Agnosticism and God

[jam454]

Agnostics think that there is no way to know whether or not God exists. Shouldn't we all be agnostic? Atheists claim God doesn't exist and Theists claim God does exists. How can they make such claims?

[andrewpkyap]

Agnostics think that there is no way to know whether or not God exists. Shouldn't we all be agnostic? Atheists claim God doesn't exist and Theists claim God does exists. How can they make such claims?Theist claim God exists "by Faith"

Atheist claim God does not exists from the lack of evidence.

Agnostics lack faith and rationality...

hahaha I am just kidding...:wave:

[WWJD4aKlondikeBar]

As an agnostic atheist, I have only "faith" that there is a metric shitload that we don't know about the universe and a lot of it is very subtle things that we're a long, long way from coming anywhere near understanding. Of course I can plainly see that the myriad religions in the world prove that man does not know any possible deity's will and acts not out of divine doctrine but group ideology. In short, whether or not there really is "something out there" (gods, aliens, uncaring mechanism) we are not going to be universally conclusive about it for a long, long time.

So in regard to religion, I'm all critical atheist. Nothing is more arrogant than claiming to know the will of a god. It's the criticism of people's individual spiritual beliefs that I can't knock without admitting my own uncertainty.

[Gwen]

Oxygenists believe that breathing to get oxygen is a good thing for humans. Shouldn't we all be oxygenists?
Athletes claim that sports are fun and some other people claim that they're not. How can they make such claims?

There are agnostic theists, agnostic atheists, gnostic theists and presumably (though I've never met one) gnostic atheists.
I do not believe that any god exists. In fact, I actively believe that no god exists. I do not know for certain that every kind of god conceivable is nonexistent, however. I think it's not possible to know that for certain. I do know for certain that I've never seen any recognizable evidence for the existence of any conceivable god.

[kennethamy]

Agnostics think that there is no way to know whether or not God exists. Shouldn't we all be agnostic? Atheists claim God doesn't exist and Theists claim God does exists. How can they make such claims?

An agnostic does say that no one can know whether God exists. But that does not imply that no one can believe that God exists, does it?

[jam454]

Oxygenists believe that breathing to get oxygen is a good thing for humans. Shouldn't we all be oxygenists?

Ok, my point exactly. You agree that there is no way to know for certain there is or isnt a God. Does that not make you agnostic?

Athletes claim that sports are fun and some other people claim that they're not. How can they make such claims? If someone claims that sports are absolutely fun across the board who are they to make such a claim?

[~M~]

Ok, my point exactly. You agree that there is no way to know for certain there is or isnt a God.



two questions: does the lack of belief from an agnostic make them atheistic? Are you agnostic about the existence of fairies?

[kennethamy]

two questions: does the lack of belief from an agnostic make them atheistic? Are you agnostic about the existence of fairies?


Why do you think an agnostic needs not to believe in God? All he claims is that the existence of God cannot be known. Not that He cannot be believed in.

[jam454]

two questions: does the lack of belief from an agnostic make them atheistic? Are you agnostic about the existence of fairies?
1. No, in my view faith/belief is a separate issue and is something that arguments shouldn't be based on. I think that any reasonable person would say that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not. Making any reasonable person agnostic.
2.Yes I am agnostic about fairies but that is not important right now.

[~M~]

1. No, in my view faith/belief is a separate issue and is something that arguments shouldn't be based on. I think that any reasonable person would say that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not. Making any reasonable person agnostic.
2.Yes I am agnostic about fairies but that is not important right now.




Depends what you mean by "know" and what is sufficient to justifiably claim that i believe god does not exist.

[jam454]

Let me explain what i mean by "know": Something that can be used to make arguments or claims about the existence or non-existence of God. By this theory we cannot make arguments about the existence of fairies, BUT in reality considering that hardly anyone does believe in fairies it would probably be safe to do so. When it comes to God there is a split between believers and non-believers. In this case I think that it is wrong to make claims for the reasons I just described.

[~M~]

Let me explain what i mean by "know": Something that can be used to make arguments or claims about the existence or non-existence of God. By this theory we cannot make arguments about the existence of fairies, BUT in reality considering that hardly anyone does believe in fairies it would probably be safe to do so. When it comes to God there is a split between believers and non-believers. In this case I think that it is wrong to make claims for the reasons I just described.



anyone following this?

[~M~]

edit.

[Gwen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwen
Athletes claim that sports are fun and some other people claim that they're not. How can they make such claims?

If someone claims that sports are absolutely fun across the board who are they to make such a claim?

My point was that you used "atheism" in a way that I don't recognize as the definition. An atheist is not an atheist because she claims that she knows that a god does not exist. An atheist is an atheist because she--personally--does not have the belief that a god exists. Just as an athlete is not an athlete because she claims that sports are fun for everyone; she is an athlete because she personally enjoys participating in sports.

I am an atheist because I do not have the belief that any god exists. I am an agnostic atheist because I believe that it is impossible to know for certain that no god exists. The two seem to talk about the same thing--the existence of a god--but the theism/atheism distinction refers to whether or not someone has a belief that a god exists (NOT knowledge), while the gnostic/agnostic distinction refers to whether or not someone has KNOWLEDGE (not belief) that a god exists.
I don't say "I know, with 100% certainty, that no god exists"; my mother doesn't say "I know, with 100% certainty, that God exists". I'm an agnostic atheist, she's an agnostic theist.
I personally don't go around calling myself agnostic because I don't think it's an important distinction; the way that it treats "knowledge" seems nearly useless, because none of us KNOW that we're not disembodied brains making up the whole universe. And none of us KNOW with absolute certainty (which is what "gnostic" is asking for) that leprechauns don't exist, that fairies don't exist, that dragons don't exist, that the Book of All Hours doesn't exist. I think that "atheist" (I don't believe that a god exists) pretty well covers my position, and I usually qualify it with "I believe that no god exists" to make it more clear.

Do you see how the two are not mutually exclusive? It's not a spectrum, theism on one side, atheism on the other, agnosticism in the middle. It's a plane, with a "belief" axis and a "knowledge" axis; most people have a belief one way or the other--it's not easy not to--and most people acknowledge that it's no more a matter of knowledge than, say, their belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is a matter of knowledge.

[jam454]

anyone following this?
take it piece by piece.

[jam454]

My point was that you used "atheism" in a way that I don't recognize as the definition. An atheist is not an atheist because she claims that she knows that a god does not exist. An atheist is an atheist because she--personally--does not have the belief that a god exists. Just as an athlete is not an athlete because she claims that sports are fun for everyone; she is an athlete because she personally enjoys participating in sports.

I am an atheist because I do not have the belief that any god exists. I am an agnostic atheist because I believe that it is impossible to know for certain that no god exists. The two seem to talk about the same thing--the existence of a god--but the theism/atheism distinction refers to whether or not someone has a belief that a god exists (NOT knowledge), while the gnostic/agnostic distinction refers to whether or not someone has KNOWLEDGE (not belief) that a god exists.
I don't say "I know, with 100% certainty, that no god exists"; my mother doesn't say "I know, with 100% certainty, that God exists". I'm an agnostic atheist, she's an agnostic theist.
I personally don't go around calling myself agnostic because I don't think it's an important distinction; the way that it treats "knowledge" seems nearly useless, because none of us KNOW that we're not disembodied brains making up the whole universe. And none of us KNOW with absolute certainty (which is what "gnostic" is asking for) that leprechauns don't exist, that fairies don't exist, that dragons don't exist, that the Book of All Hours doesn't exist. I think that "atheist" (I don't believe that a god exists) pretty well covers my position, and I usually qualify it with "I believe that no god exists" to make it more clear.

Do you see how the two are not mutually exclusive? It's not a spectrum, theism on one side, atheism on the other, agnosticism in the middle. It's a plane, with a "belief" axis and a "knowledge" axis; most people have a belief one way or the other--it's not easy not to--and most people acknowledge that it's no more a matter of knowledge than, say, their belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is a matter of knowledge.

I completely agree with everything that you said. And you might be right that being agnostic is irrelevant. but it seems to me that people go back and forth about the issue making claims they should not make.

[Seeker630]

two questions: does the lack of belief from an agnostic make them atheistic? Are you agnostic about the existence of fairies?

I've seen this thing come up a hundred times before. I even delivered a "sermon" on the subject at a Unitarian church a couple of years ago. My rule of thumb is this:

If you hold forth no positive belief in any one or more "gods" or "deities", you are an atheist---------period. You are without theism.

That you may also be agnostic into the bargain, simply helps to explain WHY you are an atheist. Most people who identify as agnostic never spend any time learning just what the term means, and use it simply because it is more socially acceptable in some places or situations than saying they are atheistic.

I myself now always identify as an atheist, because I find that the term "agnostic" just confuses people who are not well read in the literature on the subject. But I am also agnostic regarding the existence of anything called "god"----whatever that means. I now lean heavily towards being a "strong" atheist.

[~M~]

take it piece by piece.

i did. Your post made little sense.

[jam454]

Let me explain what i mean by "know": Something that can be used to make arguments or claims about the existence or non-existence of God. - you said depends on what you mean by know. this is what i mean by know.
By this theory we cannot make arguments about the existence of fairies, BUT in reality considering that hardly anyone does believe in fairies it would probably be safe to do so. - you put fairies and God in the same category. This is why they are in different categories.

When it comes to God there is a split between believers and non-believers. In this case I think that it is wrong to make claims for the reasons I just described. - Since views on God are divided and no one "know"s for sure if he exits why should anyone make arguments or claims based otherwise.

[~M~]

[QUOTE=jam454;4450837]- you said depends on what you mean by know. this is what i mean by know.

still does not make sense.


- you put fairies and God in the same category. This is why they are in different categories.

No, i did not. i asked you if were agnostic about fairies.


- Since views on God are divided and no one "know"s for sure if he exits why should anyone make arguments or claims based otherwise.



you new to philosophy?

[jam454]

alright dude. its not my problem you cant understand three simple statements.

[Mageth]

Why would "a split between believers and non-believers" make it "wrong to make claims"? That makes no sense.

[~M~]

I'm thinkin he's new.

[Blocke]

- Since views on God are divided and no one "know"s for sure if he exits why should anyone make arguments or claims based otherwise.

It's pretty clear that arguments to which no one knows the answer to are still valuable. If I have a lot of money in the stock market, I'm going to be very interested about the arguments an accomplished trader makes about a stock's expected price, even though he obviously doesn't "know" what stocks will do in the future.

Did you mean to say that it is not worthwhile to argue something that cannot possibly be known? Or something else entirely?

[Blackbeard]

1. No, in my view faith/belief is a separate issue and is something that arguments shouldn't be based on. I think that any reasonable person would say that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not. Making any reasonable person agnostic.
2.Yes I am agnostic about fairies but that is not important right now.

I say it is impossible to know whether or not god exists, yet I am an atheist, no ifs ands or buts about it. IOW, my belief is firm ... there is no god. And it is for more of a reason than simply lack of evidence. It is also because after careful consideration, I find that there being no god explains things as they are in the universe better than the existence of a god does, much better IMHO. Why does this preclude me from accepting that the existence of god is impossible to prove or disprove?

[David B]

Agnostics think that there is no way to know whether or not God exists. Shouldn't we all be agnostic? Atheists claim God doesn't exist and Theists claim God does exists. How can they make such claims?

Let's put it like this.

Someone is found, 2 seconds after a bang, in a room with only one exit (through which the discovery takes place), with a gun in hand, still smoking, with a body with a bullet wound, dead, a couple of yards away.

The holder of the gun claims that aliens materialised in the room, picked up the gun with a non stick prosthetic arm (so no traces), shot the (now) corpse, put the gun in his hand, and de materialised just before the finder comes in, before the holder of the gun has got his head round it..

In a strong sense of the word 'know', we can't really know if he is telling the truth.

But in a reasonable sense of the word 'know' - I'd convict.

David B (sees no good reason to invoke supernatural beings)

[WWJD4aKlondikeBar]

Let's put it like this.

Someone is found, 2 seconds after a bang, in a room with only one exit (through which the discovery takes place), with a gun in hand, still smoking, with a body with a bullet wound, dead, a couple of yards away.

The holder of the gun claims that aliens materialised in the room, picked up the gun with a non stick prosthetic arm (so no traces), shot the (now) corpse, put the gun in his hand, and de materialised just before the finder comes in, before the holder of the gun has got his head round it..

In a strong sense of the word 'know', we can't really know if he is telling the truth.

But in a reasonable sense of the word 'know' - I'd convict.

David B (sees no good reason to invoke supernatural beings)Easy. Check his hands for gunpowder residue. Case closed. APB for the aliens!

[David B]

Easy. Check his hands for gunpowder residue. Case closed. APB for the aliens!

Shit! I had meant to add 'sprayed gunpowder residue on my hands' But forgot.

david B

[jam454]

Why would "a split between believers and non-believers" make it "wrong to make claims"? That makes no sense.
I go by the idea that all view points are equal and that we as a human race have a collective viewpoint. I also go by the idea that those viewpoints should be respected. If I claim that dragons are not real, who gives a shit? If we change the topic to God then it becomes much more prevalent and divided. The issue becomes more sensitive and therefore the rules should become more sensitive. Can you appreciate that idea?

[jam454]

It's pretty clear that arguments to which no one knows the answer to are still valuable. If I have a lot of money in the stock market, I'm going to be very interested about the arguments an accomplished trader makes about a stock's expected price, even though he obviously doesn't "know" what stocks will do in the future?
Very true. I think you can argue for why you believe in something. But I don't think you can say "God does not exist therefore this is this and that is that" or "God does exits therefore this should be like this". Especially when it affects other people.

[jam454]

I say it is impossible to know whether or not god exists, yet I am an atheist, no ifs ands or buts about it. IOW, my belief is firm ... there is no god. And it is for more of a reason than simply lack of evidence. It is also because after careful consideration, I find that there being no god explains things as they are in the universe better than the existence of a god does, much better IMHO. Why does this preclude me from accepting that the existence of god is impossible to prove or disprove?
That is your opinion. And it precludes you from saying such things because you are not God. You are a part of something that you cannot see beyond.

[jam454]

Let's put it like this.

Someone is found, 2 seconds after a bang, in a room with only one exit (through which the discovery takes place), with a gun in hand, still smoking, with a body with a bullet wound, dead, a couple of yards away.

The holder of the gun claims that aliens materialised in the room, picked up the gun with a non stick prosthetic arm (so no traces), shot the (now) corpse, put the gun in his hand, and de materialised just before the finder comes in, before the holder of the gun has got his head round it..

In a strong sense of the word 'know', we can't really know if he is telling the truth.

But in a reasonable sense of the word 'know' - I'd convict.

David B (sees no good reason to invoke supernatural beings)
This leads back to my other point. Say you tell that same story in front of a jury and half says he did and the other half says he doest? Not unlike humanities take on God.

[Blackbeard]

That is your opinion. And it precludes you from saying such things because you are not God. You are a part of something that you cannot see beyond.

Oh, you weren't asking for opinions. You say that any reasonable person must be agnostic because it IS impossibkle to prove the existence of god and that agnosticism is defined by accepting that god's existence can neither be proved or disproved. is that correct? So I tell you I am an atheist, yet I understand and accept that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. Then you tell me I can't "say such things" because i am not god??!???! :huh:

Oh, I didn't realize that you were just trying to 'prove' that it is unreasonable to be an atheist. ROTFLAMFAO! I doubt that there is an atheist on this board that doesn't accept and realize that it is impossible to disprove the existence of god. But there is a second part to the definition of agnostic:

Main Entry: ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

[jam454]

Oh, you weren't asking for opinions. You say that any reasonable person must be agnostic because it IS impossibkle to prove the existence of god and that agnosticism is defined by accepting that god's existence can neither be proved or disproved. is that correct? So I tell you I am an atheist, yet I understand and accept that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. Then you tell me I can't "say such things" because i am not god??!???! :huh:

Oh, I didn't realize that you were just trying to 'prove' that it is unreasonable to be an atheist. ROTFLAMFAO! I doubt that there is an atheist on this board that doesn't accept and realize that it is impossible to disprove the existence of god. But there is a second part to the definition of agnostic:

Main Entry: ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

I guess its just an issue of definition.

[Mageth]

I go by the idea that all view points are equal and that we as a human race have a collective viewpoint. I also go by the idea that those viewpoints should be respected. If I claim that dragons are not real, who gives a shit? If we change the topic to God then it becomes much more prevalent and divided. The issue becomes more sensitive and therefore the rules should become more sensitive. Can you appreciate that idea?

I believe your position is sometimes termed post-modernism. Post-modernism takes a strongly relativistic stance, like you describe.

I can "appreciate" the idea, but I do not respect the idea, so to speak. I believe it is bunk that "all viewpoints are equal" and that all viewpoints should be respected. I reject post-modernism. It's a bad idea.

Now, that is my viewpoint on post-modernistic relativism. Do you respect my viewpoint, and hold it as equal to yours?