Agnosticism

[Ohmyscience]

What is that position if someone could clarify. Is it between uncertainty with whether any god exists or uncertainty with a personal god and no god. On the first position I can understand but for the second position would someone pray on occasion and then denounce gods existence the next?

[absurda]

First of all, shouldn't this be in "Religious texts"?

Second, well, I read on wikipedia a few weeks ago that agnosticism is when a person thinks that, with the knowledge we have, we cannot tell for sure if there is a God or not. The believer would say that there is a God for sure. The agnostic would say they can't tell if there is a God, science can't prove there isn't and religions can't prove there is. The atheist would say that there is NO God for sure. Anyways, that's just what I read.

I am an agnostic, I don't know if there is a God or not, because to me it's not that important. I don't believe in religions, I think they were created by men, and they have nothing to do with God, if God exists. So, even if God exists, I would never change the way I live, since I already try to be the best person I can be, not because I fear hell, but because I believe we should try to be good people, in order to make life in society better. Does God exist? If yes, how many Gods are there? Would he approve of my life? Those are questions I will maybe answer after I die. Till then, I just try to live my life the best way I can.

[Ohmyscience]

Is there a difference in practice between agnosticism and atheism? Since most likely you have ruled out the idea of a personal god, does it really matter that something exists outside the scope of the universe? Suppose god does exist outside the universe it certainly would make no differerence in your life on earth. If you live like an atheist (the universe is a closed system) then why proclaim yourself as an agnostic.

[absurda]

Because being an atheist would necessarily mean that I don't believe there is a God, and that is not true. I admit that there may be a God, while an atheist would never consider this possibility.

[dogar sahab]

First of all, shouldn't this be in "Religious texts"?

Second, well, I read on wikipedia a few weeks ago that agnosticism is when a person thinks that, with the knowledge we have, we cannot tell for sure if there is a God or not. The believer would say that there is a God for sure. The agnostic would say they can't tell if there is a God, science can't prove there isn't and religions can't prove there is. The atheist would say that there is NO God for sure. Anyways, that's just what I read.

I am an agnostic, I don't know if there is a God or not, because to me it's not that important. I don't believe in religions, I think they were created by men, and they have nothing to do with God, if God exists. So, even if God exists, I would never change the way I live, since I already try to be the best person I can be, not because I fear hell, but because I believe we should try to be good people, in order to make life in society better. Does God exist? If yes, how many Gods are there? Would he approve of my life? Those are questions I will maybe answer after I die. Till then, I just try to live my life the best way I can.
By the way,if you dont believe in religion how can you differentiate between good and bad..
It is the religion that tells you about evil and good!!
So you are unconsciously a religious person indeed!!!

[mangueken]

By the way,if you dont believe in religion how can you differentiate between good and bad..
It is the religion that tells you about evil and good!!
So you are unconsciously a religious person indeed!!!

I think there are better places to learn about good and bad than religion, especially when most religions offer such confused and / or contradictory lessons on good and bad.

But back to the original question. Atheists deny all possibility of there being a god-like being. Agnostics, are considered the "just in case" people. They won't deny a god / gods but they also don't (usually) participate in religious organizations.

[morphicresident]

As Socrates says in the Apology: "I go to die, you go to live. Which of us goes to the better lot is known to no one".

This is essentially the agnostic position - "I don't know".

I however, am an Atheist. To me, life is a series of decisions and judgments -- and this one is too important for me to sit out.

Still, I respect those who believe and I respect those who don't know. Because really, none of us really knows.

[bazarov]

By the way,if you dont believe in religion how can you differentiate between good and bad..
It is the religion that tells you about evil and good!!
So you are unconsciously a religious person indeed!!!

No...


HAMLET
Why, then, 'tis none to you; for there is nothing
either good or bad, but thinking makes it so: to me
it is a prison.

[Ohmyscience]

Despite the fact that atheism claims that no god exists I don't think its the same kind of conviction as saying it is impossible for god to exist. If you ask any atheist whether they rule out the possibility of whether god exists they would say "no". It is very difficult to prove a negative therefore ruling out god is difficult if not impossible. Maybe an appropriate analogy would be the acceptance of a scientific theory. When it comes to accepting i.e. relativity, there is a possibility it can be proven untrue, however most physicists would believe it to be true to the best of their knowledge. What I'm basically trying to convey is that you can never really be on the fence. Either you're leaning towards one or on the other.

[absurda]

Ok, I have to say I am stupefied. Dogar Sahab, you mean that if you didn't have a religion, you wouldn't be able to differentiate between good and bad?

Not having a religion does not mean that you don't have a spiritual side. It just means that you don't feel like you fit in any of the religions, either because your ideas colide, or because you don't feel like you need to belong to a group to worship God.

I think that even if you lean towards atheism or deism, if you still have considerable doubt, you can be considered an agnostic. Some people are 100% sure about their opinions, and those are the atheists or the deists. I know people who are religious, and if you say that MAYBE God doesn't exist, they will say that you are just blind (or stupid). And if you say that God does exist to an atheist, they will say that you are brainwashed (or stupid).

[curlyqlink]

I have never really understood the difference between atheism and agnosticism. I consider myself an atheist, but I wouldn't say I'm 100% sure God (or gods) don't exist. I can't be 100% sure about anything. Not even my own existence; I might, after all, be nothing more than the dream creation of a giant pink octopus named Phil. Being 100% sure involves an act of faith, and atheists don't swing that way.

Atheists, it seems to me, take a skeptic's view of the existence of God. In the absence of evidence of existence, we assume there is no God. It's a working hypothesis.

I'm not sure how assuming there might be a God is really any different, in practice.

[Caspa]

I am an agnostic, I don't know if there is a God or not, because to me it's not that important. I don't believe in religions, I think they were created by men, and they have nothing to do with God, if God exists. So, even if God exists, I would never change the way I live, since I already try to be the best person I can be, not because I fear hell, but because I believe we should try to be good people, in order to make life in society better. Does God exist? If yes, how many Gods are there? Would he approve of my life? Those are questions I will maybe answer after I die. Till then, I just try to live my life the best way I can.

That's exactly how I feel about God. Well put!

[0=2]

Definitions, by nature, are vague. Hypocritical(did I mean to use this specific word? drop a pm), yes, nonsensical and contradictory to their own purposes, yes. Thus is human nature.

This is how I see it. A definition, by... definition and means of acting leaves room for ambiguity in the sidelines it creates between it and it's duality, it's opposite, the other defined "forms". Essentially, all is formless, so definition excludes parts of the defined, and limits the formless to segments, forms.

Blah blah blah... existential and solipsistic. More Zen crap.

I would say that, the former being said, agnosticism might be the most sensicle belief to "hold" because it makes room for the formless, for a warp of definition. Dogma is hte opposite of open communication, interaction, and "true" intellect. If you define dogma as Christopher S. Hyatt has, as any act of assumption that one posses an absolute, then the only nondogmatic route would be one of open and informed agnosticism.

This does not mean "I'm unsure, sway me". It is not a swing voter in your politico-religious game but rather the man(womyn) who refuses to vote altogether. He plays his own game. Though I'm sure now I'll be delivered quite hte mouthful on how opposing "change" is barbaric and apathetic of me.

Make your own dogma, assemble your own religion, conduct your own science. This is life without limits, whether or not you limit yourself within this "no-boundaries" existence is your own choosing. Just no you have a choice.

We could have hte world today if we want it folks, and we don't.

(God I just love a good ramble almost as much as a good romp... hay or not.)

[The Atheist]

What is that position if someone could clarify. Is it between uncertainty with whether any god exists or uncertainty with a personal god and no god. On the first position I can understand but for the second position would someone pray on occasion and then denounce gods existence the next?

Haha, this is like one of those Irish jokes: How do you piss off a room full of atheists? Ask them if they're agnostic.

Of all debates among atheists, this is usually the one that becomes the most heated; defining the terms atheist and agnostic. (We have a kind of open & ongoing warfare against agnosticism. Christians and Muslims are one thing, but agnostics..... now, those guys, we really hate!)

The only real difference between the two is about the word "know". In pedantic terms, everyone's an agnostic. This means that the main issue is in the perception of the two terms, and since they are self-labels - it's all about how we wish to be perceived.

[0=2]

Isn't that the primary issue with hte all of everything for us humans?

[Maletbon]

An agnostic is just an atheist with common sense.

I guess I would be called an agnostic, almost. I have a strong belief that the universe was created and didn't just happen, but I sure haven't met God in person, unless God is everything and I just don't know it yet.

Any person who considers himself agnostic, yet prays in certain circumstances in normally termed scared.

[JacobF]

An agnostic is just an atheist with common sense.

I guess I would be called an agnostic, almost. I have a strong belief that the universe was created and didn't just happen, but I sure haven't met God in person, unless God is everything and I just don't know it yet.

Any person who considers himself agnostic, yet prays in certain circumstances in normally termed scared.

If you have a strong belief that the universe was created (by created I assume that you mean created by some form of a god) then I wouldn't say you are agnostic. Most agnostics I know tell me that the whole concept of god is invalid, because there is no way to determine whether god exists or not.

You say an agnostic is an atheist with common sense (don't see how 'common sense' comes into play anyhow), while I say an agnostic is just an atheist who is too afraid to choose one side or the other. As The Atheist pointed out, it's all about how we wish to be perceived. I simply don't like the stance of agnosticism, because it's too wishy-washy and ambiguous. Hell, I'd rather tell someone I'm a believer rather than tell them I'm agnostic.

[The Atheist]

An agnostic is just an atheist with common sense.

Funny, I always say that the other way around!

:D


I guess I would be called an agnostic, almost. I have a strong belief that the universe was created and didn't just happen, but I sure haven't met God in person, unless God is everything and I just don't know it yet.

As Jacob notes, that probably makes you a deist rather than an agnostic.


You say an agnostic is an atheist with common sense (don't see how 'common sense' comes into play anyhow), while I say an agnostic is just an atheist who is too afraid to choose one side or the other. As The Atheist pointed out, it's all about how we wish to be perceived. I simply don't like the stance of agnosticism, because it's too wishy-washy and ambiguous. Hell, I'd rather tell someone I'm a believer rather than tell them I'm agnostic.(bolding mine)

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

You sound just like me!

[0=2]

Belief is dogma, and vice-versa.

Assuming science as an end all be all is equally trapped, confused, and ultimately hilarious.

[The Atheist]

Assuming science as an end all be all is equally trapped, confused, and ultimately hilarious.

Well, I make no assumptions, ever, but until something comes along which is outside of mathematics and science, I have little else to recommend.

[Joyeuse]

I agree with pretty much everything 0=2 has said so far, and, as you can probably guess, I am agnostic. The dictionary backs us up on our definitions of agnosticism and atheism. From Webster's:

"Atheism: The doctrine or belief that there is no God."

"Agnostic: one who holds that the ultimate cause (God) and the essential nature of things are unkown and uknowable"

Most atheists are so against the faith of religious people, but they themselves hold belief. It seems that atheists have betrayed their roots. An atheist is one who places too much faith in science and rationality.

However, If you go back to however we first came to be, it probably started out irrationally, whether through the random, inexplicable appearance of a god from nothing; or the inexplicable appearance of us from nothing; the inexplicable appearance of a hot, dense ball from which the univesre originated from nothing; or even there never being a creation, but instead the existence of something no matter how far back you go (either the universe created itself or the concept that with time comes matter).

The point is, human reason probably cannot explain the origin of the universe, at least human reason in its current form. Therefore, the answer to the question is indefinitely unattainable to us. That is what agnostics believe (for the most part; some of it about rationality was my own extrapolation and digression, for which I apologize).

One could even say true agnostics are believers just as strong as everyone else (a lot of people today seem to use the word when meaning the wishy-washy sense of being up for anything, though they're not interchangable.) We cannot know how the universe was made, if there is a deity out there, or anything, really. Anyone who says otherwise is overconfident. Atheism is a theory, and looks like a pretty good one, but it is still a theory. Believe in it all you want, you have even admitted before, you don't know it to be true. Really, a lot of atheists are agnostics by dictionary definition, but as you said, don't define themselves as thus. Agnostics have chosen their side. It's neither with God or science, but disbelief in the overconfident.

[As a sidenote, The Atheist, the things you say in the George Orwell forum are very interesting and I enjoy reading them]

Edit: Looking back, I guess the 'agnostics are believers' and 'atheists shouldn't believe' statements put together form a paradox, but it's really all semantics because when I talk about belief, I'm talking about the belief in disbelief. I really even agree with 0=2's anti-dogma... hope i'm making myself clear.

[The Atheist]

"Atheism: The doctrine or belief that there is no God."

Fortunately, we don't live by dictionaries - especially one which has many apocryphal descriptions anyway.

The currently-accepted meaning of atheism is "a lack of belief in god/s"

The difference is subtle, but relevant.

I have posted this many times, but since it doesn't suit some agendas to accept it, I'm not surprised the fallacy continues.


Most atheists are so against the faith of religious people, but they themselves hold belief. It seems that atheists have betrayed their roots.

Not even slightly.

Atheists hold no beliefs at all. See above.


An atheist is one who places too much faith in science and rationality.

This is another frequent flyer assumptive fallacy.

Atheism is only lack of belief in god/s. As I've tried to explain endlessly, there is no one group of atheists. Some atheists are Pagan, some are psychic-believers, even David Icke's lizard people are atheists.

Lots of atheists don't agree with science at all.

As to whether materialist-rationalists (which is the group you do mean) place too much faith in science is also moot. I asked above for examples of things which don't conform to mathematics and science and I don't seriously expect to hear of any.

When I do, I will start to question whether science is flawed.

A couple of thousand years of science since its roots and it still works! The proof lies in the fact that science is constantly updated to add new information, so I do find the assertion that one can have "too much faith in science" quite astonishing.


The point is, human reason probably cannot explain the origin of the universe, at least human reason in its current form. Therefore, the answer to the question is indefinitely unattainable to us.

This is interesting on two levels.

Firstly, I'm always bemused by the assertion that science in 2009 ought to be able to explain an event which occurred ~14 billion years ago and some unknown (to me) number of light-years away.

If that's the worst that can be thrown at science, I think it's pretty safe.

The second thing is that assumption that we will never know the answer is laughable, given that we've had less than a hundred years of having the instrumentation to even begin answering the questions.

You might even be right, but it's a huge assumption.


Anyone who says otherwise is overconfident.

I would have thought overconfidence was saying "never". "Might" seems prefectly reasonable to me.

[0=2]

Well, I make no assumptions, ever, but until something comes along which is outside of mathematics and science, I have little else to recommend.

An explanation for zero?

Why we perceive? Why that perception changes the outcome?

Heh, quantum mechanics was really suicide for the mechanical mind.

Do you assume that the mathematical and scientific qualities you've attributed to stuff is inherent in the "isness" of said stuff? And if so how is this system any different from any other belief system?

It's based off of... itself. t one point it was based off of observation... as was religion. It rains... God cries.

You hold... no beliefs? That's... think about that. You holding no beliefs is a... belief. Your reason for typing and bothering to argue is a belief. You have a name correct? You attribute said identity with the greater cultural identity at large, correct? I know you do, for you coined yourself athiest.

Ego is belief. Want to see a man with no belief? Strip yourself and wander, sit, and don't come back till you've forgotten the language that made you leave.

[The Atheist]

An explanation for zero?

What's to explain? It's a human construct, along with infinity, time, pi and love.


Why we perceive? Why that perception changes the outcome?

Nope. That's the inherent beauty in mathematics - there is no perception involved, only right, wrong and unknown.


Heh, quantum mechanics was really suicide for the mechanical mind.

Funny, the mechanical engineers who built the LHC would probably disagree with you, although it is broken right now!

I don't get your point at all since mechanical minds deal with physical processes and from what we know of quantum physics so far, it still conforms to physical properties.


Do you assume that the mathematical and scientific qualities you've attributed to stuff is inherent in the "isness" of said stuff?

The question makes no sense. 1=1. 2+2=4. Maths just is. What you're trying to do is reduce numbers to physical properties, but since mathematics is also a human construct, you can only fail.


And if so how is this system any different from any other belief system?

Pretty obvious really - observe, measure and test. That's exactly the opposite of a belief system.


It's based off of... itself. t one point it was based off of observation... as was religion. It rains... God cries.

See above.


You hold... no beliefs? That's... think about that. You holding no beliefs is a... belief. Your reason for typing and bothering to argue is a belief.

Are you still beating your wife?

What you've done here is commit a classical fallacy. All you need to do is accept that reality actually exists, and then it all falls into place nicely. No, I cannot disprove solipsism, but since it's such a useless belief, I'm happy to completely ignore it.


You have a name correct? You attribute said identity with the greater cultural identity at large, correct? I know you do, for you coined yourself athiest.

No, what you've done is assume some things. Need I comment on assumptions?


Ego is belief. Want to see a man with no belief? Strip yourself and wander, sit, and don't come back till you've forgotten the language that made you leave.

Whatever the point was supposed to be here escapes me completely, sorry. As noted, I just don't bother with solipsism. I couldn't take more than 15 minutes of The Matrix.

[billyjack]

loved the matrix-its a philosophy movie with bad a** action scenes, whats not to like? i'm gonna chime in quick..in regards to disproving science.

read this in "the gay science" nietzsche. life functions thanks to truths and untruths. science promotes only the former. science is fundamentally at odds with life bc of this???

also. math and science strip life of its meaning sort of. they'd like to categorize and measure everything and then think of things in terms of their measurement. take a song, she and him's "why do you let me stay here" for instance (its on the radio right now)...what is this song when ya analyze it? beats and measures and math and timing. that line of thinking lacks zest. discounts the feeling zoey dechanel's voice gives me, the good mood the song produces. it replaces meaning,aka life, with measurements. to a certain extent at least

[The Atheist]

loved the matrix-its a philosophy movie with bad a** action scenes, whats not to like? i'm gonna chime in quick..in regards to disproving science.

Lead on!


read this in "the gay science" nietzsche. life functions thanks to truths and untruths. science promotes only the former. science is fundamentally at odds with life bc of this???

Neitzsche you say? Doesn't surprise me. I always figured anyone who needed 7 steps to agree that 2+2=4 wasn't worth listening to.

;)

It's a simple category error; science doesn't promote anything.


also. math and science strip life of its meaning sort of. they'd like to categorize and measure everything and then think of things in terms of their measurement. take a song, she and him's "why do you let me stay here" for instance (its on the radio right now)...what is this song when ya analyze it? beats and measures and math and timing. that line of thinking lacks zest. discounts the feeling zoey dechanel's voice gives me, the good mood the song produces. it replaces meaning,aka life, with measurements. to a certain extent at least

Another category error. Science isn't concerned with aesthetics. With things like a rendition of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony by the NYSO, science is pretty good at converting the sound to binary for reproduction, but it can never be involved in choosing David Gilmour's guitar solo from Comfortably Numb over Beethoven.

Science can understand the mechanisms which enable us to use our personal taste in that choice, but if you think science reduces or changes human experience, you're just wrong.

[curlyqlink]

"Atheism: The doctrine or belief that there is no God."

"Agnostic: one who holds that the ultimate cause (God) and the essential nature of things are unkown and uknowable"

Skepticism has no place in either definition? How strange.

This looks to me like that old familiar rhetorical ploy that attempts to force a choice between faith in God or faith in science. It rises from the perhaps kind-hearted (or is it simply arrogant?) conviction that we are all religious, only some of us don't know it yet.

[0=2]

Fabulous... I just don't bother with that because it bothers me.

Anything in and of itself is puely that and nothing else. Mathematics can be used to measure qualities and quantities IN RELATION TO the terms you set for them. If I have an apple and eat the apple the equation 1-1=0 ONLY works if I have an idea about what makes it a fruit and what ceases to make it that fruit.

Religion is... the same. Yours observation of an object changes it's nature. We know of no permanent nature for we know only our perception, so obviously this is relative and changes it's nature to YOU.

So if I run around the country thinking I'm opening portals to other worlds, and this "portal opening" is what I see to be the cause of some "good" in my life, then how is one to discredit this on the basis that it does an adhere to how THEY validate or devalidate an experience?

So... you do not have a name? You do not have an identity? Yes, I did make an assumption. Reality is made of assumptions. Now I am asking, purely simply and honestly...

do you have an identity?

[The Atheist]

"Atheism: The doctrine or belief that there is no God."

"Agnostic: one who holds that the ultimate cause (God) and the essential nature of things are unkown and uknowable"

Skepticism has no place in either definition? How strange.

This looks to me like that old familiar rhetorical ploy that attempts to force a choice between faith in God or faith in science. It rises from the perhaps kind-hearted (or is it simply arrogant?) conviction that we are all religious, only some of us don't know it yet.

Extremely well said.

As you note, an old ploy, and one which has been raised here many times in the past. However, I always think it shows a lack of faith in faith - if religious faith is so wonderful, why is it necessary to demand that atheists have faith?

[NikolaiI]

"Atheism: The doctrine or belief that there is no God."

"Agnostic: one who holds that the ultimate cause (God) and the essential nature of things are unkown and uknowable"

Skepticism has no place in either definition? How strange.

This looks to me like that old familiar rhetorical ploy that attempts to force a choice between faith in God or faith in science. It rises from the perhaps kind-hearted (or is it simply arrogant?) conviction that we are all religious, only some of us don't know it yet.

No, that is a valid idea. I know you may not be religious, but I would expand the idea a little bit. Not religious - but what is the value of things? Religionists believe all belongs to God. So all is divine because it belongs to God. It doesn't mean that a rock is God, but the rock is God's, his creation, and so it is divine because it's part of his energy. The same with every person, animal, plant, and other life. All belong to God and have that divine side of them. If we are simply in a material consciousness, then things will only have a material meaning for us. But when we recognize that all is part of God's energy, then we realize they have their use for God.

[billyjack]

Neitzsche you say? Doesn't surprise me. I always figured anyone who needed 7 steps to agree that 2+2=4 wasn't worth listening to.


not sure what you're speakin about here. nietzsche's contribution to humanity doesnt lie in his theory of arithmetic, and your attack on him shows a misunderstanding or a oversimplification of his perpectivism. he went toe to toe with seeming irrefutables, like arithmetic, bc they were just that: irrefutable. he made clever attempts to disprove the disprovable and whether or not he succeeded matters not at all. his method for disproving math or science can be applied to nonsense, such as islam or christianity, and reveal their absurdity and make me smile




Science can understand the mechanisms which enable us to use our personal taste in that choice, but if you think science reduces or changes human experience, you're just wrong.

oh? so the observer doesnt affect the observed. it does. i know you're refering to our ability to explain things through science as not being detrimental to aesthetics. to that i agree and perhaps misrepresented my thoughts in the previous post of mine

[curlyqlink]

oh? so the observer doesnt affect the observed. it does.
Oh, the pitfalls of trying to universalize quantum theory...

[billyjack]

try typing your response with someone looking over yer shoulder. nuf said

[NikolaiI]

try typing your response with someone looking over yer shoulder. nuf said

from what I understand, this is true. quantum mechanics found that having an observer upon an event affected it. this could be known mathematically. but it wasn't known just how or how much it was affected. so we don't know what it means, we only know it's a lot more confusing than we thought.

[Ohmyscience]

From what I know in quantum mechanics observations require an exchange of information at least in the form of light or energy so it would change the outcome. But even if that were not the case quantum mechanics has been around for long enough and its theories have not been refuted yet in modern science. So far the equations have not produce a false prediction yet; therefore its a pretty good theory.

To state that because our knowledge is limited we should not have confidence in those theories is rediculous because any theory can be asked "why does it work at the deepest level?" which renders any theory insufficient. Science still has not produced an indepth theory on gravity yet I am pretty sure any engineer will use mechanics with full confidence and they bet their lives on it (building a bridge and flights to the moon) based on the 300 plus years of its solid evidence due to the fact that it works.

What I am saying is that for atheist there is enough confidence to refute the idea of a god because they believe in a close universe which adheres to physical laws without exception.

[0=2]

I NEVER stated that you should not have confidence in such theories, only that you should understand the theories and that they work only within a CERTAIN CONTEXT.

Physical laws without acception hardly explain our brain, and the fact that other "believe" something different makes them run, biologically speaking, no different from you. To shut that off because it "isn't you" or "isn't real" is... an act of misapplication.

The fact that atoms exist does not disprove angel nor demon. Angels and demons simply aren't relative to estimating the rate at which a charge will travel from one side of a grid to another. They have their purpose however, and if they did not then this conversation here would not exist.

Theory of relativity. Could be a misapplication.

Anyway, internalizing a code of beliefs that gets you something is... well... the same universally. You internalize science because it brings you light, Christians internalize ideas of universal compassion because it brings them momentary solace.

They both have their place, and understanding the two of them and their place can bring you to... dum duhh dumm...

MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY! Vortex. The turbine of a "true" vorticist is hir LIFE.

Lawl. Anyway... Lawl.