence for exactly the same reasons that believers swallow the god story. That is, fear, greed and stupidity.

Or perhaps it is because we don't have any "fence sitting" agnostics on the forum...because that would be a more reasonable answer to why none have responded to you.

They are ALL fence-sitters. They are not on the fence WRT the tooth fairy. They make an exception for little goddy.

Quote from: "Whitney"It's only honest to admit that ultimately we don't know if something right to call god exists (we wouldn't even know if a deist god did exist, for example) so there is nothing wrong with agnosticism in general.  You can't compare a generic creator god to an easter bunny and pretend like it's not apples to oranges.

Unfortunately, agnostics save this adjective for but one of the millions of unknowables in this universe. This is my problem. They make an exception for the biggest, stinkiest pot of shit of them all.

Quote from: "Whitney"Considering that we don't know how the universe started I wouldn't consider a deist creator utter bs; it's really no less philosophically justified than any other origins theory that has yet to be proven.  The possibility is there since a deist god is philosophically sound (unlike more specific gods which are not) aside from not having physical proof, we just don't have a way to decide how likely one is and there just isn't a reason to actually believe in a god unless one is proven.  A deist god would basically just be a supernatural force anyway...none of that anthropomorphic religious crap.

We live in a world in which there has been not one verified example of a supernatural phenomenon. Not one. And this is despite the best efforts of god-shouters, psychics, astrologers and every other bullshit artist throughout history.

And in the face of this reality, you have stated that you would NOT consider this: "A deist god would basically just be a supernatural force..." to be utter bs.

The deist god is just as big a crock of shit as every other anthropomorphic god.

Quote from: "EssejSllim"In further response to the OP...

Comparing the tooth fairy, or the easter bunny to a generalized god is, for lack of a better word, incorrect.

I can reject the Christian/Jewish/Islamic God or the Greek Gods in much the same way as the easter bunny or tooth fairy. They all have no evidence of existing and mountains of evidence of not existing. You can also trace them all back to a point of human origin.

But I cannot totally reject the concept of God in the same way that I cannot totally reject the idea that fairies exist. Both are un-empirical statements and cannot be proved or disproved beyond all doubt. Therefore, it would be intellectual dishonesty and arrogance for me to say that they cannot exist whatsoever. The fact that there is not evidence for a claim does not make it false, if there is no evidence in relation to the claim at all, it is an unfalsifiable claim, and cannot be proven or unproven. I do not believe such claims should be given credibility, but at the same time, they should not be dismissed as impossible. At some time in the future, we may possess the knowledge to disprove the idea of God, but even so, that time is not now.

As a side note, I do not label myself an agnostic atheist, or an atheist, because I do not see the point of the word. I prefer free-thinker, or nihilist.

Also, you say religion does not deserve our fence-sitting. There is a stark difference between religion and theism.

Fair point, I should have said theism rather than religion.

Also, I agree that absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. The whole point of this thread is that agnostics make a special exception when describing their position on the greatest crock ever told. Every other work of fiction ever invented in the history on mankind is more deserving of being viewed agnostically than is the magic poof.

Quote from: "Ivan Tudor C McHock"No one sane or competent says, "My intuition demands a god's existence".

Then Deists are both insane and incompetent.  Making that statement doesn't strike you as going too far?

QuoteMoreover, the potential problem-solving ability of fictional creations is utterly irrelevant to the likelihood of them actually existing. Evidence is what matters.

What's your reaction to dark matter and dark energy as postulated by modern physicists?  We have zero direct evidence of either existing.  They're postulated as solutions to problems.

My own reaction to the two propositions is that we shouldn't say more about either one than we have to.  Dark matter doesn't absolutely have to be matter, and dark energy doesn't absolutely have to be energy.  I would have given them more general names.

With regard to God, I likewise think we shouldn't say more than we have to.  Zero attributes should be applied to it, and zero actions beyond creation ascribed to it.  This of course makes the concept useless for any conceivable purpose, and for that reason, I respond to it with utter apathy.

The difference between dark matter and dark energy, on one hand, and God on the other, is that we presumably will be able to one day encounter dark matter and dark energy empirically.  We will never encounter God empirically, which renders the intuition suggesting God's existence a useless intuition, never to be followed up in any way, certainly never to be refined into a testable hypothesis.

Quote from: "Ivan Tudor C McHock"We live in a world in which there has been not one verified example of a supernatural phenomenon. Not one. And this is despite the best efforts of god-shouters, psychics, astrologers and every other bullshit artist throughout history.

And in the face of this reality, you have stated that you would NOT consider this: "A deist god would basically just be a supernatural force..." to be utter bs.

We haven't seen life on other planets either yet I doubt anyone here would consider alien life utter bs...because there are various reasons to think they are possible  and even highly likely.  Numerous people have even failed at trying to make us think that aliens have visited Earth yet no matter how scientists try they can't verify it.

How is this different from acknowledging that it is not impossible that something that acts contrary to what we understand to be natural could exist?  

Are you able to make your point without saying bs?   Also, it's it kind stupid to be on the war path against agnostics when they are one of our closest allies against impeding religious control?

...and agnosticism....now there'sa topic!

Ah!  Finally!

Someone who knows everything and is not afraid to say so!

Thank god...

Why is it so hard for humans to admit when they don't know something?
Insecurity? Fear? A need to belong?

The only reason it appears there is a fence is because so many people are busy taking sides.
I guess there are fundamentalists in both camps, eh?

Agnosticsm is the natural religion of man.

Quote from: "Achronos"Agnosticsm is the natural religion of man.

But it's not a religion...?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"Agnosticsm is the natural religion of man.

But it's not a religion...?

Achronos, I also wonder what you mean by this statement.

Because finite man cannot comprehend the infinite God. But God has revealed Himself.

Quote from: "Achronos"Because finite man cannot comprehend the infinite God. But God has revealed Himself.

Uhhh...okay...

The question still stands.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"Because finite man cannot comprehend the infinite God. But God has revealed Himself.

Uhhh...okay...

The question still stands.

Mortals cannot fully understand immortals, but the head honcho immortal has opened his rain coat a few times to some people, therefore one should believe in dancing waffles and also that man has a built in religion of agnosticism. You shouldn't try to understand why it is so because of how incomprehensible muffins are to us mere skin bags, just accept it as well as the concept behind not being able to understand ice cream shoes baking in the oven, but it is what it is. Obviously.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"Because finite man cannot comprehend the infinite God. But God has revealed Himself.

Uhhh...okay...

The question still stands.

Are we really arguing over semantics, again?

Quote from: "Davin"Mortals cannot fully understand immortals, but the head honcho immortal has opened his rain coat a few times to some people, therefore one should believe in dancing waffles and also that man has a built in religion of agnosticism. You shouldn't try to understand why it is so because of how incomprehensible muffins are to us mere skin bags, just accept it as well as the concept behind not being able to understand ice cream shoes baking in the oven, but it is what it is. Obviously.

Can you restate that, with coherence?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Davin"Mortals cannot fully understand immortals, but the head honcho immortal has opened his rain coat a few times to some people, therefore one should believe in dancing waffles and also that man has a built in religion of agnosticism. You shouldn't try to understand why it is so because of how incomprehensible muffins are to us mere skin bags, just accept it as well as the concept behind not being able to understand ice cream shoes baking in the oven, but it is what it is. Obviously.

Can you restate that, with coherence?

Yes I can, can you make your statement coherent?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"Because finite man cannot comprehend the infinite God. But God has revealed Himself.

Uhhh...okay...

The question still stands.

Are we really arguing over semantics, again?

You said agnosticism was the natural state of man. I said that agnosticism is not a religion. In response, you said, and I quote, "Because finite man cannot comprehend the infinite God. But God has revealed Himself."

I fail to see how that answers the question.

I've thought this guy was a troll in sheep's clothing since he signed up. I'm glad he's finally showing his true colors to everone now.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"I've thought this guy was a troll in sheep's clothing since he signed up. I'm glad he's finally showing his true colors to everone now.

I agree. It's been nothing but sarcasm, insults and zero constructive input from this guy.

Let me clarify my original position since that term 'religion' entails some sort of negative connotation which would fit 'agnosticism' in a box. What I am saying is that we don't know about God but only what has been revealed to us.

I think I made a mention in another thread about not using arrogance when trying to define what exactly God is, but we may even approach God in an Aquinas persepctive and define what God is not. But the only thing we can 'accurately' describe about God, and I must reiterate this, is what has been revealed to us. And in my case that revelation is Jesus Christ, the Logos, the Incarnation of God. So going back to my initial claim stating that agnositicsm is the natural 'religion' of man, I mean that in the sense that we cannot exactly fully know or comprehend God; but that's not to say Orhtodoxy is based on agnositicsm because we do know God does exist by His revelation in the form of Jesus Christ.

One of the compelling things to me when viewing Christianity is that Christ showed the way for man to be in communion with God; not merely just as a revelation. To me it seems rather foolish that a divine Creator, who would have created all things, would not want a relationship with His creation who He made in His likeness and image. This is one of the pitfalls Islam has, because they view God as a trandescdant being and there is no real conenction, or I would say relationship, with God. God had to incarnate Himself into man so we can understand how that communion between God and man happens. This is why Christ has two natures (although not seperate but in a hypostatic union) both Divine and Man.

I'll say this if my mind was of God's, if I had the very mind of God then I would comprehend myself because I would essentially be God. But the union between our mind and our heart, which is essential in 'knowing' God was severed at the Fall of man in the Garden of Eden. That's a bit of a different topic in it's own entirely, but in conclusion when we do pass from this life into the next, to be in communion with God again only then can we begin to understand and know God. In my opinion the old question of what will we be doing in eternity is a continual relationship with the infinite God, so to understand and know God more and more would be infinite. Then I'll throw in and say since God is perfect, is love, etc then we can be perfect in that state with communion with God for eternity. Again we are diving into more theology than I have time to really get into and explore further.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"I've thought this guy was a troll in sheep's clothing since he signed up. I'm glad he's finally showing his true colors to everone now.

Odd.  I thought that summed up you.

It's pretty simple.  You can't prove the existence - or the non-existence - of God.  In fact, you can't prove much of anything - gravity, evolution, the earth rotating around the sun - to an absolute 100% certainty.  All you can do is say that you are 99% certain or 99.9999% certain.  

So even those people - like me - who consider themselves atheists aren't 100% sure that there's no God.  In fact, since an understanding of how the universe began - where it came from - is so beyond our capacity to comprehend at this time - and probably for all time - we should be a little modest in our declarations of certainty.  Assuming that something created our universe, we can't be absolutely sure that it can't think.  But in my opinion it's unlikely.  The chances of a personal God are really really unlikely.  The chances that Christianity or Judaism or Islam has it right are almost zero - but not quite.

So the dividing line between atheists and agnostics is only one of degree - atheists are more confident that there's no God than agnostics.

Atheism is immoral by definition. Ingratitude is a deep character flaw and a deadly sin. We cannot prove with your atheistic logic that God exists. Your logic says that:
a) laws exist in everything (in the macroscopic and microscopic world) but no one made these laws; they are from themselves.
b) these laws have no purpose: man comes and goes forward until death and he is finished.

For example the Darwinist, if true to the Darwinian creation narrative that chaos/randomness (no preexisting logic) was the state of the beginning of the universe, has to conclude that the laws that govern the operations of matter actually arose from the matter itself. Marx thought that ideas (and thus meaning) have no independent existence at all; ideas are just a function of the neurological processes of the brain.

Extract God from your thinking, and the Logos â€" the comprehensive logic that interpenetrates all of the creation â€" disappears from view. It’s really a descent back into superstition; an incredulity about the elemental forces with no comprehension that they can be comprehended. For the atheist however, the incredulity is willful while for the ignorant it is merely naive.

Quote from: "Achronos"Atheism is immoral by definition. Ingratitude is a deep character flaw and a deadly sin. We cannot prove with your atheistic logic that God exists. Your logic says that:
a) laws exist in everything (in the macroscopic and microscopic world) but no one made these laws; they are from themselves.
b) these laws have no purpose: man comes and goes forward until death and he is finished.

For example the Darwinist, if true to the Darwinian creation narrative that chaos/randomness (no preexisting logic) was the state of the beginning of the universe, has to conclude that the laws that govern the operations of matter actually arose from the matter itself. Marx thought that ideas (and thus meaning) have no independent existence at all; ideas are just a function of the neurological processes of the brain.

Extract God from your thinking, and the Logos â€" the comprehensive logic that interpenetrates all of the creation â€" disappears from view. It’s really a descent back into superstition; an incredulity about the elemental forces with no comprehension that they can be comprehended. For the atheist however, the incredulity is willful while for the ignorant it is merely naive.

Evolution is not random or chaotic.

Here's a brief explanation from PZ Myers:

QuoteBasically, what creationists argue is that the evolution of new genes is linear and sequential â€" there is no history, no selection, it works entirely by random replacement of the whole shebang, hoping that in one dazzling bit of luck that the entire sequence clicks into the right sequence, and then it all works. If that were the way the process occurred, then they'd be right, and evolution would be absurdly improbable and would take an untenable length of time.

Another way to think of it is a bizarre version of the hangman guessing game, where one person thinks of a word, and the second person has to guess what it is. In the normal version of the game, the second person guesses letters one by one, and they're placed in the appropriate spot. In the creationist version, you only get to guess a whole sequence of letters in each round, and you are only told if you are right or wrong, not which letters are in the correct position in the word. Not only does it become a really boring game, but it also becomes extremely unlikely that anyone can solve it in a reasonable amount of time.

Evolution does not work like that. It works in parallel, changing and testing each variant simultaneously in many individuals, and then selection for the most favorable subset of changes latches them in place, making the matching letters more likely to be fixed.

And I don't know about ingratitude but Pride is a deadly sin and God has a lot of that if he expects worship without giving an ounce of proof he exists (Wrath - another deadly sin). It's much easier to be grateful toward things that exist. Which is why I show gratitude toward the real people in my life who have been there for me.

Also there's no such thing "atheistic logic". There's just logic and reason which we choose not to suspend once the question becomes about metaphysics. God is theory our critical thinking would have to prove. Not work from.

Per the OP...and I don't know if this helps...

Atheist agnostic: Lack of belief in gods, sure they could ever be known anyway
Agnostic atheist: So far it's been impossible to gain any knowledge of god/s; maintains a lack of belief in them
Atheist: Lack of belief in god/s
Agnostic theist: Believes in god/s even though they have no knowledge of god/s
Apatheist: Doesn't give a shit one way or the other. This is the central position amongst them all.
Theist: Faith in god/s
Theist gnostic: Believes in a god/s and thinks that the existence of gods can be known.
Gnostic theist: Knows a higher power and able to contact it

Quote from: "Achronos"Ingratitude is a deep character flaw and a deadly sin.

Ah fuck I missed that one.
What number is it?

This thread is about Agnosticism....not about how atheists are immoral, chrsitian view of sin, or about evolution (started a darwinism is made up (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6429)  for that one).  STAY ON TOPIC

Thank you  

Quote from: "Whitney"This thread is about Agnosticism...

Is there a people that worship Agnostic?  

I do believe that an agnostic stance is a valid and tenable. I've heard a lot of arguments against various agnostic approaches, but really don't find them to be all that persuasive. Not really anything more to say other than that, for now. Just thought I'd keep us going in the direction of the thread, too.
 

I'm agnostic toward Deism because I can't come up with any arguments to refute it.  My Hard Atheism thread is an attempt to elicit help in that regard.  Discussions there are interesting and useful in a variety of ways but haven't yet arrived at a refutation of Deism, unfortunately.  So agnostic toward Deism I remain.  Incidentally, this agnosticism is potentially useful in that it might allow me to non-hypocritically join forces with Deists in the cause of apatheism, as I noted in my Deism thread.  The universe is clearly indifferent to human survival, success, or happiness, since death, failure, and misery abound.  If deity created the universe, then logic suggests we view deity as indifferent, and common sense suggests we reciprocate that indifference - hence apatheism.  My agnosticism toward Deism allows me to say to the Deist, sincerely, "Hey, maye you're right, and maybe you're not, I don't know, but we can agree on apatheism."  The earthly benefit of apatheism is that it functions as a first step toward taking logic and common sense as our sole guides.  The Deist might well want to support that.

Does anyone else see honest agnosticism as potentially useful for developing non-hypocritical strategic alliances?

Quote from: "Achronos"Atheism is immoral by definition. Ingratitude is a deep character flaw and a deadly sin.

Achronos, you live in a very intolerant mindset. It's your way or the highway. So far I have read you shoot down Protestants, Atheists, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Doctors...

You have stated your view of your god's love

Quote from: "Achronos"The 'peace' I talk about is true 'love'. You can not hate, neglect, reject, subjugate, or the like, if you are filled with 'love'. That's the ultimate Christian message, and who God is.

Personaly I don't feel you are portraying this Christian message too well. Intolerance in my view is a real ugly character trait and I feel it is inconsistent with this message of love you speak about.

I am greatfull that you have stated your position on whether you are Agnostic or not as I was a bit confused on this.

Quote from: "Achronos"So going back to my initial claim stating that agnositicsm is the natural 'religion' of man, I mean that in the sense that we cannot exactly fully know or comprehend God; but that's not to say Orhtodoxy is based on agnositicsm because we do know God does exist by His revelation in the form of Jesus Christ.

I thought you were Agnostic but obviously not. I still do get a bit confused when you lump your own opinion in with that of your Orthodoxy faith, whether it is on purpose or whether you see that there is no difference between your own opinion and that of the Orthodoxy but I get a strong asscertation when you qualify by stating "we do know God does exist"