Agnostics

[robvalue]

Oh, OK. I had stopped reading your responses. That's a more sensible question.

The answer is no. But then I wouldn't identify anything as a god, so the second part is irrelevant. Your question is as much about personal definitions as belief.

[Excited Penguin]

Oh, OK. I had stopped reading your responses. That's a more sensible question.

The answer is no. But then I wouldn't identify anything as a god, so the second part is irrelevant. Your question is as much about personal definitions as belief.

My question wasn't to you though, it was to anyone identifying as an "agnostic".

[ignoramus]

Do I believe that the Gods, (as explicitly written about by uneducated goat rapers) is an exact and perfect definition of the creator of this reality. No!
Is there any other way to find out about said creator? No? Therefore, if there is a creator, we still have absolutely no idea what he/she/it does or needs or wants.

So in reality, aren't we all ignostics? Are all theists 100% positive that their sacred book is the innerant word of the man himself?
This is where it gets tricky. No one can even define knowledge. Let alone God. Let alone knowledge of God.
We're all brains in vats I tell ya!

[Excited Penguin]

Do I believe that the Gods, (as explicitly written about by uneducated goat rapers) is an exact and perfect definition of the creator of this reality. No!
Is there any other way to find out about said creator? No? Therefore, if there is a creator, we still have absolutely no idea what he/she/it does or needs or wants.

So in reality, aren't we all ignostics? Are all theists 100% positive that their sacred book is the innerant word of the man himself?
This is where it gets tricky. No one can even define knowledge. Let alone God. Let alone knowledge of God.
We're all brains in vats I tell ya!    

Yes, knowledge is a bitch like that, which is why you can either be someone who bypasses a lot of nonsense to get to the essence, or someone who gets hung up on the details out of frustration with being wrong about something.

[downbeatplumb]

I don't really know what I think about agnostics.

It's the plural form of the word agnostic, if you were wondering.

I wasn't.

[bennyboy]

I already put forward my final question. Is there something you identify as a God which you believe actually exists, or not?

I think there are some things which I would be willing to call god which I definitely believe MIGHT exist. . . but I don't know if they do or not.

What's the word for believing something might exist?

Maybe I'm an agnostic maybe-theist.

[robvalue]

Atheist still covers believing it might exist. If you don't actively believe it does exist, you're an atheist. If you also aren't convinced it doesn't, you're a weak atheist. So I'd say you're an agnostic weak atheist, if you're not identifying as ignostic.

Assuming of course we have a coherent concept to even discuss.

I personally have no use for the word. I'm not aware of any property it's supposed to have that distinguishes it from a non-God. I would only us it relatively, as in a being in a parent reality that could affect our reality would be a god relative to us. But it's still too much of a loaded term to be of any practical use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d34BmGnrUEI

[bennyboy]

Atheist still covers believing it might exist. If you don't actively believe it does exist, you're an atheist.

You can categorize it like that if you want, and many here do, but I don't accept that view of it. Your view is that a maybe-theist lacks an active belief, so is not actually a theist, so is atheist. That's fine. My view is that a maybe-theist, or anyone with an unresolved yes/no question, actually holds two contrary beliefs, until one can be discarded. And this accords with physics-- Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead until you open the box.

So until I can open the box and discard either the "exists" or "doesn't exist" idea, I consider myself in a state of duality or ambiguity, not a state of not-theist.

[robvalue]

OK, that's totally fine.

I'm not understanding what the contradiction is meant to be thought, personally. If you believe it does exist and also doesn't exist, then that's a contradiction for sure. But if you just consider both possibilities as open, then that's the default position for any claim. There is no requirement to hold the position that a claim is either true or false. Undecided is also valid.

As I said in my vid, I'm undecided regarding a generic intelligent creator of some sort.

[bennyboy]

OK, that's totally fine.

I'm not understanding what the contradiction is meant to be thought, personally. If you believe it does exist and also doesn't exist, then that's a contradiction for sure. But if you just consider both possibilities as open, then that's the default position for any claim. There is no requirement to hold the position that a claim is either true or false. Undecided is also valid.

As I said in my vid, I'm undecided regarding a generic intelligent creator of some sort.

I totally agree with this, but I'd like to elaborate a little for others. In short, let me say that if I understand WHY I'm undecided about something, I get to claim agnosticism, even about belief questions.

Maybe I shouldn't say that "I" believe it does exist and also doesn't exist.  I'm a single agent, and should have a single answer-- or be unable to answer.  My brain, on the other hand, is not a single agent, and is definitely able to simultaneously imagine and consider multiple states simultaneously.  In order for me to render a single answer to a yes/no question, one of those states will have to sort of "win out" in my brain.

Let's say someone asked if my newborn infant would be a boy, but I hadn't asked the doctor.  I wouldn't say I lacked that belief.  Nor would I say I believed it to be true.  I'd say, "I don't know."  In this case, when multiple answers are still being processed by the brain, I'd say there's a strong link between belief and knowledge-- since some beliefs must necessarily be conditional on knowledge: I believe if X, then God, if Not X, then Not God.  But we don't necessarily have access to information X, and are left in a state of permanent limbo. This limbo or lack of capacity to resolve an issue in the mind certainly could be called "undecided," but in cases where I can see I'll be unable to collect "information X," and will therefore never be able to render a decision, I'm still happier with the single term, "agnostic."

For example, I sometimes belief that the Universe may be panpsychic-- specifically that every interchange of energy represents information, and that the Universe is therefore like a super-massive, conscious brain. This mind, if panpsychism is true, I think could very sensibly be called "God." However, I do not believe that I will ever be able to determine what physical elements do/don't have connections to qualia, so I'm agnostic about whether God (by that definition) exists.