• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

agnosticism confuses me

qayak said:
That's not true at all. We do have knowledge. We may not have 100% proof but we definitely have an overwhelming body of evidence.
Click to expand...
Nope. All you know is that the ones that have been described so far are overwhelmingly unlikely to exist. But until you have all knowledge in the universe, you can never make a justifiable claim to know that there is no god of any sort including the kinds that have not yet been described.

But then, this is just an expansion on my belief that we don't actually know anything. We only have evidence of varying amounts and quality.
Thaiboxerken said:
What kind of god? Can you give examples? Agnosticism is stupid, it's like Tai Chi's claim that one cannot claim a fact unless they can survey all of time and space.
Click to expand...
On this point (but few others), Tai Chi and I are in agreement. Oh yeah, I know we like to round up, so in common speech I will say "we know" and "it is a fact", but if we are being precise, then nothing but mathematical proofs are demonstrable with 100% certainty.

It is a moot point, but if you want to be considered open-minded, then you must accept the possibility (however small) that you could be wrong. This is exactly what we atheists criticize theists for refusing to do.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Gods do not exist. I know this for a fact, feel free to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
You want someone to prove a negative? Thai, you know better than that. Surely you've made the exact same point to theists many times.

First of all, describe every possible concept of a god, then show that each one does not exist.
 
Uh, no, tricky. One does not have to survey all of time and space in order to declare facts.

Oh, and I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative, I'm asking them to prove that their gods exist.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Uh, no, tricky. One does not have to survey all of time and space in order to declare facts.

Oh, and I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative, I'm asking them to prove that their gods exist.
Click to expand...
Yes you are asking them to prove a negative. You're making a statement that cannot be verified then asking someone to prove it wrong. Just because their god doesn't exist doesn't prove no god exists.

Come on, Thai. Don't be like them.
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
Feel free to define one that does.

I'm not. The burden of evidence is still on those who believe some supernatural entity exists.
Click to expand...
No, the burden of evidence is on the person who makes a definitive statement. You are the one claiming no god is possible. It is up to you to prove that statement. I make no claim that god is possible or impossible.
 
Just because their pixie doesn't exist doesn't prove no pixies exists.
Just because their smurf doesn't exist doesn't prove no smurfs exists.
 
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There may be no proof that a god of any sort exists, but there is equally no proof that no gods exist.

Dawkins is just plain wrong. The two propositions are not by definition equally likely. Dawkins falls into the trap of equating "there are only two options" with "the two options are equally likely". I personally think that the "not god" proposition is far more likely, but no matter how vanishingly small the possibility of a god existing may be without definitive proof one way or the other it cannot be totally discounted. It is therefore as ridiculous to state "there is definitely no god" as to state "there is definitely a god", which is why agnosticism is the only logical conclusion. We don't know, we cannot know, and to state otherwise is logically untenable.
 
wollery said:
Which is exactly what you've done!
Click to expand...

wrong. There are NO gods is a negative assertion, it's a counter to the POSITIVE assertion that there are gods. The statement "there are no gods" is entirely dependent on the claim that there are.
 
What's confusing about it? Stating that you are agnostic is only speaking about the state of your knowledge, not the state of your belief. An agnostic merely points out that there's no way to know whether or not god exists, and so there's no point in worrying about it. That is (er...pretty much) what Huxley originally meant by the term, at any rate.

Actually, I see no particular reason why one couldn't combine the statement of knowledge that is agnosticism with the statement of belief that is (a)theism. That is, one could be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. I would happen to be an agnostic atheist in that case.

So what's confusing about it?
 
thaiboxerken said:
wrong. There are NO gods is a negative assertion, it's a counter to the POSITIVE assertion that there are gods. The statement "there are no gods" is entirely dependent on the claim that there are.
Click to expand...
No, you are saying "we know that there is no god", which is a positive assertion about a state of knowledge, said knowledge not being established fact.

By your own definition the burden of proof is on you.
 
wollery said:
No, you are saying "we know that there is no god", which is a positive assertion about a state of knowledge, said knowledge not being established fact.
Click to expand...

Wrong, it's the same as saying that I know that the theists haven't proven that there is a god.

Do you also think it's wrong to say "I know that there are no boogie men under the bed?"
 
thaiboxerken said:
Wrong, it's the same as saying that I know that the theists haven't proven that there is a god.
Click to expand...
Wow, I mean just WOW! So failure to prove A is equivalent to a proof of NOT(A) is it?

Logic 101 Thai, lack of proof of a proposition is NOT proof of the converse proposition, it's just lack of proof.

So I say again, absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence.

Do you also think it's wrong to say "I know that there are no boogie men under the bed?"
Click to expand...
No, because I can look under any one particular bed to check, but I think that it is wrong to say "I know that there are no boogie men under any beds anywhere in the Universe". I seriously doubt that there are any boogie men under any beds anywhere, but I cannot know it as fact.
 
Thanks for starting this one off, Billydkid, we hadn't had an agnostic/athiest thread for two or three days!

I am surprised - I disagree with Tricky and agree with a whole load of people I've been at loggerheads with recently - not counting my Kiwi tax-bludging mate!

Tricky, I think that to take the attitude you started off with is to be very, very pedantic. This is the "sun rising tomorrow" argument and I don't believe it works. Some things are sure enough to take for granted and that includes to non-existence of every single god and mythical creature of all time. It also includes astrology, homeopathy, numerology and Leprechauns, all of which have similar amounts of evidence as any god you'd like to pick.

I am not and never will be a Leprechaun agnostic!

Agnosticism - "we don't know", is what I expect to hear from my four year old when something inexplicably bad happens. [cat is in dishwasher - "how the hell did that happen?" "I don't know!" "uh-huh"]

I've recently had a couple of very staunch arguments at the ship with some agnostics who object to my taunts of "fence-sitter", but alas, that's how I see it. I agree with Mattlodder's analysis that agnosticism is by its very nature, a deistic [or wannabe theist] position, best exemplified very recently by the the Assistant Anglican Bishop of AucklandRichard Randerson classing himself as an "agnostic".
 
thaiboxerken said:
Agnosticism is a security blanket of ignorance. It really has no philosophical or practical value.
Click to expand...

Really? Why, just a few days ago, in an appearance widely cheered in these fora, Randi declared in his appearance on Larry King that he was agnostic regarding psychic abilities.

Tricky said:
Theism and atheism are statements of belief.

Gnosticism and Agnosticism, based on the literal meaning of the word, are positions of knowledge.

With regard to the existence of some kind of God, I contend that all of us, theists, deists and atheists alike, do not have knowledge, therefore we are all agnostics.
Click to expand...

Doc Daneeka said:
What's confusing about it? Stating that you are agnostic is only speaking about the state of your knowledge, not the state of your belief. An agnostic merely points out that there's no way to know whether or not god exists, and so there's no point in worrying about it. That is (er...pretty much) what Huxley originally meant by the term, at any rate.

Actually, I see no particular reason why one couldn't combine the statement of knowledge that is agnosticism with the statement of belief that is (a)theism. That is, one could be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. I would happen to be an agnostic atheist in that case.
Click to expand...
Tricky and Doc nailed it. I, too, am an agnostic atheist. What's not clear about that?
 
Doc Daneeka said:
What's confusing about it? Stating that you are agnostic is only speaking about the state of your knowledge, not the state of your belief. An agnostic merely points out that there's no way to know whether or not god exists, and so there's no point in worrying about it.
Click to expand...
Doc Daneeka beat me to it.

In the other 'agnostics' thread, someone made a post that implied a definition of agnosticism; I responded with a definition that I use, which led to a complete back-and-forth about definitions.

In order to avoid such arguments, perhaps a better tack would be to talk about which definition is the most useful. To wit: an atheist is someone who does not believe in god/s. How useful is a definition for agnostic which reads "hasn't made up mind yet"? That definition is, by default, atheist. If you haven't made up your mind about god's existence, then you still don't believe in him.

Therefore, I would suggest that the definition of agnostic as "someone who takes the view that no evidence can show god/s' existence" is one that is much more useful. One talks about enough evidence, the other talks about whether any evidence can convince at all. A person can easily be an agnostic atheist (or as Shermer prefers, 'non-theist'). If someone says they haven't made up their mind if god/s exist, I would suggest that right off the bat, they're an atheist/non-theist by default; until he believes, he is not a theist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom