To All Agnostics

Well, the "broadest" sense now, maybe. But, the very word itself means "without god" (i.e. absence of belief in such).

Where as "agnostic" means "a" (without) "gnosis" (knowledge).

Two entirely different concepts.

 

Atheistic Agnostic: I think this is probably where I fit. I don't know if God exists or not. Not really. Not for sure. But I chose to not believe because that makes the most sense to me and my reality filters.

I also don't know if leperchans exist. Not for sure. But I chose to not believe in them because that makes the most sense to me.

 

Me, too.

 

My point is this: you're CHOOSING not to believe in the traditional forms of a "god" or deity, but you are subverting your choice of belief into something else, such as your own intuition, the human logic system, your own rationale, "what fits into your reality" (as SiTH put it), or whatever.

An agnostic refuses to commit to a choice, or more importantly ACKNOWLEDGES that there is not enough information to make one. Not to be harsh, but since we are getting into etmyologicistics, one who makes a choice to believe in the presence/absence of a god or gods is an ignoramus.

 

Libertine, like it or not, yours and Sith's attitude as shown in your last posts are strikingly similar to the rhetoric of a theist.

 

The fictional-fairytale entities you named are all mythological creatures. There is no empirical or even analytical evidence that supports the existance of them. Hell, the definitions and variances of them can be found in any Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition Dungeon Master's Guide.

However, the argument could be made that there is analytical evidence -- although I haven't seen it yet -- that suggests the existance of a non-specific deity.

I do mean to differentiate between "god" and "God" here, of course. There is no analytical evidence to suggest that God exists, but there might be for *a* god.

I guess ... you're asking for the difference. The difference is the potential for analytical evidence, in a nutshell.

I'd think it could be argued that belief is closely tied to knowledge.

In my critical thinking class here at RIT, it was suggested that every person's belief is based on their amount of subjective evidence -- while subjective evidence isn't objective knowledge, it must still be counted when analyzing an individual.

I suppose my thesis is this:

Knowledge is to objective evidence as
Belief is to subjective evidence.

The problem lies in the indeterminate nature of subjective evidence -- the border between belief and knowledge is often too blurry to make precise distinctions as to what is knowledge and what is belief.

So ultimately, agnosticism (and similarly logical positivism) accepts only knowledge and reasoning (including probabilities) as true (or probable), but rejects belief and anything founded on it.

You might, of course, say that atheism makes the same charge.

The difference is very subtle, and I do believe that we are really talking about two interpretations or nuances of the same core concept.

He's probably getting caught up in the semantics and "independence" of agnosticism's representation as a shade of gray in a black and white world. For many, agnosticism represents a position of non-stance on the issue -- yet this is often also called weak/agnostic atheism.

Which brings up another question I want to explore ... the relationship between agnostic atheism, and agnostic theism.

If both are agnostic, doesn't the additional "a/theism" only denote the "base case" or default of recognition?

In other words ...

Agnostic atheism = Don't believe it unless there is evidence.
Agnostic theism = Believe it unless there's evidence against it.

I would argue that "agnostic atheism" and "agnostic theism" are both branches of "agnosticism," and the only division between them is the default assumption.

Thus you have a spectrum to deal with. From left to right, you have:

Strong Atheism (Atheism) Left
Weak/Agnostic Atheism (Agnosticism) Middle Left
Agnostic Theism (Agnosticism) Middle Right
Strong Theism (Theism) Right

Both agnostic atheism and agnostic theism should be considered part of "agnosticism," IMO.

But because that is all subjective evidence, it's not valid for agnosticism, whether atheistic or theistic.

 

Good post, Hik.

Although, I have to admit I see "God" or *a* god as purely fictional as I do sprites and pixies.

 

Merely because we see no evidence for a "god" and place that fictional character in the same boat with others??

I hardly considered strong disbelief in fairytales (because there is no more evidence for Sky Daddy than there is for vampires) the same as theism.

Shit, there's more evidence of UFO aliens than Sky Daddy.

 

i havnt read this thread caus it looks like another wank about the 'official' definitions of some strung together letters.

i have come to realise my position counts as far as im concerned as agnostic. but due to issues like libertine's favourite - argueing over teh definition of a word - i dont identify myself as one. but just because i accept the possibility of a god doesnt mean that i let it affect my lifestyle or the way i react to the world. i can make the assumption that there is no god as a way of assessing the world around me. i dont treat the world as if there is a god because there is no reason to believe so. but it is the height of a mixture of ignorance and naivety for any human to think that he knows the absolute truth, however much he may know; imo. thus i cannot say 'there is no god' all i can say is that 'this god that has been concieved has been concieved on the basis of fallacies or paradox and thus is not viable'. while there is nothing to say there is some divine power behind the laws of physics, there is nothing to say that there isnt. but there is no point thinking about that (not that thinking about it is bad - just worthless, waste of time), in my oppinion, but instead to think of what IS here - the laws of physics. for any other control of divine power is not observable and thus may as well not exist, regardless of whether it does or not (if it is even possible for something to exist without being detectable in any way).

as libertine, you cannot prove that a metaphysical force is influencing physics, then you are essentially assuming yourself as capable of omniscience. essentially as some sort of faery or something.

there is nothing to suggest that there is a boogey man and thus no reason to live as if there is one. but you cannot say 'it is impossible for the boogey man to exist' only 'the probability of a case whereby a boogey man can exist is so minimal its not able to be gauged on a practical scale against any observed probability and thus cannot be rationally factored into an individual's risk assessment of their environment'.

faeries might exist but what is the point in -treating- them as real ? none. unless you did of course treat every single infinite possibility as a practical probability as you suggested would be the case in the first post and just then. this is futile and there is no place in between, so may as well be open to being corrected in te future than to being absolutely futile.

cant you accept that theres a difference between believing things as true and believing things as ways of making practical assumptions in order to handle the world in the most effective manner?

life is a risk assessment.

 

yeh to sum up: the rational behind at least my agnosticism and probably others is that its a choice between being susceptable to having my assumptions in my asessment of the world disproven, and believing in everything thick and thin (thus not leaving any chance that you can be wrong). its a pretty simply decision for me. maybe not for you?

 

Good for you.

 

agnostics are indeed in that sense thiests. that is why we are NOT "a-thiests".

i do not see a need for anything as arbitrary as drawing lines. rather observe no inate requirement in anything for anything, even itself, to exist. equaly none for anything to not exist. and ultimetly, none for anything that does exist, to resemble what anyone thinks they know about it.

knowledge does not exist out side of honest objective observation, but there is nothing to stop anything from existing outside of knowledge.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Here's the thing ...

God is a proper noun describing a specific being.

Trolls are specific creatures. Fairies are specific fey. Elves and wyrms and all that mythological shit, it's all very specific. Hell, like I said before, pick up your DM guide at your local comic shop, it's all there.

However, you can't say that the CONCEPT of a god is purely fictional. The concept of a "higher power" is not something that is specific -- it is not something that necessarily has boundaries, limits, or definition.

It's kind of like saying ... "The concept of a flying car is fictional!"

A specific flying car in a story may be fictional, but the concept of flying cars is not fictional. We think about the future of the automotive industry right now. The concept is a very non-fictional thing, and many books can and have been written about it -- some defending it, some attacking it.

Apply set theory for a second: Let's take a set of all possible gods, "the set of possible gods," and also a set of all proposed specific Gods, "the set of proposed gods."

Similarly, you can say the specific God YHWH and the Biblical story of creation are fictional. You can even say that the set of proposed gods are all fictional. But you don't have enough evidence, analytical or empirical, to dismiss the set of all *possible* gods.

Perhaps that is the difference between my "agnosticism" and your "atheism"?

Then don't post.

On may sites like this one -- take for example, Slashdot (www.slashdot.org), there is an acronym, RTFA. It stands for "Read The Fucking Article."

Many times people post comments on an article, without having read the actual article -- instead, they only read the posted summary of the article.

Similarly -- don't post if you don't know what we're talking about. Have the courtesy to pay attention to what you are responding to, please. =)

I disagree.

Agnosticism has nothing specific to do with belief. It deals with knowledge regarding your beliefs.

The only relationship agnosticism has to belief is the base case -- atheistic (disbelieve unless there is evidence) or theistic (belief unless there is evidence against).

Yeh, you have a case. At this point, it's all conceptual gerrymandering.

Still -- drawing lines makes epistemology a lot easier for people. But it only works if you throw out your ego and don't argue over syntax. When there is a difference in the labels of your concepts and the labels of another's concepts, it is necessary to reach a standard, and agree to use one syntax for one concept.

Like we could get into a huge argument over the difference between "logical positivism" and, say, "analytical empricism."

But if they mean the same thing, what's the point of the argument? The argument becomes a strawman for the real issue at hand.

 

OK. The specific God YHWH and the Biblical story of creation are fictional. and the set of proposed gods are all fictional.

There. Clear enough, now?

And I don't quite remember saying anything about the "concept" of "God".

 

Oh yeah, I know ... I was just sayin'.

That's my position.

 

i read the article - the topic post. it asked a question trying to understand a rational. so i gave my rational. seems libertine thought it was perfectly logical

 

Hey Stoner

U a Sydney lad. Occam moved from randwick up the coast.
Small town...no grief.

Like the specs..u need them with 'reactive mull mixes'
Never know when a sneeky seed may pop and take out an eye.

Occam

 

Right on, I'm just saying.

 

I fail to fit in any of these catagories

I will make my own

Mystic with knowledge: Aware of truth of non seperation, of being part of it all and all... all is one... This awareness can be called god consciousness, and thier are degrees of it, as I am just a beginner, there are also experts. Concept of God is a beautiful one to use about the reality of non-seperation, but truly all concepts break apart against the reality of IT BEING HERE NOW, the experience of it in the HERE AND NOW, is more important then any concept... And since I am not seperate... I am an athiest, an agnostic, a beliver a christian a muslim a nazi... you name it, it is ME... and I DO NOT DOUBT MY OWN BEING... I fear it... I fear it because it is the thing I am most scared of, it is all the things I fear... Doubt in me was destroyed years ago, and the lingering doubting echoes of subconscious thoughts were quelled by Goswami and quantum mechanics... All the doubt that exists does not exist in my personal consciousness but in the consciousness of others... thus the fear became tremendous because of the all powerful nature of my very BEING and knowing what it can and has DONE TO ME! this fear inspires, my CURRENT NON-FEAR and the opening of my love... For I know that it protects those that truly recognize its existence, and develop a relationship with it through humility! And YES it can manifest as a personal god for somebody in the way that devotee wishes... still it's REALITY is beyond that... BEYOND THE BEYOND. AMEN

I believe in my knowledge of my own awareness. Thus I am a knower, a seer, a beleiver, a nondoubter.

Everybody knows deep down... I AM!

I do doubt sometimes the heaviness of this material plane... perhaps it is not so heavy as it seems.