Why Agnostic?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Personally when I stop responding is because I am getting bored with the topic or the person I am dealing with is an asshole and it is just not worth my effort anymore. So not getting a response may be a reflection upon yourself, but I, like you, like to think that "I won."

SNAP



Always easy to tell if I'm REALLY upset or offended; I leave. So far my record on any forum is 15 months,the average far less. "It's only an internet forum",it usually takes me less than 15 minutes to find and join another forum.This one is quite good,although not as 'robust' as many. I like having some rules of behaviour,some sites can get a bit out of hand.

[LEDO]

Personally when I stop responding is because I am getting bored with the topic or the person I am dealing with is an asshole and it is just not worth my effort anymore. So not getting a response may be a reflection upon yourself, but I, like you, like to think that "I won."

SNAP



Always easy to tell if I'm REALLY upset or offended; I leave. So far my record on any forum is 15 months,the average far less. "It's only an internet forum",it usually takes me less than 15 minutes to find and join another forum.This one is quite good,although not as 'robust' as many. I like having some rules of behaviour,some sites can get a bit out of hand.

Forum rules are meant to be broken. If you get banned, you have to come up with a new handle and web address to rejoin the same group. It is really not difficult to do. Since the web site really can't keep you out unless they take legal action, (and they don't bother) they can never really ban anyone. There are some moderators who take their job so seriously, you have to laugh at them. HEY! Don't you know the sun expands as it cools down and will eventually reach the orbit of Mars? Everything on the forum and anyone who ever read it will become star dust. It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter.
It just doesn't matter.

It just doesn't matter.

It just doesn't matter.

It just doesn't matter.

[Tiberius]

Forum rules are meant to be broken.

No they aren't.

If you get banned, you have to come up with a new handle and web address to rejoin the same group. It is really not difficult to do.

We have procedures in place to stop this happening. So far, they have succeeded.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

If you get banned, you have to come up with a new handle and web address to rejoin the same group.

Why on earth would I want to do that? Far less trouble to simply join another Atheist forum.I've been rather amused at the predictability of the personalities within the obligatory dominant cliques. I've only come across one atheist forum which I think is outstanding. It's outstanding for the sheer loopiness and/or swinish behaviour of most of its members. I think this forum is one of the more civilised atheist forums,which is saying a lot,as most are at least OK.


I've not been banned so far,but I was warned once. My response was a very short but vulgar private message to the moderator. I then left without further comment.

I belong to a forum so long as it suits my needs,then I leave,it's a simple notion. While I'm on a forum I do my best to obey the rules and not argue with moderators,no matter how stuffwitted I may feel the rules and/or moderator(s) may be. Forums are not democracies.


Naturally I'm referring to the rules and moderators on OTHER forums being stuffwitted. HERE both are just dandy.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Well firstly I think you showed that piece to me before, and I corrected the origin of the word "atheist". The 'a' doesn't come from English grammar, but from Greek. ('a-theos' literally means "without god" in ancient greek).

That doesn't really defeat the point does it because the Greek "a" still does exactly the same thing as the English grammar "a" i.e. reverses the sense of the word.

Secondly, your argument that atheism and agnosticism are one and the same is invalid. ...

I don't think it is ... as I said in my original post:

"gnostic" means knowledge (in this context "of god") in other words the gnostic "knows of god" or "has knowledge of god" and the agnostic "knows not of god" or "has no knowledge of god" and today that has changed slightly to mean that the agnostic "does not know if there is a god" or holds that "the existence of god is unknown or unknowable".

Now belief in something (the acceptance of a given explanation) is a two state affair, you either accept that explanation or you reject it i.e. I believe that science represents our best current understanding of the universe around us ... given the nature of science it is not hard to defend that POV nevertheless it is merely a belief on my part. The agnostic, by the very act of saying he/she "does not know" (or indeed by claiming that the existence of deity is unknown and unknowable") is essentially rejecting current religious *explanations* EXACTLY as an atheist does. In fact what is clear about the agnostic position is that it differs from atheism only in the way it is perceived by others and, indeed, historically the term is believed to have originated with T.H. Huxley as a term he used because he did not like the connotations associated with the "atheist". In other words, if the agnostic does not accept current claims to deity (and typically they don't but for various reasons they don't want to say there is no god) then the agnostic, at that point in time, is an atheist whether they want to be identified as such or not.

The other definition of agnosticism, that the existence of god is unknown and unknowable, is little more than a philosophical dodge ... of course the existence of god is not known or knowable because god won't come out and play nice with the scientists.

So logically, agnosticism and atheism are one and the same position ... one or the other is a redundant term. Since atheism (apparently) has precedence and the definition makes more rational sense in relation to "theism", agnosticism is, IMO, the redundant term.

I accept some of the modifications you make but:

• Belief in something (the acceptance of a given explanation) is STILL a two state affair, you either accept that explanation or you reject it.
  
• The agnostic (the "don't know" kind) is essentially rejecting current religious *explanations* in the EXACT same way an atheist does.
  
• The agnostic (the "existence of god is unknown and unknowable" kind) is STILL engaged in little more than a philosophical dodge regardless of whether they are agnostic believer or an agnostic disbeliever

In essence, whichever way I look at it agnosticism is an utterly redundant term, the agnostic at any given point is either a believer or a disbeliever (a theist or an atheist) and uses "agnosticism" primarily to shield him or herself from the being identified as a theist or the harsh perception of atheist.

Which brings me back to my original point ... agnosticism is wishy washy.

Kyu

[Tiberius]

That doesn't really defeat the point does it because the Greek "a" still does exactly the same thing as the English grammar "a" i.e. reverses the sense of the word.

I just included the entire post, so this wasn't part of my refutation, just pointing out the correct etymology of the word.

Belief in something (the acceptance of a given explanation) is STILL a two state affair, you either accept that explanation or you reject it.

Agreed, I never disputed this. When considering the question of whether one believes in God, you can either be atheist or theist. An "apatheist" is a term for someone who cannot make up their mind (so they may simply refuse to make a decision, or flip back and forth between positions), but the decision is still a two state affair as you say. I did not disagree with this.

What I disagreed with is that agnosticism does not cover whether you belief something to be true, it covers whether you think something can be proven to be true. I'll give the analogy I often give when explaining agnosticism:

Imagine you are in a closed in room with no access to the outside. There are no windows to see outside, no other technical devices you could use to see outside, etc. You can however, hear what is going on outside. You hear the sound of rain on the rood of the building. You are asked two questions:

1) Do you believe it is raining?
2) Can you prove it is/isn't raining? (depending on which belief you chose above)

If I were in this situation, I could make a solid argument for a belief that it is raining. I know what rain sounds like, and when I hear that sound, I conclude that it is raining. Of course, I also admit that the noise could be other things, such as a speaker above the room, broadcasting the sound of rain, or even some kind of hallucination, however I would still hold a belief that it is raining because out of the possibilities, the most likely is that it is indeed raining. In answer to the second question, I would say that no, given my current circumstances, I could not prove that it is raining. The mere existence of other alternatives tells me this, since even though they are less likely, this does not equate impossibility. This admission of not being able to prove it is raining is the position agnosticism takes when it comes to a position of belief concerning God.

Reversing the scenario, suppose I said that I did not believe it was raining. Perhaps I am more suspicious about the room I am in; I think this is all some weird experiment, or that given the month is July, rain is very unlikely. I say I do not believe it is raining, yet when asked the second question, I still admit I cannot prove my position. This is perhaps the agnosticism that most are fine to admit, that one cannot prove a negative.

The agnostic (the "don't know" kind) is essentially rejecting current religious *explanations* in the EXACT same way an atheist does.

Not neccessarily. As with my example above, a believer can still believe in the absence of knowledge. I have Christian friends, and most (if not all) would say they believe but do not claim to know. Remember, agnosticism as a lone position tells us nothing about the beliefs of a person, just if they think a certain "truth" can be proven or not. Likewise, an explanation (whether religious or not) does not have to be proven to be believed. Many scientists (and some members of this forum) "believe" string theory is a good explanation, but string theory is for the moment based in mathematics, and is unproven (some scientists say by its very nature unprovable) at the moment. It is still an explanation though. Even if some religious groups say their explanation is "the truth", all one is required to do is to believe in it, not state it is absolute knowledge (and those who do state such things are the ones we call "gnostic").

The agnostic (the "existence of god is unknown and unknowable" kind) is STILL engaged in little more than a philosophical dodge regardless of whether they are agnostic believer or an agnostic disbeliever.

I simply cannot see how it is a dodge. Your beliefs tell you nothing about hor provable you think something is, just as how provable you think something is tells you nothing about what you believe. Perhaps you could explain what "dodge" you think they are doing, because you've just stated that without any reasoning.

In essence, whichever way I look at it agnosticism is an utterly redundant term, the agnostic at any given point is either a believer or a disbeliever (a theist or an atheist) and uses "agnosticism" primarily to shield him or herself from the being identified as a theist or the harsh perception of atheist.

This is the point I feel I must hammer in time and time again. I do not disagree that an "agnostic" is either a believer or a disbeliever, but that is completely irrelevant since agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. It's like saying that an agnostic is at any given point a car owner or not a car owner, which whilst perfectly true, has nothing to do with what an agnostic is.

I share your distain for people who simple claim they are "agnostics" to shield themselves from revealing their actual beliefs. For one, I think it is cowardly and just plain useless. For another, I know that they are using the word "agnostic" completely out of its original context. They take it to mean "I don't know what I believe", when it should be "I don't think X can be proven". I'm an agnostic, and I certainly do not hide behind agnosticism; I state very clearly that I am an atheist, but the two are not mutually exclusive for the simple reason why car owners and atheists are not mutually exclusive. They refer to completely different things.

I think you are clinging to this misunderstanding of the word, which is why your arguments are flawed. You think that to be an agnostic is to have a different position other than that of an atheist / theist, but the truth is that such a word can be said to describe the position of atheism / theism, not replace it. A gnostic theist is someone who believes in God and goes further to say its existence can be proven. An agnostic theist shares the beliefs of the gnostic theist, but states that God's existence cannot be proven (due to various arguments, namely the attributes of Gods such as omniscience being immeasurable by humans).

You are taking "agnostic" as a noun, when in this circumstance it should be an adjective; it describes belief in terms of knowledge. In a general sense, "agnostic" can be a noun, but when talking about specifics, it becomes an adjective.

Hope that helps.

[fr0d0]

Even if some religious groups say their explanation is "the truth", all one is required to do is to believe in it, not state it is absolute knowledge (and those who do state such things are the ones we call "gnostic").

No never. Your re-invention of the word 'gnostic' wipes out the position of all religious faith, because none are gnostic, all are agnostic according to you.

Like you inside the room, no one can know empirically if God exists or not. No one has empirical proof. To take the position of faith further and make positive claim from empirical grounds is unsubstantiated, and beyond logical consideration. I certainly wouldn't consider it/ or I could easily justify dismissing it as any more than a theoretical consideration. Christianity doesn't back up your statement of absolute knowledge anywhere.

[Purple Rabbit]

Even if some religious groups say their explanation is "the truth", all one is required to do is to believe in it, not state it is absolute knowledge (and those who do state such things are the ones we call "gnostic").

No never. Your re-invention of the word 'gnostic' wipes out the position of all religious faith, because none are gnostic, all are agnostic according to you.

Like you inside the room, no one can know empirically if God exists or not. No one has empirical proof. To take the position of faith further and make positive claim from empirical grounds is unsubstantiated, and beyond logical consideration. I certainly wouldn't consider it/ or I could easily justify dismissing it as any more than a theoretical consideration. Christianity doesn't back up your statement of absolute knowledge anywhere.

Christianity may not base their claim on empirical evidence (the roman catholic clergy surely have tried it though), still many christians claim absolute knowledge of the existence of god. What a diffferent world would it be if relgious believers would acknowledge the fact that (their) god could possibly not exist at all.

The claim of believers of whatever religious flavour is to have other epistemological means than empirical evidence and deductional logic. This claim is an insane attempt to justify their belief that presents itself as just the next offspring from mystical tradition. Nothing new under the sun.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Imagine you are in a closed in room with no access to the outside. There are no windows to see outside, no other technical devices you could use to see outside, etc. ...

This is not about something that is empirically measurable, it is about belief and, as such, we are in a very different ball game ... we are still in a two state scenario i.e. you cannot "not know" whether you believe a given claim or not, you either do or you don't. IOW your given scenario is irrelevant to the question at hand ... I suppose I could (but won't since I don't greatly care) even argue that your use of it constituted a strawman.

I simply cannot see how it is a dodge. Your beliefs tell you nothing about hor provable you think something is, just as how provable you think something is tells you nothing about what you believe. Perhaps you could explain what "dodge" you think they are doing, because you've just stated that without any reasoning.

You cannot see how it's a dodge? What the hell do you want me to do about that?

Accepting for a moment your point that it is possible to view the existence of deity as unknown and unknowable this still leaves us with a person who is either atheist or theist and give that the claim that a deity is unknown or unknowable (one I don't agree with since I see no reason to accept ANY claim that something has no empirical attributes) proves absolutely [expletive deleted] we are left with it being nothing more than a philosophical dodge i.e. the theist or atheist that would like to believe there remains the possibility of such a being yet cannot support it in any way empirically has no choice but to retreat into the psychobabble of modern day philosophy.

Hope that helps.

Not really! Quite simply this explains why I regard the entire idea of agnosticism as wishy-washy rubbish ... it is also the reason (since you evidently do believe it is a valid POV) why I didn't want to continue arguing this with you, why I thought we were done ... we are on different planes, we don't see things the same way indeed in some ways I feel you are closer to Frodo's POV than mine.

Kyu

[LEDO]

Forum rules are meant to be broken.

No they aren't.

If you get banned, you have to come up with a new handle and web address to rejoin the same group. It is really not difficult to do.

We have procedures in place to stop this happening. So far, they have succeeded.

And when I use my other computer your cookie monster doesn't work either.