Does Agnosticism Make Sense?

it's not hard for me, assuming your speaking to me.

 

Lets pitch this in - just for fun

Pascal's Wager
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Pascal's wager)

Blaise Pascal argued that it is a better "bet" to believe in God than not to do so.Pascal's Wager (also known as Pascal's Gambit) is Blaise Pascal's application of decision theory to the belief in God. It is one of three 'wagers' which appear in his Pensées, a collection of notes for an unfinished treatise on Christian apologetics. Pascal argues that it is always a better "bet" to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather one for the belief in God. Pascal specifically aimed the argument at such persons who were not convinced by traditional arguments for the existence of God. With his wager he sought to demonstrate that believing in God is advantageous to not believing, and hoped that this would convert those who rejected previous theological arguments.

Variations of this argument can be found in other religious philosophies, such as Hinduism.

 

that's cool, If I remember correctly I think in the bible jesus said something like people could do all the things he did and greater... when I was younger & started having questions about the reality of christianity (the faith that was forced upon me as a child)it that made me think that I'd rather live in a world where people could do things like he did as opposed to a world where they could not... I don't know in my eyes it related. Please do not take me or this post as an advocate to christianity.

 

you misrepresenting the terms. think again on your first sentence. often in my life when people get my answer that i don't believe in god, they ask me if i believe in devil, then. i don't believe in god and all that concept. devil can not exist if god does not exist.

you constructed premise like this - ''you believe in disbelieving, so you are believer.'' i don't think that hold water.

i don't mean to offend you, just consider this theory of mine - you are raised as christian and those teachings in such a young age always left imprint. in your adult age you loose your faith but subconscient fear from punishment for disbelieving is still in you. so you can't explicitely say ''i don't believe in god.''

 

do athiests have to argue with EVERYONE? not only do they have to tell Christians theyre silly for believing in God, but they have to tell agnostics that its silly even to be open to the possibility.

 

Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative a- + theos "god") meant "without gods" or "lack of belief in gods".

 

no offense taken, were all here to learn. ok, We are talking about the possibility of god or the absence of god, (& the devil is a whole other issue that also doesn't exist if god doesn't) Plus I had a feeling that someone would try to use the fear theory card, and say that I'm afraid to denounce "him"(god in the christian sense), but no matter how much you want that to be true that is simply not the case. I can't stop you from believing that this is an issue of my personal fear, you can believe it if you want. I suppose that it might make that fact that you don't understand what I'm saying easier for you to accept...

Anyway, that is exactly what I think a lot of religions use to obtain people's obedience, and I find it disgusting. If people fear that a god will destroy them unless they listen to him, they react in obedience out of fear (It seems you wish to know more about my personal experience so when I was younger I couldn't figure out how to be correctly obiedient in the religious sense. & I am not obiedient now seeing as how I will not profess "him" so... it not logical that it is the fear thing. I found it is impossible with all of the contradictions from what I guessed was due to the edited & re-edited doctorines we were supposed to use for reference. (& of course I mean the bible)

The bottom line is I don't believe there's enough information to determine if something happened because "god" made it happen, or if it was a coincidence. Given the characteristics that they say god posseses he coould for fun make you think he doesn't exist, and call it a test. An example: If someone who believed in god were to pray to god for something, and they got it, how could it couldn't be proved that god was the culprit. How could they prove that it wasn't just a coincidence? would god actually speak to them to tell them it was him? & if he did that how would they know that they weren't just earing voices... or seeing things? Heck it could have been real, but there's just no way to tell. How would one prove that the things the'd seen and experienced weren't just dreams?...However the believer would continue to believe, probably under the thought that god gave them the mind to think question him... but if they did it was just one of his tests.

If there is a god, I don't believe that he is as concerened about us as traditional theism dictates, & if there isn't it wouldn't make a difference.
Anyway If you wish to continue to understand why I said the things I said by analyzing my personal experience go right ahead. and good luck finding what your looking for.

 

the original question was does "agnoscicism make sense?" My answer is that it's doesn't need to for anyone else besides agnostics.

 

... I can't stop you from believing that this is an issue of my personal fear, you can believe it if you want...

...It seems you wish to know more about my personal experience...

...Anyway If you wish to continue to understand why I said the things I said by analyzing my personal experience go right ahead. and good luck finding what your looking for...

i'm answering your post for the first time. i don't know you. all this is my assumption based on reading your post. you are picturing things like i'm obsessed with you. i posted this only for discussion, i don't realy cares what you believe.

...I suppose that it might make that fact that you don't understand what I'm saying easier for you to accept...

yes, i was really stupefied. i hope i will recover...

... Given the characteristics that they say god posseses he coould for fun make you think he doesn't exist, and call it a test...

if that is true, i'm obeying his will by not believing in him. he is way superior, and i'm tricked. so i will go to heaven, same as believers. what is his point, then?

 

if you talking about my post, read again what's forest pixie talking about. she said something like ''i'm not believer and i don't know if god exist, but i'm not agnostic''.

yes, i'm atheist and i've never in my life tell anyone he is silly for believing. i'm not arguing, im discussing. if you want to argue, i'm not interested. btw, this is forum ''agnosticism and atheism''. i would never bother people in religious forums about their believes.

 

If there is a "possibility" (logical and rational) for "God", I'd like to hear it.

Because I have yet to hear it. Thus, I am "a-theist" (i.e.lack belief in it).

 

how do you know what I'm picturing?
I mearly responding to what you said here...

Maybe you think that I fthink that you feel obsession towards me because of how many words were in my response to that... but it's just a theory of mine

I'm only saying that by what they say he could... do anything you want with it.

I wasn't quite sure what this was about or whether or not it was meant for me but I guess it doesn't hurt anything to adress it... what was this all about anyway? my first sentance was flawless. and then you added some anecdote. I mean what was the purpose of this portion?

I'm sorry, but it do. I'll give you a metaphor to help relate you to what we're talking about, cause I don't think you've read it all. you see if you don't think a shoe exists than you must think it does exist. there's really no way around it.

I just think you needed to go back and read everything before you jump to any conclusions, cause it sounds like maybe your confused or looking to uproot me from my position. and if that is the case good luck... you must look forward to working with me.

 

Oh! I get it now. You didn't read. which page # was it where I said I was not an agnostic?

Yikes!
well, what we have here is a guy first trying to build up his character by saying things like "I would neva!" & "I'm not arguing"<--- theses are both lies(on purpose or not I don't know or care.. I just expose), and meant to help him accomplish one thing... an argument. He came into this thread and saw what he thought to be an argument afoot & had to have him some, so instead of reading through it he made up some quick facts to lauch himself into an argument.

again Yikes! as I make a note in my log...

 

yes, that must be that. i'm too tired and little drunk to search back so much posts to find exactly one i bear in mind while writing that. and i'm mean that i don't want to argue. if i said something to upset you than sorry, i don't want to uproot anybody from anywhere and i don't look for work.

sincerely, hugs and peace

 

yeah.. ok,

harm has been aborted... (sorry, bout the accent, I'm watching star trek)

 

you people don't HAVE to believe that there is logic behind agnosticism, hell you don't even have to believe that agnosticism even exists. Lets just say it doesn't. It's just a figment of your imagination, like this thread, and everything else you think you did today.

 

Forrest pixie84

Dont worry about it..

Occam knows logically that a god may exist.
As you do.
The people who say a god cannot exist. have never been outside the atmosphere of this one VERY small speck of dust in the universe.
And thus have NO QUALIFICATIONS to support their theories.

They speak from the foundation of ignorance of the nature of reality.
That reality cannot be different to what they imagine.
Thus a 'god' cannot exits to them.

Atheists are just the same as theists.
EXACTLY THE SAME
Philosophers.

occam

 

Very well said, occam.

 

Isn't it reasonable to assume a god doesn't exist?

 

It is reasonable to doubt the assumption a god exists until given a reason to believe it which is greater than the reason to doubt it.