Agnostics: Do you believe in god?

Craven de Kere wrote:

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.

Not a very logical position, in my estimation, Craven.

Simply because a person says they do not know the answers to some questions -- does not impose on them an obligation to say they do not know the answers to any questions.

Quote:

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.

Really!

Well I think that is absurd, but you are certainly free to engage in absurdities.

0 Replies

Cav, I don't think he did. He was talking about two different types of atheist. One who, like him, believes that the concept itself of god is meaningless. The other type of atheist, the one that I am talking about, believes in the concept of a god, and just denies the existence of one. Which, I think is basically the same thing as being agnostic, since neither of them can actually "know" this.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

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.

Most agnostics would find humor in the idea of being asked if they "believe in God."

Any agnostic worth his/her salt would not "believe there is a God" or "believe there are no gods." The would simply acknowledge that they do not know if there is a God or if there are no gods -- and then further acknowledge that the evidence for or against the proposition is so ambiguous as to be virtually nonexistent.

An agnostic does not know -- is willing to acknowledge that he/she does not know -- and is unwilling to make guesses based on the kinds of stuff theists and atheists are willing to make guesses.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
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.

Not a very logical position, in my estimation, Craven.

Simply because a person says they do not know the answers to some questions -- does not impose on them an obligation to say they do not know the answers to any questions.

You missed the if statement in the logical equation Frank. Perhaps that's why you do not agree with the logic.

Here is the crucial clause:

"unless they have a sound differentiating criteria for the two notions".

So in short, unless they have no sound differentiating criteria said differentiation is not logical.

If they do have a sound differentiating criteria then it is.

Note: sound is subjective.

Quote:

Quote:
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.

Really!

Well I think that is absurd, but you are certainly free to engage in absurdities.

[/QUOTE]

You think it's absurd to differentiate something without having a valid reasont o differentiate it?

Perhaps, Frank, you merely disagree on what constitutes a sound criteria and my statements are compatible with your position?

0 Replies

Frank, are you saying that you believe in the concept of a god, but you have no "feeling" either way? You are saying that there is absolutely no evidence for or against a god?

0 Replies

In Craven's example, he's talking about an invisible dwarf on his shoulder. Are you saying that since you have no evidence either way, you are unequipped to even hazard a guess at whether it exists or not?

0 Replies

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
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.

Not a very logical position, in my estimation, Craven.

Simply because a person says they do not know the answers to some questions -- does not impose on them an obligation to say they do not know the answers to any questions.

You missed the if statement in the logical equation Frank. Perhaps that's why you do not agree with the logic.

Here is the crucial clause:

"unless they have a sound differentiating criteria for the two notions".

So in short, unless they have no sound differentiating criteria said differentiation is not logical.

If they do have a sound differentiating criteria then it is.

Note: sound is subjective.

Quote:
Quote:
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.

Really!

Well I think that is absurd, but you are certainly free to engage in absurdities.

You think it's absurd to differentiate something without having a valid reasont o differentiate it?

Perhaps, Frank, you merely disagree on what constitutes a sound criteria and my statements are compatible with your position?

I disagree with you, Craven, based on the fact that we have discussed this issue dozens of times before -- and have determined that your mind is as tightly sealed shut on this issue as the minds of the theists with whom I have also discussed it.

I do not know if there is a God. I suspect you do not know if there is a God either.

I do not know if there are no gods. I suspect you do not know if there are no gods either.

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a guess in either direction.

Nearly as I can tell, the only evidence you have available upon which to assert that there are no gods is the fact that the theists cannot produce any of their gods -- which I consider not to be very persuasive at all.

In any case, you have never produced ANY evidence that there are no gods other than variations on "they can't produce a god."

With all the respect in the world for you personally, Craven, I consider that position to be illogical.

0 Replies

So are you also agnostic about the dwarf on my shoulder Frank?

If so, you are within the parameters of the statement I made.

If not, do you have a reason to differentiate the two notions?

If so, you are within the parameters I laid out.

If not you are not.

If you disagree with the logic, feel free to challenge it. All you have done is repeat the mantra about agnosticism and say I have a "closed mind". You have not even touched the logical statement you derided.

The logic in question had a huge wild card in that it allowed for subjectivity in regard to what is a sound differentiation. As such it's not particularly hard to accept.

I think you are reading a challenge to agnosticism into the statement where there is none.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

So are you also agnostic about the dwarf on my shoulder Frank?

I have no goddam idea of whether or not there is a dwarf sitting on your shoulder or your face, Craven.

And I can tell you with no lack of certainty that I am not going to assert that there is no dwarf on your shoulder or face.

All indications are that you do not know that there are no gods -- but you continue to assert that there are none.

Do you follow that?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
So are you also agnostic about the dwarf on my shoulder Frank?

I have no goddam idea of whether or not there is a dwarf sitting on your shoulder or your face, Craven.

And I can tell you with no lack of certainty that I am not going to assert that there is no dwarf on your shoulder or face.

In other words you should have no qualm with my above statement. The one you called absurd and illogical.

Quote:

All indications are that you do not know that there are no gods -- but you continue to assert that there are none.

Do you follow that?

Frank, in this thread, I made not a single comment to the effect that I think there are no gods.

Do you follow that?

If so, where am I "continuing to assert that there are none" here?

If not, what exactly are you following?

In the absence of evidence to the effect that I am asserting that there are no gods I think you should remain agnostic as to my intentions herein.

Do you agree?

If so, what evidence do you have to back up your assertiosn about me herein?

0 Replies

I can't believe I'm actually following this. Laughing

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Then I believe you are an atheist.

Sometimes dlowan (maybe a lot of times Wink

) you crack me up!

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I can't believe I'm actually following this.

Good for you, Kicky.

These kinds of moments are what make forums like this worthwhile.

Thanx for starting the thread.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I think that in the future we will learn a lot more about the nature of the universe. ... For me, it is just a matter of time.

I don't believe it is that cut and dried.

It seems to me that the advances we have made over the years have been due to the dreams and aspirations of human kind. In other words, even if it is something that is beyond our knowledge, it is not, necessarily, beyond our imagination.

But what of concepts that lie outside of both? The universe is supposed to have no boundaries, true? I think it has already been acknowledged that the big bang theory does not explain all. How can something be derived from nothing? Was there even a beginning to the universe? What explains the universe? Can you imagine infinity in your mind? I know I can't. I can understand the concept, but I cannot put an image in my head. Every time I do, it has a beginning, middle and an end. But endlessness? I cannot.

0 Replies

Portal, you wrote.....

<<...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......>>

....Can you see how the highlighted text shows you have assumed "objective reality" ? There are coherent ways in conceiving of observer-observed mutuality which I have cited elsewhere but are beyond the scope of this thread.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I can't believe I'm actually following this.

Neither can I!

http://www.kiki-net.de/smilies/froehlich/biggrin.gif

I confess I am just zippin' past it. Embarrassed

But then...I am in an impatient mood at the moment. I have much to do and I am avoiding doing it. *sigh*

0 Replies

The evidence that Craven has an invisible monkey on his shoulder is as compelling as the evidence god exists. I cannot know if either exist so must take an agnostic position. Mind, I do really doubt the monkey is there and risking ridicule from Frank must admit to very serious doubts about god as well.

0 Replies

Not a monkey gozmo, a dwarf. He's very pissed that you called him a monkey, it's no laughing matter.

0 Replies

So would it be true that when it comes to belief in god, the agnostic point of view becomes irrelevant to both atheists and believers, because belief, faith, whatever you want to call it, has nothing to do with knowledge. God is outside the scope of knowledge, yet you choose to believe or not. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge, and nothing more or less than that.

0 Replies

If Craven needsa dwarf then Craven gets a dwarf!

What we are saying is that we doubt that he needs it, whereas by weight of consensus it is harder to doubt that people need "God".

Consensus of the moment IS "existence" of the moment IS "reality" of the moment.

(Reference Asch's classic experiment on group pressure and visual perception)

0 Replies

Agnostics: Do you believe in god?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know