To All Agnostics

If you call yourself "agnostic" about "gods", are you also "agnostic" when it comes to fairies and trolls? Pixies? Sprites? Angels? Demons? Devils? Gremlins? Goblins? Vampires? The UPI?

I am not poking fun at agnosticism at all, but trying to understand where an agnostic would draw the line.

I mean it is obvious that foundation of most religions is appealing to ignorance (We can't explain it, so let us attribute it to some supernatural force to make us feel better...etc.), but wouldn't agnosticism lead to some really odd rationale?

I mean you can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt many things that we don't truly give a moment's thought to exist, but by saying "We'll since we can't prove it, we are agnostic" astounds me.

I am atheist. My belief is that it is generally accepted that we naturally assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule most of the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.

Suppose I told you that even though I can't prove that invisible, intangible leprechauns aren't dancing in my yard every night, I can't disprove it either, and by using the "agnostic logic" I would conclude that we should suspend judgement on the leprechauns because we can't prove it either way? Doesn't that seem a bit silly?

Sure it works philosophically, but really, no one can prove a universal negative. So it seems to me that the agnostic position is a bit irrational.

Also, doesn't basic agnosticism state that the existence of a god or gods is unknowable? This isn't really a third position, is it? I mean you either "believe" or you don't. So wouldn't it be more appropriate to catagorize it this way:

Theistic Agnostic: belief in a god without claiming to know for sure that the god exists.
Theist: belief in a god while feeling certain that this god exists.
Atheistic Agnostic: disbelief in gods without claiming to know for sure that none exist.
Atheist: disbelief in gods while feeling certain that none can or do exist.

Thoughts?

 

So, you are a "theistic" agnostic.

Ha ha...faith "there is no god"? That's very broad usage of the term.

I have "faith there is no God" like I have faith there is no Tooth Fairy.

I hardly consider that "faith". If so, what is a REASONable belief?

 

If you know you can't prove a universal negative, then why did you attempt to use it as a logical argument for your case???

The fact of the matter is that we have great reason to believe in atoms and the like, due to the success of science and the fact of the theories working in reality. If you doubt it, go tell that to the graves of those who died at Hiroshima. There is much applicable evidence to lend credence to atoms.

There is no more reason to lend credence to some "God" than there is to lend credence to any OTHER myth or fairytale character with "magical" abilities.

 

How is this best explained ...

Okay. I am agnostic towards the notion of a non-specific higher power. One could exist, one couldn't, I don't know.

I'm "atheistic" or I guess just non-believing, regarding SPECIFIC higher powers. God, Allah, Zeus, I don't care what God it is, if it has a name, I don't believe in it, because there is enough evidence to suggest that it's just made up baloney.

By the same token, I also don't believe in fairies, trolls, pixies, sprites, angels, devils, gremlins, goblins, and vampires. I have never heard of "the UPI," and demons definitely do exist, they're the cruel regulators sitting in the Oval Office smoking cigaro cigaro cigar.

Not really ...

Agnosticism isn't about proving the non-existance of things "beyond a shadow of a doubt." If there is no reason to believe in something, there is no reason to beleive in something. It's just that simple. There's no reason to believe in a specific God. There's no reason to believe in a specific fairy-tale creature. Is there reason to believe in a non-specific deity? Maybe. It might be arguable, analytically.

That's not agnostic logic, that's idiotic logic.

When the question of the existance of some concept arises, one must first ask if there is any evidence to back up the claim. If there is not -- then it is a matter of the question's arisal. If there is no evidence ... can the question truly arise to begin with?

As a logical positivist, I believe that a statement only becomes a proposition if it has some scientifically verifiable or analytically concludable claim behind it. Until then, it is merely a nonsensical statement, and there is no TRUE proposition of such a concept existing.

YOUR MOM is a bit irrational!! :X

Good question.

There are actually several types of agnosticism ... some believe that the nature of such knowledge is inherently unknowable. Some believe that the knowledge is knowable, but that we as humans will never have the capacity for that knowledge. Some believe that it's knowable, but we just don't have the capability to know it right now.

Regardless, agnosticism per the etymology, refers to having non-knowledge about a concept. With no knowledge about it, one cannot make a proper judgment -- either the question never arises, or insufficient evidence exists to make a judgment, in which case the judgment is suspended indefinitely.

You and I had a LOOOOONG argument about this in the past, Lib. And while I don't want to repeat that argument (hey, that was a shitty argument!), it all comes down to how you want to label your beliefs.

There are different acclaimed types of atheism (usually called strong and weak -- or gnostic and agnostic), and often times people who associate themselves with only the title "agnostic" might otherwise be called "weak atheists" or "agnostic atheists."

It all boils down to what name sounds prettiest to you.

Nah ... no thanks. I got addicted to that shit once. =(

 

Thanks for your response, Hik.

I think that you and I DO have slightly different definitions of "atheism" and "agnosticism", but basically see it the same. I think atheism is frankly saying there is not even evidence to believe and there is no reason to believe.

But, I still can't see why "agnosticism" would be viable for "God", but not be used for the same in the other fictional-fairytale entities I named. Could you explain what the difference is?

 

Hi lib---if I say simply that I have no idea what existence is about ,what is destined for existence,how it maintains ,what will happen to "ME" when I go to dust,does that mean that I am weak for not saying :there are no gods?Does it mean that I am weak for not believing in gods?Empiricism is useless in determining anything about these questions,obviously.Well, of course I don't believe I am weak for not holding either position--I just don't know what the hell it's all about.So what label could be applied to me.?------------A friend of mine says he believes in god--for insurance purposes only!Figures he's covered.

 

Belief isn't knowing, though. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, does it not?

I guess the point that I was trying to make is that none of us KNOW these things exist or do not, but we choose to believe or disbelieve on the evidence at hand. Just because we don't KNOW unicorns do not exist, we do not give credence to such considerations because there is no good evidence to suggest such.

I have a certain friend that always answers that he is neither an atheist nor a theist, but an agnostic. But, yet he refuses to acknowledge that agnosticism deals with knowing and the other two deal with belief and non-belief.

And what constitutes good evidence? If we say "feelings" or people thinking they saw something, we would have to give credence to all sorts of absurdities as equally qualifying for belief with those that have solid evidence. Wouldn't we have to give equal credence for believing that John really saw Elvis at the 7-11? We can't PROVE he didn't, but we still form an opinion whether we believe or disbelieve it.

 

I've said this before, but theists and atheists make the same leap of faith to different protocols. The whole "Gnostic/Agnostic Theist/Atheist" bit is really just splitting hairs if you ask me. We don't live in a black and white world, and Atheism and Theism are at the extremes of the spectrum, while agnosticism is right in the middle.

I wrote a thread on the similarities between Theists and Atheist about two years ago, and was confronted with the same "agnosticism is not a third alternative" from most posters.

http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31068

 

You can be unsure of knowledge, but belief is different.

You either believe it or you don't believe it.

What is this "fully" stuff? What do you mean "fully believe"? Is there some degree of it? Do you believe in a half-god? 1/4 god? Or "half-believe" in God? Wtf?? You either believe there is something out there or you don't.

 

I have made no "leap of faith". Unless you consider my non-belief in a "God" (because there is no evidence) a "leap of faith".

That's quite a stretch! One is born without any belief in "God", so one doesn't have to make a leap of faith.

Does that apply to unicorns and leprechauns, too? I took a "leap of faith" NOT to believe in pixies and trolls?

That broad definition of "faith" can be applied to any and all things.

 

Au contraire, I think that you'll see that your leap of faith involves committing yourself to the secular protocols and constraints of human logic and rationality, which are just as man-made as any other doctrine/sabbath of a theist.

 

Au contraire, one is born without any belief in "God", so one doesn't have to make a leap of faith.

You are confusing atheism with secularism.

 

Pardon me, but "religious" or not religious, the applications I am applying deal with supernatural entities , not everything and anything.

I can't think of one thing I am "theist" about. Can you? If I am missing something here, give me an example.

Since the very term theism deals with "supernatural entities".

I am atheist. I do not believe.

Agnosticism deals strictly with knowledge.

Do you believe in a supernatural entity referred to as "God"? Or not?

 

Belief is DERIVED from knowledge. If you make the claim of not believing in something, you are inherently implying that you "know" this thing doesn't exist.

 

AreYouExperienced :

That's bullshit.

I am saying I don't believe it because there is no reason to believe it. Knowing and Believing are two different things. I will be the first to say, I don't believe (atheist) any gods exist, but I don't KNOW (agnostic) that.

You are implying that because one says one believes something they are implying that they KNOW it to be true. That's completely false.

 

YOU are the one using the religious language in those terms. I compared believe in "God" in proper context--to belief in OTHER SUPERNATURAL, FICTIONAL ENTITIES. You are comparing belief in "God" to atoms! A more appropriate comparison for "god" would be the Tooth Fairy, not atoms.

We are speaking of language which is dealing with supernatural entities.

 

You are applying these terms STRICTLY to "religion". But, "God" is a supernatural entity, not a religion.

I get your point, but I don't agree with it. I think those terms can apply to other supernatural entities as well.

Besides, is there a religion of ATOMS?

 

That is a skewed definition of atheism.

The real etymological definition of a-theism is = WITHOUT belief in a god. Thus the "a" at the beginning of theism. Your definition is the real definition for "antitheism", not atheism.

ATHEIST
1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos; from a- "without" + theos "a god".

An atheist does not believe in a god or gods. Not ALL atheists deny the existence of any gods; they simply do not believe it. Not believing and denying are two completely different animals.

It's all about the love, brother.

 

Apparently, neither did an atheist.

 

- *lol*