Agnostics: Do you believe in god?

Fresco, I am not sure I follow your first post. Let me try to say it another way, and you let me know where I go off track.

Are you saying that atheists believe that things can exist outside themselves without their knowledge of it, and that agnostics don't? I think it's the terms "objective knowledge" and "objective truth" that are throwing me. You said that agnostics believe in the concept of objective knowledge, and that atheists believe in the concept of objective truth.

Can you give me an example of this, and how those two things differ?

0 Replies

I ascribe to a simple definition of atheism, which means a-theism, without theism, which describes me, void of belief.

0 Replies

kickycan , wrong way round !

Let me try it this way.

I am an atheist. For me to talk about "God" at all I must acknowledge the existence of "it" at least as a "concept". I interact with "it" hence it has "existence". The difference between myself and an agnostic or a theist is in the "quality of the concept" or the "mode of interaction". For the other two such interaction implies the possibility of a "physical or observer independent objectivity" which gives "evidence" of itself from "outside". But they are forgetting that "evidence" implies a "seeker of evidence". All information is relative to an observer who is driven by some "need". I on the other hand have no such need. The concept for me fails to impinge on me directly - only indirectly - because it impinges on others with whom I might need to interact.

But further perhaps than other atheists who might wish to cling to an "objective universe in which a " God" is absent", I am aware that all concepts have "existence" only by virtue of their interactive significance. Objectivity is a myth...all we can ever have are degrees of consensus according to mutual species specific needs. What we call "objective knowledge" is merely a non-controversial viewpoint. based on common purpose.

0 Replies

truth
Fresco, excellent and very clear.
Portal Star, you are confused, at least on this point
Ossobucco, you are not confused, at least on this point.

This should conjure Frank. I am an atheist because, like Fresco, I have no need for the concept and it is conceptually meaningless for me.
Agnostics, like Frank, say they do not know, that it's a 50-50 guess either way. This suggests to me that Frank finds the concept of a Diety to be meaningful, that it COULD be that He exists, but that Frank only lacks sufficient "unambiguous empirical evidence (proof). In other words, Frank is a half-believer.

0 Replies

I true agnostic should not be certain of what their own opinion is.

e.g.

"Do you like women?"

"I am not sure, I suspect I do but it could all be an illusion. I'll never know but I can guess."

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

My original thought when I posted this was that most people who say they are agnostic really just don't believe in the existence of a god, which would make them atheists in my mind. I think I fall into that category, although I call myself agnostic sometimes, because I just don't know. The only thing that puts people in the category of agnostic is the "not knowing" part.

People who believe in god actually claim to know for a fact that god exists, and that knowledge supposedly comes from some higher power. Atheists can't claim to know that there is no god in that same way, so what really separates an atheist from an agnostic?

That's just the point, Kickycan. Many atheists claim to know that g-d doesn't exist. Clearly, they got a memo that I didn't.

What do you think I am confused about, JLN?
I started a thread about agnosticism a while back and argued the case for it (you can check it out if you want the full description of my views) or I can give you an overview.
Fresco's views are based on a weak immiterialist viewpoint of philosophy - that we cannot know anything because of our singular viewpoint. He seems to assume that we can make constancies - but many immiterialists take this all the way to assume that nothing exists outside of singluar perception, and that that itself may not be material (physical.) His views are very different than mine (I am a materialist), although sometimes we arrive at the same conclusions for different reasons.

0 Replies

truth
Portal Star, you don't DISBELIEVE in the concept of God (whatever that means), but you disbelieve in the existence of God (dieties). If you are not confused, then you confuse me.
By the way, I do not say that God doesn't exist; I say that the entire issue is meaningless.

0 Replies

Okay, guys, I hope I have at least a tiny little grasp of what you are saying. You are saying that there are different kinds of atheists. You (Fresco and JL) are both atheists in that the concept of god is not one you seek, therefore it holds no meaning to you. And that is the difference between you and an agnostic who believes in the idea of a god. But Ossobuco is an atheist who believes in the concept of a god, but just doesn't believe that God itself exists.

Is that close at least?

And in my mind, the atheist that believes in the concept of a god is no different than the agnostic who "suspects" there is no god, but believes they can't know. They both believe there is no god, and neither of them can ever know for certain. Am I wrong about that?

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Portal Star, you don't DISBELIEVE in the concept of God (whatever that means), but you disbelieve in the existence of God (dieties). If you are not confused, then you confuse me.
By the way, I do not say that God doesn't exist; I say that the entire issue is meaningless.

I use deity as a word to make the distinction between the general concept of g-d (a concept that changes over time and geographic location, usually associated with someting being responsible for creation of the earth) and the concept of g-ds said to physically impact the earth (dieties.) Some examples of deities are: Jesus, Zeus, Inanna, 18 Rabbit's spirit, divine pharos, the abrahamic g-d of the bible, Odin, etc.

We can't argue against what we can't define, and g-d as a concept has no consistent definition. Even if we could get past that and arrive at a constant definition, if g-d never impacted the earth past the point of creation or is immaterial, we can/could gather no data collection on its existance or non-existance.

With deities we can disprove them - we define them (ex. Jesus and what he was said to do), then see if they impact the earth in the way described. If they don't, they didn't exist as a g-d or g-ds.

0 Replies

Craven, that is just an example, right? You aren't saying that agnostics believe they can never know anything at all, are you? It is something that is specific to god, isn't it?

0 Replies

truth
Erased by author; it was posted on the wrong thread.

0 Replies

truth
Portal Star, as I understand it only meteors and meteorites "physically impact the earth." Unless you consider Gods and Dieties to be Heavenly bodies. Do you mean to say that Gods AFFECT human life? Laughing

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Craven, that is just an example, right? You aren't saying that agnostics believe they can never know anything at all, are you? It is something that is specific to god, isn't it?

I'm not saying that they do, I'm saying that they should.

If they are agnostic about gods they should also be agnostic about the invisible dwarf that is on my shoulder unless they have a sound differentiating criteria for the two notions.

0 Replies

Okay Craven, I see what you are saying.

Now does anyone have an opinion on my earlier thought, that the atheist who believes in the concept of a god is no different than the agnostic who "suspects" there is no god, but believes they can't know. They both believe there is no god, and neither of them can ever know for certain.

0 Replies

All but JLN....

What you fail to see is that to get anywhere in this type of debate it is essential to examine the meaning of the word "existence". If you assume this to be synonymous with "objective reality" then all that follows is based on the status of "evidence". If on the other hand you argue that "existence" is "evoked" by observer specific needs what matters is to recognize that on some issues "needs differ". However, note that unlike the first view the second encompasses the first as itself the result of a particular need. (Hence the term "transcendence") . The attempt to "explain away" such an attemt at transcedence as "mentalism" or "immaterialism" wrongly interprets such a view as part of a historical philosophical dialectic, when in essence it reflects contemporary scientific "problems" involving the relationship between the observer and the observed.

It is not my intention to extend the debate beyond a discussion of "agnosticism" except to point out that assumptions about the nature of "existence" cannot be thought of as axiomatic.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Portal Star, as I understand it only meteors and meteorites "physically impact the earth." Unless you consider Gods and Dieties to be Heavenly bodies. Do you mean to say that Gods AFFECT human life?

I was talking about two categories for assessment: material - physcial things which impact the earth (make a difference in it somehow) that can be observed by tools or the senses, and immaterial - things that cannot be observed by tools or the senses and do not physically impact the earth. Some philosophers argue that things exist that are immaterial - descartes argues that the soul is immaterial, but has some interaction point via the pinneal gland that enables it to be temporarily material. Material = physical = tangible.

Haha, no I didn't mean the dieties come crashing into it producing Tektite or somthing. But that would be cool.

Many dieties are said to effect human life, or do things that would physically (observably) impact the earth. For example, Jesus walking on water. G-ds that interfere in your personal lives, control rivers, are responsible for corn crops growing, desire human sacrifices, or communicate with (soundwaves)/ impact the earth in any physical way I am defining as dieties.

General concept of g-d could have set the universe in motion - before there was ever a "physical." General concept of g-d could be somthing larger we are a part of, like a cell in a thumb in a human body. General concept of g-d could be a non-sentient gas that sparked existence. General concept of g-d is an idea without a permanent definition. It is not necessarily logical or illogical, it is a general idea that humans have. I think its likely there was some kind of cause/initiator for our world, or that we are part of somthing larger.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

All but JLN....

What you fail to see is that to get anywhere in this type of debate it is essential to examine the meaning of the word "existence". If you assume this to be synonymous with "objective reality" then all that follows is based on the status of "evidence". If on the other hand you argue that "existence" is "evoked" by observer specific needs what matters is to recognize that on some issues "needs differ". However, note that unlike the first view the second encompasses the first as itself the result of a particular need. (Hence the term "transcendence") . The attempt to "explain away" such an attemt at transcedence as "mentalism" or "immaterialism" wrongly interprets such a view as part of a historical philosophical dialectic, when in essence it reflects contemporary scientific "problems" involving the relationship between the observer and the observed.

It is not my intention to extend the debate beyond a discussion of "agnosticism" except to point out that assumptions about the nature of "existence" cannot be thought of as axiomatic.

It seems to me that once you start denying consistency in viewpoint or objective reality (especially in sensing devices - ex. thermometer) you have to deny everything.

Like shrodenger's cat : until we observe it it is either alive or dead, it is both until we can sense it in some way.

So you take out the observation: what do you have left? Once you start questioning observation/objective reality/evidence that takes you all the way down the road to questioning all observation which ends up in matrix-like mind possibilities that are interesting but no use to our mentally navigating this world.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Okay Craven, I see what you are saying.

Now does anyone have an opinion on my earlier thought, that the atheist who believes in the concept of a god is no different than the agnostic who "suspects" there is no god, but believes they can't know. They both believe there is no god, and neither of them can ever know for certain.

ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things" hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals"ists," as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Atheist

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Thanks for looking it up in the dictionary. How thoughtful of you.

Now does anyone have an opinion on my earlier thought, that the atheist who believes in the concept of a god is no different than the agnostic who "suspects" there is no god, but believes they can't know. They both believe there is no god, and neither of them can ever know for certain.

0 Replies

kickycan, I think fresco already answered that question, stating that the atheist has no need for a god, hence, they have no need to actually question whether or not a god exists, while agnostics are hedging their bets, due to an unexamined need for a god figure in their lives. What's this talk of Schroedinger's cat? I thought Schroedinger played the piano in the Peanuts cartoons. fresco is free to kick my ass if I took the posts wrong.

0 Replies

Agnostics: Do you believe in god?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know