Whats with all the Agnostics?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Patricia on April 25, 2010 at 5:05pm

Nothing more than fence-sitting to me, I think it makes no sense when reality slams us right in the face, & everywhere else! Nothing will change what is, what isn't, or what will be, except nature, & that plays no favorites.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ImproperUsername on April 25, 2010 at 5:15pm

What can be truly known?

The mathematical models of cosmology are still only models. They seem to be "true" but are they truly reality? Ugh. I am getting in way over my head here.

Faith is the snotty waitress at The Friendly Cooker who makes it clear that she prefers to wait on men rather than women, despite my having demonstrated a willingness to tip generously for good service.

And if I can't find anything useful to say, I'll make up some silly BS. ;) What bugs me is when people say, "Science can't explain everything," as rationale for believing woo. Perhaps agnosticism ties in with that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ryan cameron on April 25, 2010 at 5:21pm

I cant truly "know" that the light was red, or my blood alcohol limit was really too high, but none of that holds up in practical reality. Ultimate "knowology" only matters (or doesnt) in ivory towers of academia, for the vast majority of us, knowing is defined as what we "know" based on what we can observe and react to. Sure, we could all be some giant simulation, but that possibility is, I would consider for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to any action we take or decision we make.

Show me a person thinks that knowing in the ultimate, philosophical sense is required for all decisions in life, and I will show you an insane person who has no business teaching, guiding, influencing, or educating anyone, and should be held up to ridicule in society.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ImproperUsername on April 25, 2010 at 5:40pm

>
Show me a person thinks that knowing in the ultimate, philosophical sense is required for all decisions in life, and I will show you an insane person who has no business teaching, guiding, influencing, or educating anyone, and should be held up to ridicule in society.
>

Have you ever met such a person? If such a person exists, then surely they live in a state of catatonia?

>
should be held up to ridicule in society.
>

Who is the judge of whom should be singled out for ridicule? Again, just interested, curious, and playing devil's advocate. Why is it important to offer ridicule? In what manner should the ridicule be performed? Which "society?" Will "society" tolerate said ridicule, or will "society" opt for mercy? How much ridicule is enough? What is the goal of the ridicule? Does the performance of ridicule have the desired effect? What is the desired effect of performing ridicule? Is it to make the performer appear superior? Is it to shame the recipient? What is the recidivism rate of reformed ridicule recipients?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason George on April 25, 2010 at 5:34pm

Agnosticism is an epistemological position, not religious. You can be agnostic about anything.

Atheism is not being a theist. If your answer to "Do you worship a god?" is "no", then you are an atheist; have a nice day. What you do about it, or how strongly you hold that position, is another topic.

I think a lot of it might be fence-sitting. But people are complex, and their mislabeling themselves is nothing unusual and can have a variety of causes.

How many people are gay and don't think they are? Are there racists who would never consider calling themselves as such?

Many reasons for this, from psychological denial, to social stigma, to misunderstanding of the terms.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ryan cameron on April 25, 2010 at 6:08pm

I agree, and I like to think of it as the difference between atheism and anti-theism. An atheist is a non theist, and sees god as irrelevant, like everything that does not exist. Existence is key to being relevant.

An anti-theist actively hates or opposes god, that is, acknowledges or possibility of existence but is opposed to god. I think theists see atheists as anti-theists in their "heart of hearts" but atheists definitely do not see themselves that way.

Of course, to state that things of a spiritual nature are "unknowable" is as positive a stance as theism, so there isnt really any 'high ground' for the agnostic to stand on philosophically either. In short : theism says "there is a god", agnosticism says "no one can know if there is a god or not" and atheism says "god, flying monkeys, santa clause...irrelevant - move on".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mojo5501 on April 25, 2010 at 7:36pm

This discussion reminds me of a situation where I told a friend about being an atheist and she was concerned about me not being "spiritual"...for some reason that was an important aspect of being human and a 'good' person in her way of thinking. Not so much religion, as spirituality. A belief in some higher power. But I'm not spiritual and see no need for spirituality nor a need to worship anything/anybody. This is often difficult to explain to people.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on April 26, 2010 at 1:47am

Of course, to state that things of a spiritual nature are "unknowable" is as positive a stance as theism, so there isnt really any 'high ground' for the agnostic to stand on philosophically either.

But this doesn't correctly describe the philosophical stance of agnostics - or of most of them at least. Today we know we can send people to the moon, but it seems reasonable for ancient Greeks to be agnostic about interplanetary travel. Or even for Galileo.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Isaac Jones on April 26, 2010 at 1:40am

I see nothing in the quoted Smith passage that implies that atheism is a lack. Nor have I ever seen that definition in a dictionary.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gurney on April 26, 2010 at 10:31pm

Good and important point largely lost to theists. I always point out to god-woshippers of all forms that they are the 'believers'. Atheists HAVE NO SUCH BELIEFS. There is no empirical evidence of any god and until such evidence is produced it is a blind belief , and god is imaginary.

Religions are masters in brainwashing their followers that if you do not 'believe' in their god you are a wretched, cursed, soulless non-human and condemned to a myriad of 'punishments'.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gila Guerilla on April 25, 2010 at 7:53pm

Ugh. Have we now got people who don't believe in "God" arguing with people who don't believe in "God". Seems like some of us don't not believe in "God" enough, (parse that one).

And now it occurs to me - we have people who like to tell us what other people think. I prefer to hear from these agnostics what they think and why, not hear it from some third party.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Becca on April 25, 2010 at 8:51pm

Atheism: lack of belief in all gods. (Or some atheists actually believe that god/s do not exist)
Theism: belief in god/s.
Agnosticism: the existence of god/s is unknown and/or unknowable.
Gnosticism: the existence of god/s is known and/or knowable.
Ignosticism: other theological positions assume too much in terms of knowledge of god/s, a coherent definition of god/s must be present for a discussion about god to be meaningful.

I run into a lot of people calling themselves agnostics who don't really know what it means. Agnosticism is not fence sitting; rather it deals with knowledge where atheism and theism deal with belief/faith. It is certainly possible and many people are both atheists and agnostics; they are not mutually exclusive positions.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page