Do agnostics think there's insufficient evidence to believe or disbelieve in Santa Claus? unicorns? How about fairies or leprechauns? Do they live constantly in the fear of whether that cloven footed, acid spitting abomination with the body of Michael Jackson and 6 Jocelyn Wildenstein heads screaming with the voice of Sylvester Stallone is behind them, with a boner, (and they just dropped dropped the soap) may or may not exist, and we can never know if it does or doesn't?

(January 16, 2014 at 5:19 am)Sejanus Wrote: the body of Michael Jackson and 6 Jocelyn Wildenstein heads screaming with the voice of Sylvester Stallone is behind them, with a boner

You've put a disturbing amount of thought into this.....

It's a nice image, isn't it?

4chan would love it.

(January 16, 2014 at 5:19 am)Sejanus Wrote: Do agnostics think there's insufficient evidence to believe or disbelieve in Santa Claus? unicorns? How about fairies or leprechauns? Do they live constantly in the fear of whether that cloven footed, acid spitting abomination with the body of Michael Jackson and 6 Jocelyn Wildenstein heads screaming with the voice of Sylvester Stallone is behind them, with a boner, (and they just dropped dropped the soap) may or may not exist, and we can never know if it does or doesn't?

I'm an agnostic in terms of intellectual honesty: Descartes is right! However that doesn't prevent me from assigning reasonable probabilities to the existence of people/events thus changing my beliefs and allowing me to adjust my behaviour.

I think most of the people who post here are both agnostic and atheist as am I. Of the two I'd say agnosticism is more central to who I am than atheism.

You mention unicorns and the rest to ask whether agnostics don't equally refrain from making a final determination of these things. But all of these things are or at least seem to be simply silly stuff. They don't any of them, gods included, warrant an earnest and absolute determination of their existence.

Agnosticism simply recognizes that it isn't possible to be certain of these things. No biggie. I don't worry that I may be wrong. Certainty just isn't as easy or prevalent as you might like it to be.

Turn it around. Why don't you label yourself an a-unicornist or a-boogymanist? Is it really necessary? The same should be true in regard to gods.

(January 16, 2014 at 8:45 am)whateverist Wrote: I think most of the people who post here are both agnostic and atheist as am I. Of the two I'd say agnosticism is more central to who I am than atheism.

You mention unicorns and the rest to ask whether agnostics don't equally refrain from making a final determination of these things. But all of these things are or at least seem to be simply silly stuff. They don't any of them, gods included, warrant an earnest and absolute determination of their existence.

Agnosticism simply recognizes that it isn't possible to be certain of these things. No biggie. I don't worry that I may be wrong. Certainty just isn't as easy or prevalent as you might like it to be.

Turn it around. Why don't you label yourself an a-unicornist or a-boogymanist? Is it really necessary? The same should be true in regard to gods.

So what you're saying is agnostics don't think silly things deserve their existence to be validated, because they're silly. The problem with this is that 'silliness' is subjective. Exhibit A: Christianity

(January 16, 2014 at 5:19 am)Sejanus Wrote: Do agnostics think there's insufficient evidence to believe or disbelieve in Santa Claus? unicorns? How about fairies or leprechauns? Do they live constantly in the fear of whether that cloven footed, acid spitting abomination with the body of Michael Jackson and 6 Jocelyn Wildenstein heads screaming with the voice of Sylvester Stallone is behind them, with a boner, (and they just dropped dropped the soap) may or may not exist, and we can never know if it does or doesn't?

In my case, I'm agnostic for two reasons:

1) With regard to a general world view, the way I collect information is fallible. I do not know where my sense perceptions come from. Perhaps it is a physical universe, just as it seems to be. Perhaps its an idealistic universe, or the Mind of God, or the Matrix, or a BIJ. I just don't have a reliable way of establishing what the truth of things ultimately is by using my senses. Therefore I'm stuck with the sense that truth is dependent on context, and that what I think is true may not apply to any underlying context that I can't interface with.

2) With regard to the God idea, I consider the question malformed. You might as well ask me, "Do you believe in boogledyboo?" I wouldn't say, "No, not really. I don't have an active belief in boogledyboo." I'd say "What the fuck are you talking about?" I wouldn't know my answer until I at least had a well-formed definition to work with.

This is a semantic preference. I prefer the term antitheist for God ideas I actively disbelieve, like Sky Daddy watching with a notebook while some teenage kid rubs one out in the shower. I prefer "atheist" for polls, where a lack of any other belief is actually worth mentioning. I prefer "agnostic" when faced with nebulous ideas about an impersonal Deity, since it's close to synonymous with "nature," which exists by definition.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I am certain of the non-existence of a theist god, but I am completely agnostic about the existence of a deist god. We have absolutely no clue how the universe came into being, so I'd say it's 50/50 chance of a deist god. A theist god almost certainly does not exist. Unicorns are far more likely than a theist god.

(January 16, 2014 at 9:09 am)Sejanus Wrote: So what you're saying is agnostics don't think silly things deserve their existence to be validated, because they're silly. The problem with this is that 'silliness' is subjective. Exhibit A: Christianity

Pretty much. But really I think all the products of our imagination are better understood by avenues other than physics or philosophy. Better to approach them as you would a novel, a poem or a painting. What do they mean? It isn't a matter of science.

---

Upon further reflection I think calling it "silly stuff" is really more dismissive than I feel about it. It is only from the perspective of science that religion is silly stuff, but then again so is art. Of course, what rankles the anti-theist is the claims made by fundamentalist theists. Now those truly are stupid and not just silly, and given their prevalence anything but benign.