Agnostics

[bennyboy]

I believe we might live in a simulation, in which case I would be perfectly willing to call our programmer a God. So, you see, in that way, I'm in the same boat as you are. Except for the fact that I do not yet worship this being, since I don't have any tangible reason to believe in exists, only probabilities and theories. I don't have any evidence. My belief would be very much cemented with some evidence. 

I also do not have a specific god or deity which I worship.

Does that make me a theist about it? Of course not. I allow probability for this, but I don't actively believe in it to the point where I'm convinced about it. So I couldn't possibly call myself a theist on the matter. I'm very much an "agnostic atheist" towards the simulation God, just as I am towards the other kinds of Gods, even though I find the former far more appealing scientifically, and far more likely.

My stance on this is different.  To me, if a theory seems credible enough that I consider it a candidate for reality, but there is not enough evidence to either believe it or not believe it, "agnostic" is the best term.  I don't lack the idea, I lack the knowledge sufficient for me to form either a belief or a disbelief.  I really do see belief and knowledge intrinsically linked, not like this:

You need to figure out whether any of these things you might call God really appeal to your mind to the point where you are more convinced that they exist than you doubt their existence(on a scale of 1 - 100, you'd have to be over the 50 mark to call yourself a believer - I think that's reasonable, don't you?). So, are you, Benny, over the 50% mark on that scale about anything you would/do call a God yourself? -- Because as far as I'm concerned, you couldn't possibly be called a believer in God, unless you call something God yourself.

Enumerating things and believing them possible aren't the same thing.  I can't say I'm 40% sure that the Universe is pansychic and be called God, for example, of that I'm now at 60%.  What I CAN say is that the theory seems plausible enough, and has enough philosophical support, that I consider it a candidate for reality.  I do not, however, have enough knowledge to form a belief one way or the other.
[/quote]

[Whateverist]

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!    

.. and who do you think created those vats?  

[wiploc]

@benny:

You've made two different arguments in this thread.  First, that gods are not sufficiently well defined so as to be able to categorically answer the belief question.  Now you seem to be making an argument about the mechanics of belief and there being an indeterminate state in which neither belief nor disbelief predominates.  Both seem to provide adequate foundation for a position of agnosticism on their own.  So which one is the foundation of your agnosticism?

I don't think I can point to one of those as exclusively the starting point.  In fact, I'd add others-- a general distrust of the nature of reality and of mind, which makes it hard for me to form beliefs about things in general.  I find it hard, in fact, to see how any serious philosophical-minded person could be more than an agnostic, with regard to God or actually to almost anything else.

I don't understand.  If you're agnostic about everything, how can you take such firm positions?

To be consistent with your expressed skepticism, shouldn't "I find it hard, in fact, to see how any serious philosophical-minded person could be more than an agnostic, with regard to God or actually to almost anything else," really be more like, "Sometimes I think I wonder whether I find it hard, in fact, to see how any serious philosophical-minded person could be more than an agnostic, with regard to God or actually to almost anything else." 

Extreme skepticism seems to me a self-defeating position.

[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!    

.. and who do you think created those vats?  

[bennyboy]

I don't understand.  If you're agnostic about everything, how can you take such firm positions?

To be consistent with your expressed skepticism, shouldn't "I find it hard, in fact, to see how any serious philosophical-minded person could be more than an agnostic, with regard to God or actually to almost anything else," really be more like, "Sometimes I think I wonder whether I find it hard, in fact, to see how any serious philosophical-minded person could be more than an agnostic, with regard to God or actually to almost anything else." 

Extreme skepticism seems to me a self-defeating position.

I claim gnosticism on two counts: 1) on the existence of my mind; 2) on my general lack of knowledge about anything else.

[Whateverist]

I don't think I can point to one of those as exclusively the starting point.  In fact, I'd add others-- a general distrust of the nature of reality and of mind, which makes it hard for me to form beliefs about things in general.  I find it hard, in fact, to see how any serious philosophical-minded person could be more than an agnostic, with regard to God or actually to almost anything else.

I don't understand.  If you're agnostic about everything, how can you take such firm positions?

To be consistent with your expressed skepticism, shouldn't "I find it hard, in fact, to see how any serious philosophical-minded person could be more than an agnostic, with regard to God or actually to almost anything else," really be more like, "Sometimes I think I wonder whether I find it hard, in fact, to see how any serious philosophical-minded person could be more than an agnostic, with regard to God or actually to almost anything else." 

Extreme skepticism seems to me a self-defeating position.

(Not addressed to me but when did I ever let that stop me?)

Agreed.  I don't often look for the gold standard of knowledge in day to day affairs so agnosticism doesn't often apply.  But I think it does apply in the "do you know if God/gods exist" question.  If it were the casual use of "know" then it truly would be just another way to ask "do you believe that God/gods exist?"  

That's where the "do you care whether God/gods exist" question comes in.  If like me you don't much care but recognize the knowledge question as asking for serious consideration, then it is possible to answer "no, I don't have that sort of knowledge in regard to something so nebulous and ill defined but on a practical level I don't give two shits."

[Mister Agenda]

You're very black and white about everything EP, just because Rob disagrees doesn't mean he doesn't understand, and just because he's intelligent doesn't mean he's pretending to not understand.

I see what you did there. Penguin. Black and white.

[Mister Agenda]

But if you don't know what a god is, you can hardly say you don't believe in one.

How can you believe in something if you don't know what it is? To believe something is to affirm that it is true. How can you affirm something is true if you don't know what it is?

[Edwardo Piet]

Babies believe in the presence of their mother before they know what a mother is.

[Mister Agenda]

I'll try and make sure your pedantry isn't contagious to me EP. I can be pedantic sometimes and it's hard to escape it when I do.

Thou shalt not be a pettily pedantic.

But at the same time, you're being a lot more respectful than normal lately

Oh, the fucking irony in calling me pedantic in this thread, of all the people.

Yeah, if he's going to call you pedantic, he should at least acknowledge his own pedantry...oh, wait.