Atheism & Agnosticism a subforum of Religion & Spritually...

runswithascript

Sean_K wrote: »

I disagree, I doubt there is any atheist who would refuse to convert in the presence of irrefutable proof of the existence of one or more gods.

Relevance? How is any of the above disagreeing with my statements...

Sean_K wrote: »

An atheist is confidant that the proof will be non-forthcoming. An agnostic is not so sure.

Yes thank you, I know the difference.

Sean_K wrote: »

Religious folks are miles away. Blind faith? No thanks.

Religious folks are miles away but they're closer to agnostics than they are to atheists. Religion and blind faith are at one end of the spectrum while logical skeptical atheism is at the other with less skeptical agnosticism somewhere in the middle, it's a pretty simple concept.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

LA3G wrote: »

Relevance? How is any of the above disagreeing with my statements...

Well if you want me to spell it out:

I was highlighting that atheists and agnostics stand on very similar ground and are coming from the same angle, i.e. refusing to believe that which has not been proven, and this is probably the core belief of both group.

Tell me how an agnostic's core belief fits into a religious perspective which demands the unquestioning worship of a supernatural being?

Mena

Sean_K wrote: »

I disagree, I doubt there is any atheist who would refuse to convert in the presence of irrefutable proof of the existence of one or more gods.

I hate to take this off topic thread off the off topic but I can't resist that one.

I could never see myself "converting". Sure, if some irrefutable proof were to emerge (not going to happen, ever) that one of the thousands of gods out there happened to actually exist, I'd be intrigued. That's all. No way in "hell" am I going to convert and "worship" this hitherto invisible force.

Dave!

Personally I'd be down on my hands and knees worshipping the sh*t out of Him (p.b.u.h.) in the hope of mercy for my family and I.

Each to their own though...

...Enjoy hell...

AtomicHorror

Yeah, if the abrahamic God is the real deal, some gratuitous sucking-up would very much be in order. He's a fiend for the punishment I hear.

runswithascript

Sean_K wrote: »

Well if you want me to spell it out:

I was highlighting that atheists and agnostics stand on very similar ground and are coming from the same angle, i.e. refusing to believe that which has not been proven, and this is probably the core belief of both group.

Tell me how an agnostic's core belief fits into a religious perspective which demands the unquestioning worship of a supernatural being?

Agnostics also refuse to disbelieve.

There's a reason people refer to them as on the fence, it's because it's accurate - granted there are agnostics that are almost christian and almost atheist but if they still refer to themselves as agnostic they're halfway between atheist and theist and not closer to one or the other.

The Mad Hatter

LA3G wrote: »

Agnostics also refuse to disbelieve.

There's a reason people refer to them as on the fence, it's because it's accurate - granted there are agnostics that are almost christian and almost atheist but if they still refer to themselves as agnostic they're halfway between atheist and theist and not closer to one or the other.

Um...did you just contradict yourself within the space of one sentence?

Makes sense to me

Dades

LA3G wrote: »

there are agnostics that are almost christian and almost atheist but if they still refer to themselves as agnostic they're halfway between atheist and theist and not closer to one or the other.

Deleted User wrote: »

Makes sense to me

Only because like LA3G you don't understand the term agnostic.

The idea that agnostics sit between theists and atheists is crap. I'm an agnostic and an atheist. You don't have to be one if you are the other, but the fact that you can be both is enough.

pH

Dades wrote: »

The idea that agnostics sit between theists and atheists is crap. I'm an agnostic and an atheist. You don't have to be one if you are the other, but the fact that you can be both is enough.

So not only are you a fence sitter, it appears that you can't even decide which fence to sit on?

SeanW

LA3G wrote: »

Agnostics also refuse to disbelieve.

There's a reason people refer to them as on the fence, it's because it's accurate - granted there are agnostics that are almost christian and almost atheist but if they still refer to themselves as agnostic they're halfway between atheist and theist and not closer to one or the other.

Then you don't know what an agnostic is.

Agnosticism is concerned not primarily of whether or not "God" exists but the nature of any supernatural entity.
If somoene is "sitting on the fence" between believing in their traditional God belief and Atheism, then they're not agnostics, they're fence sitters.
For example, if someone raised in for example an Arabian tradition thinks the question is solely between the righteousness of Islam and the correctness of Atheism, that is NOT agnosticism, similarly if someone asks the question of a specific supernatural belief set vs. atheism.

Agnosticism holds that the nature of God is unknowable, and as an Agnostic myself who has done some (limited) research to arrive at this position, I would extend that to all spiritual matters. For example, can conciousness exist outside the body? Is there a spiritual realm of any kind?
And I am forced to conclude that the answers to those questions are the same as the first - it's all impossible to tell because any answers (particularly affirmative ones) are outside our scope of comprehension. Likewise agnosticism differs from Atheism in that the latter assert a belief in a negative.
For that reason, I write the word agnostic here un-capitalised because IMO agnosticism is the only truly non-religious position since it doesn't assert anything.

Agnosticism is a far more complicated position than a simple "does (this definition of) God exist?"

pH

SeanW wrote: »

Agnosticism holds that the nature of God is unknowable, and as an Agnostic myself who has done some (limited) research to arrive at this position, I would extend that to all spiritual matters. For example, can conciousness exist outside the body? Is there a spiritual realm of any kind?

I'm sorry but I just don't buy this. I have no problem imagining a God (think Zeus or similar) that regularly gets involved with humans, protects his armies, smites his foes, sleeps with human women and has children etc. A god like that could be very open and 'knowable', but still a God. I don't see anything fundamental about a god that would make them unknowable, you could propose an infinite number of knowable or unknowable gods, the unknowable ones no more likely or special than the knowable ones!

It seems to me that the form of agnosticism you're proposing is just saying "I can think of a god whose nature is unknowable", but the way you say it makes it sound like you're saying something fundamental about 'God'. Well sure you can postulate that type of God, as science has pretty much ruled out all the knowable ones, it still seems to me to be a theistic position : this 'unknowability' is still a characteristic of a God that exists, making your definition of agnosticism somehow Deist.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

pH wrote: »

I'm sorry but I just don't buy this. I have no problem imagining a God (think Zeus or similar) that regularly gets involved with humans, protects his armies, smites his foes, sleeps with human women and has children etc. A god like that could be very open and 'knowable', but still a God. I don't see anything fundamental about a god that would make them unknowable, you could propose an infinite number of knowable or unknowable gods, the unknowable ones no more likely or special than the knowable ones!

It seems to me that the form of agnosticism you're proposing is just saying "I can think of a god whose nature is unknowable", but the way you say it makes it sound like you're saying something fundamental about 'God'. Well sure you can postulate that type of God, as science has pretty much ruled out all the knowable ones, it still seems to me to be a theistic position : this 'unknowability' is still a characteristic of a God that exists, making your definition of agnosticism somehow Deist.

you're presupposing the existence of a god however. An agnostic does not.

pH

Sean_K wrote: »

you're presupposing the existence of a god however. An agnostic does not.

No I'm not, actually I'm saying the exact opposite.

I'm commenting on Sean W's statement:

Agnosticism holds that the nature of God is unknowable

Which (the way it's written) seems to presuppose the existence of god, but just make 'unknowability' one of his characteristics.

What difference is there (for the universe or for our lives) between a universe with an unknowable God and a universe with no God?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

pH wrote: »

No I'm not, actually I'm saying the exact opposite.

Ya I re-read your post, I think we're on the same side;) apologises

pH wrote: »

Agnosticism holds that the nature of God is unknowable

Which (the way it's written) seems to presuppose the existence of god, but just make 'unknowability' one of his characteristics.

Well, maybe i'm off the mark but my take on agnosticism is that it stems from the idea that the existence or non-existence of a god can not be proven nor disproven.

This directly implies that the nature of a god is not knowable, since if the nature of a god was knowable it would imply the provable existence of said god, in contradiction of our initial axiom.

pH wrote: »

What difference is there (for the universe or for our lives) between a universe with an unknowable God and a universe with no God?

Quite possibly none. It may be useful to consider the idea of inertial frames of reference in Physics, specifically the principle that within a frame there is no conceivable experiment performable which will tell you anything about the nature of the frame.

Zillah

Why are people arguing about the exact meaning of agnosticism when you can just look it up:

Types of agnosticism
Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard agnosticism," "closed agnosticism," "strict agnosticism," or "absolute agnosticism") refers the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I don't know whether God exists or not, and neither do you."

Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deity is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deity exists or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out."

Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.

Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism, spiritual agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)

Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of a deity, and do not believe in any.

Ignosticism—the view that a coherent definition of God must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of God is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.

SeanW

pH wrote: »

No I'm not, actually I'm saying the exact opposite.

I'm commenting on Sean W's statement:

Agnosticism holds that the nature of God is unknowable

Which (the way it's written) seems to presuppose the existence of god, but just make 'unknowability' one of his characteristics.

What difference is there (for the universe or for our lives) between a universe with an unknowable God and a universe with no God?

Non-existant is one potential nature of God. Existance is therefore a secondary question within a larger one.

In any case IMO the whole question of God is secondary. The bigger questions, how did we get here, where are we going, are more important - if for example we were to establish that there is some kind of spiritual realm outside the here and now (which is by no means certain at all) then the questions about that would commence, what you have to do to get there, who/what you must worship (if any) etc.

Dades

Sean_K wrote: »

This directly implies that the nature of a god is not knowable, since if the nature of a god was knowable it would imply the provable existence of said god, in contradiction of our initial axiom.

I think pHs point is when phrased like that - i.e. "the nature of god is not knowable" - it implies there is a god to know.

Agnosticism is more about the unknowability of anything to do with gods, specifically whether one exists or not.

Re Zillahs list - I seem to recall we have a couple of Ignostics here!

The Mad Hatter

Zillah wrote: »

Why are people arguing about the exact meaning of agnosticism when you can just look it up:

Because English is a wanky language whose meanings frequently change, and it's often useful to rein in definitions before a word ends up having multiple meanings.

See Compound, specifically

19. to increase or add to: The misery of his loneliness was now compounded by his poverty.

<snip>

21. to make a bargain; come to terms; compromise.

The creationist misuse of the word 'theory' is another good example of this.

Teutorix

To all those who wonder about atheism + religiousness , Einstein described himself as a "deeply religious non-believer"
chapter 1 of Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" explains how an athiest can still be "religious" in a way

Zombrex

SeanW wrote: »

Non-existant is one potential nature of God.

Depends on what you mean by "God"

If you mean the concept, then yes it is possible for a concept to exist in reality (my toothbrush) and be imaginary (my hot 21 year old supermodel girlfriend)

If on the other hand you are talking about "God" as something that is already defined as existing, then non-existence obviously isn't one potential nature of God.