Define “Agnostic”

[xjx388]

Just saw this edit. I am not criticizing theists because AFAIK, no theists are even participating in this discussion, nor does the topic include the behaviors of extreme theists. Why would you expect criticisms at a group that is unrelated to the thread?



Your own thread title is Define "Agnostic", and here you are asking why I am not criticizing theists. Upthread, I was subjected to a psychotic psychic reading. Can a simple topic not be discussed without bringing in grudges from older battles with other posters?

Well, that’s an obvious “no.”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thermal]

Wow this went right to the "Atheists are big mean poopie head" well even quicker than normal.

...says the self-proclaimed clairvoyant who misrepresents the posts of others.

Some posters here may have not participated in a discussion like this. If you are so bored and jaded with it, why comment? Do you reap some benefit from complaining and stomping off?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Nobody knows for sure that Hogwarts doesn't exist. Are we going to equivocate about that too?

Who's equivocating anything? The bolded part is correct and doesn't contradict my statement. Don't be amazed though, that some people (very young ones) may actually believe Hogwarts exist even though they actually don't know this.

My point is that you don't need to know something is true, in order to believe in it. And that's where Atheism and Agnosticism differ. You can be either an Atheist or a Believer, but it still doesn't change that you don't know whether what you believe is true. So, when it comes to God, not everyone is an Atheist, but everyone is an Agnostic.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So, when it comes to God, not everyone is an Atheist, but everyone is an Agnostic.

I don't think that's true from a subjective point of view. I'm sure there are plenty of religiously inclined people who would claim to have directly experienced the reality of God, and would therefore claim absolute knowledge that God exists. They would not, quite correctly therefore, describe themselves as agnostics; their personal belief is that it is possible to know for certain whether or not God exists.

Dave

 

[3point14]

Who's equivocating anything? The bolded part is correct and doesn't contradict my statement.

What fundamental difference is there between Hogwarts and god that means we can be sure one doesn't exist but can't be sure if the other one does?


It's ridiculous to have to refute the existence of every fictional creature ever created. One can be agnostic about one's own existence if that's the standard, you could just be a brain in a jar. Are you agnostic about your own existence.


I don't accept that any reasonable discussion can be had about the existence of fictional, fantastic creatures. Mythical deities are fictional characters, I don't need to refute them any more than I need to refute Blofeld.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I don't think that's true from a subjective point of view. I'm sure there are plenty of religiously inclined people who would claim to have directly experienced the reality of God, and would therefore claim absolute knowledge that God exists. They would not, quite correctly therefore, describe themselves as agnostics; their personal belief is that it is possible to know for certain whether or not God exists.

Dave

Sure. A lot of people claim to have "directly experienced" God. Doesn't make it any true, though.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Who's equivocating anything? The bolded part is correct and doesn't contradict my statement. Don't be amazed though, that some people (very young ones) may actually believe Hogwarts exist even though they actually don't know this.

My point is that you don't need to know something is true, in order to believe in it. And that's where Atheism and Agnosticism differ. You can be either an Atheist or a Believer, but it still doesn't change that you don't know whether what you believe is true. So, when it comes to God, not everyone is an Atheist, but everyone is an Agnostic.

Oh come on Ron you're better than solipsism.

 

[Thermal]

What fundamental difference is there between Hogwarts and god that means we can be sure one doesn't exist but can't be sure if the other one does?

It's ridiculous to have to refute the existence of every fictional creature ever created. One can be agnostic about one's own existence if that's the standard, you could just be a brain in a jar. Are you agnostic about your own existence.


I don't accept that any reasonable discussion can be had about the existence of fictional, fantastic creatures. Mythical deities are fictional characters, I don't need to refute them any more than I need to refute Blofeld.

Hogwarts has a known inventor, who only represented Hogwarts as a work of fiction. You can interview Ms. Rowling for further confirmation.

God, whatever that may mean, has no known inventor, and what writings we have seem to claim witness to actual existence.

Alternatively, what is meant by god is profoundly unclear. What is meant by Hogwarts is very clear.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

What fundamental difference is there between Hogwarts and god that means we can be sure one doesn't exist but can't be sure if the other one does?


It's ridiculous to have to refute the existence of every fictional creature ever created. One can be agnostic about one's own existence if that's the standard, you could just be a brain in a jar. Are you agnostic about your own existence.


I don't accept that any reasonable discussion can be had about the existence of fictional, fantastic creatures. Mythical deities are fictional characters, I don't need to refute them any more than I need to refute Blofeld.

I am not giving any validity to the claims of the "possible existence" of fictional characters, whether it's God, Santa Claus, Mickey Mouse, etc. I am merely explaining the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism. Atheism is about what you believe, and Agnosticism is about what you know. And because you don't need to know something in order to believe in it, everyone is an Agnostic about things such as God, but not everyone is an Atheist. That's the main difference between the two. That should be more than enough to clear all this ridiculous confusion about what differentiates Agnosticism from Atheism.

 

[Egg]

Unlike atheism (which some adhere to, some don't) when it comes to agnosticism, everybody is an agnostic, because no one actually knows for sure whether or not there is a God.

Heh, there are no real agnostics, because everyone has an opinion, like they have a ... body.

I would question the utility of a definition of "agnostic" that either includes or excludes everybody.

 

[3point14]

everyone is an Agnostic about things such as God

Only, if they are intellectually consistent, to the same extent that they are agnostic about the existence of themselves, their loved ones and the universe.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Nobody is arguing that agnosticism isn't valid on some technical or linguistic level.

Just that practically it's an attempt to treat not having an opinion as an opinion and it's not.

In others words there's a reason "Didn't Vote" didn't win the 2016 election. Because not having an opinion is not an valid 3rd opinion.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Nobody is arguing that agnosticism isn't valid on some technical or linguistic level.

Just that practically it's an attempt to treat not having an opinion as an opinion and it's not.

In others words there's a reason "Didn't Vote" didn't win the 2016 election. Because not having an opinion is not an valid 3rd opinion.

Well, you're right. The problem is that a lot of people use the label "Agnostic" as a cop-out, because again, saying "I don't know if there is a God" is not answering the question "Do you believe in God?". It's simply not answering it, because again, you don't need to know something is true in order to believe in it. That's not what was asked. The question was not "Do you know for a fact there is a God?"

Same thing applies in any other department with the word "belief". I may not "know" whether you can actually win the football game, but I "believe you can win". I may not know I'm in fact going to win the lottery, but "I believe I'm not gonna win". Sometimes, my belief may be backed up with some statistical data. But sometimes, it may not have any data at all. A belief is a leap of faith about something. It doesn't necessitate data. In fact, a lot of examples of belief (such as belief in deities) are exactly about that. It's a strong emotional "hunch" so to speak. It's not something that is fed on any actual verifiable data.

 

[Thermal]

You asked earlier if a chair was blue as a comparable analogy.

What if the question was 'is the chair squidoodles?'

Squidoodles not being defined, of course.

What is the yes or no opinion?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sure. A lot of people claim to have "directly experienced" God. Doesn't make it any true, though.

That's the wrong axis to plot this on. "Agnostic" is an aspect of a person's belief system. If they believe they have knowledge of whether God exists or not, they cannot be described as agnostic while allowing the word any meaning whatsoever.

Dave

 

[Egg]

Nobody is arguing that agnosticism isn't valid on some technical or linguistic level.

Just that practically it's an attempt to treat not having an opinion as an opinion and it's not.

In others words there's a reason "Didn't Vote" didn't win the 2016 election. Because not having an opinion is not an valid 3rd opinion.

Personally, I'd favour the definition that agnosticism is actually a conclusion of sorts. That someone has at least given some thought to the question of the existence of god(s) and has concluded that there's not enough in the evidence, philosophical arguments etc. to conclude if it is true or untrue.

ETA: Having just read JoeMorgue's post immediately below, I would include perceived spiritual experience and emotional response (or lack thereof) in my "etc." as they're often pretty key factors involved in such conclusions on this subject.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well, you're right. The problem is that a lot of people use the label "Agnostic" as a cop-out, because again, saying "I don't know if there is a God" is not answering the question "Do you believe in God?". It's simply not answering it, because again, you don't need to know something is true in order to believe in it. That's not what was asked. The question was not "Do you know for a fact there is a God?"

Same thing applies in any other department with the word "belief". I may not "know" whether you can actually win the football game, but I "believe you can win". I may not know I'm in fact going to win the lottery, but "I believe I'm not gonna win". Sometimes, my belief may be backed up with some statistical data. But sometimes, it may not have any data at all. A belief is a leap of faith about something. It doesn't necessitate data. In fact, a lot of examples of belief (such as belief in deities) are exactly about that. It's a strong emotional "hunch" so to speak. It's not something that is fed on any actual verifiable data.

That's giving belief a little bit too much power for my taste.

"God exists" is an opinion, one you should be expected to be able to, if not argue at least conceptualize in the framework of concepts like "burden of proof" and "positive evidence for" and "Can't prove a negative" and the Null Hypothesis and... not special pleading and stuff like that.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hogwarts has a known inventor, who only represented Hogwarts as a work of fiction. You can interview Ms. Rowling for further confirmation.

God, whatever that may mean, has no known inventor, and what writings we have seem to claim witness to actual existence.

All that means is that the invention of Hogwarts is sufficiently recent that the identity of its inventor is still known, that the original work of fiction is still available, and that nobody has yet published derivative writings which make a claim of literal truth.

Alternatively, what is meant by god is profoundly unclear. What is meant by Hogwarts is very clear.

Take scientology as an example, then. We know it was generated as a work of fiction for personal enrichment of its creator. We know who its creator is. We know its claims to be expressed very clearly. We also know that there is a large body of subsequent commentary which treats its subject matter as entirely factual. Are you agnostic about the existence of body thetans, and is it incumbent on everybody in the population to have a stated position on their existence?

Dave

 

[xjx388]

All that means is that the invention of Hogwarts is sufficiently recent that the identity of its inventor is still known, that the original work of fiction is still available, and that nobody has yet published derivative writings which make a claim of literal truth.



Take scientology as an example, then. We know it was generated as a work of fiction for personal enrichment of its creator. We know who its creator is. We know its claims to be expressed very clearly. We also know that there is a large body of subsequent commentary which treats its subject matter as entirely factual. Are you agnostic about the existence of body thetans, and is it incumbent on everybody in the population to have a stated position on their existence?

Dave

Excellent points. In 300 years, who's to say that there won't have been enough such commentary and elaboration that Scientology becomes a prominent world religion and L Ron Hubbard the new messiah?

I've always thought that the various mythologies were largely known to be fictional stories in antiquity -at least they started out that way. Over time, those stories were passed on, changed, added to and it evolved into religious beliefs. I think it's entirely possible that our current popular fiction could eventually take on mythic proportions and form the basis of religious beliefs in the not-too-distant future. Game of Thrones fans seem extremely dedicated to the books/shows. They adorn their shirts, cars, homes, etc with various symbols of the different houses. There are sites dedicated to discussing and evolving it's story. Couldn't Norse Mythology have started off much the same way but over campfires and a little too much beer? In fact, I think that's the most likely origin of all religious beliefs -stories we tell each other that evolve into beliefs.

 

[Thermal]

All that means is that the invention of Hogwarts is sufficiently recent that the identity of its inventor is still known, that the original work of fiction is still available, and that nobody has yet published derivative writings which make a claim of literal truth.

Yes, and I think that establishes a significant qualitative difference for Hogwarts, rendering the comparison a little reductio ad absurdum.

Take scientology as an example, then. We know it was generated as a work of fiction for personal enrichment of its creator. We know who its creator is. We know its claims to be expressed very clearly. We also know that there is a large body of subsequent commentary which treats its subject matter as entirely factual. Are you agnostic about the existence of body thetans, and is it incumbent on everybody in the population to have a stated position on their existence?

Dave

No, I am not. I am also not agnostic about a dude with a long white beard and choruses of angels in the clouds. I have no reason to believe these things and many reasons to believe they are contrived. So I have enough information on thetans and angelic hosts to conclude that they are not real.

The problem I have is when the 'what is meant by god' rabbit hole gets fallen into. As that gets murkier, so does confidence in the conclusion.