Proud Agnostics here?

[bignickel]

Do you believe in God/s, Undesired Walrus?

If you don't, then guess what: you're an atheist. An atheist is simply someone who is not a theist.

Now, you can also be an agnostic too, since that is a description of a position on evidence, not a position on existence. At that point, you're an agnostic atheist, like Shermer (and many others).

To an agnostic, no evidence can ever prove the existence of god/s. But there's always the possibility that a non-agnostic atheist can convert over, since he thinks such evidence might possibly exist. Therefore, preachers can still go after plain atheists with gusto, but going after agnostics are a complete waste of time.

Has "The Atheist" chimed in with his .02 yet?

 

[Jimbo07]

To an agnostic, no evidence can ever prove the existence of god/s. But there's always the possibility that a non-agnostic atheist can convert over, since he thinks such evidence might possibly exist.

So... black is white then?

 

[bignickel]

So... black is white then?

Uuuuuuu! I want to make some faces too!



I could do this all day. (if you'd like to discuss the topic, I can do that too. Let me know)

 

[Jimbo07]

It's just that I think

To an agnostic, no evidence can ever prove the existence of god/s.

is a strange way to define an agnostic. At least, I've never heard it used in that manner except, perhaps, in some really bizarre philosophical context. How could anyone make a definitive statement that no evidence for something could ever prove it?

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I voted yes.

I love whoever's sig about Militant Agnosticism:

I don't know, and neither do you.

I have that saying on a t-shirt.

I actually consider myself an Agnostic Atheist. I have no evidence* as to whether or not "God" exists, but I live my life as if there isn't one. I would bet there are Agnostic Theists, who question the existence of God, but choose to live as if he/she/it exists.

*and I think the question is unanswerable as "god" may be something far beyond our ability to understand.

 

[drkitten]

It's just that I think



is a strange way to define an agnostic. At least, I've never heard it used in that manner except, perhaps, in some really bizarre philosophical context. How could anyone make a definitive statement that no evidence for something could ever prove it?

Easily. Because the sort of evidence that would prove something can be proven not to exist.

For example, no amount of evidence could prove that there are no extrasolar teapots; you'd have to look everywhere in the universe that any possible teapot could hide -- and your travel budget isn't that large.

No amount of evidence could prove that we're not in a Matrix-like brain-in-a-vat situation; any evidence you get could be simulated by a sufficiently comprehensive computer.

No amount of evidence can ever prove the null hypothesis to be true -- nor can it prove the null hypothesis to be false unless you can drive the p-value all the way down to zero (which in most experimental setups is provably impossible). Even if I can correctly call the next twenty-five thousand spins of a roulette wheel, that doesn't prove ESP -- I might just have gotten unbelievably lucky. (The odds are something like 1 in 38 to the 25,000.... but that's not zero.)

 

[bignickel]

a strange way to define an agnostic. At least, I've never heard it used in that manner except, perhaps, in some really bizarre philosophical context. How could anyone make a definitive statement that no evidence for something could ever prove it?

Simple. An agnostic recognizes that he doesn't have the ability to distinguish between gods, aliens, or hallucinations. In other words, he knows that, as a being contained completely inside the universe, he doesn't have the ability to recognize something that is outside the universe (even if part of this other being enters the universe from time to time).

Perhaps other beings outside the universe have this ability; perhaps not. Maybe that's the reason that God supposedly said "there are no other gods besides me": he's an agnostic too.

Zeus: "That Jehovah is so stuck up; why doesn't he ever return my calls?"

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Perhaps Dawkins and co have been manipulating my comprehension of Atheism these days, but all I tend to see it as is a marriage of the need for evidence and disbelief.

I simply do not believe Humanity and the Universe can be reduced to a set of proven truths. And when I look at the staggering beauty of the provable heavens, I find it hard to keep up with this conclusion. But I will.

 

[bignickel]

Undesired, your avatar wouldn't happen to be Brion Gysin, would it?

 

[SynapticDancer]

Oh behave!
I mentioned this in another thread, but it really depends on how you define God. If God means that the Bible or the Koran or the Book of Mormon is the literal inerrant truth, I am an atheist. If it is a nonspecific deist God who created the universe and then left it alone to see what weird things might develop, I am an agnostic.

I don't necessarily need to be talking about a biblical deity in order to doubt it. The idea that you can be certain of the non-existence of any of those, but doubtful as to the non-existence of some other more ambiguous deity (like the one you describe) isn't really founded. How can you have certainty that Yahweh is false, but some as of yet undefined prime mover might exist? Isn't that just picking one of many religious views, and isn't that exactly what a believer does?

I doubt the existence of any such things, from the rigidly defined to the more vague notions. I have no proof, but neither does anyone else. It just doesn't sit right with me to believe, it never really did.

I actually remember being in church preparing for my first holy confession (silly Catholics) and suddenly realized that everyone was being completely serious. I thought they were kidding, and it was just fun stories and fancy clothes.

At any rate, agnostic, I'm okay with that title

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Undesired, your avatar wouldn't happen to be Brion Gysin, would it?

nizar qabbani

 

[CapelDodger]

But I'm not going to reduce my experience here in life down to a set of amneable and proven truths.

There are plenty of fascinating unknowns and intriguing mysteries to be getting on with without superstition. I'm an atheist. Always have been. It hasn't reduced my life one iota.

Individual people can be a fascinating (and not always amenable) unknown, but we can know enough about people in general to recognise that all superstition is the product of human imagination. It's always about us . Even Buddhism is about us becoming not what we naturally are so that we can be something better.

I take an interest in superstition and belief because they reveal a lot about HomSap and its history. And about people. They reveal squat about the wider world.

Agnosticism is for people who haven't yet recognised that Philosophy has no clothes. It's enough to observe that superstition emerges from and serves the human mind to dismiss it observationally. There's no need to wait for results to turn in from everywhere that nothing else has yet been observed. Superstition emerges and has influence strictly between one human ear and its partner.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Agnosticism is for people who haven't yet recognised that Philosophy has no clothes.

Just wanted to quote this very quotable quote.

 

[Slimething]

Agnosticism is for people who haven't yet recognised that Philosophy has no clothes.

Just the way I like it!

 

[articulett]

Just wanted to quote this very quotable quote.

Yes... pithy... I nominated it. I like naked pith.

We have lots of evidence that humans event invisible immeasurable entites to explain things we don't yet understand and to manipulate others. Yet despite eons of such belief, we haven't any evidence that any kind of consciousness can live outside a brain or any kind of god exists outside the human mind.

 

[Puppycow]

I don't necessarily need to be talking about a biblical deity in order to doubt it. The idea that you can be certain of the non-existence of any of those, but doubtful as to the non-existence of some other more ambiguous deity (like the one you describe) isn't really founded. How can you have certainty that Yahweh is false, but some as of yet undefined prime mover might exist? Isn't that just picking one of many religious views, and isn't that exactly what a believer does?

Let me make an analogy:
Take two propositions:
1) Unicorns exist.
2) Some undiscovered species of animal exists.
I can have a much higher degree of certainty that the first proposition is false than that the second one is.

 

[bignickel]

Gnosticism is for those who are certain they can't be fooled.

ah well, guess they all can't be catchy.

 

[Puppycow]

Simple. An agnostic recognizes that he doesn't have the ability to distinguish between gods, aliens, or hallucinations. In other words, he knows that, as a being contained completely inside the universe, he doesn't have the ability to recognize something that is outside the universe (even if part of this other being enters the universe from time to time).

This is fine for a philosopher and I accept that on a philisophical level, but as a practical matter I see no reason to spend an inordinate amount of time considering the possibility that things are not really as they appear or that we might be living in a Matrix. If we ever discover real aliens, I'm not going to spend a lot of time worrying that they might just be hallucinations. I also think I can tell the difference between a hoax and the real thing. However, I always remain open to evidence. Science would progress if we threw up our hands and said we can never know anything, so let's just accept ignorance and leave it at that.

 

[IMST]

I'm perfectly happy self-identifying as a hard-line agnostic.

That is to say, not only do I deny personal knowledge of God; I deny that anyone has knowledge of God, or even that such knowledge can be obtained.

The term simply isn't well-enough defined; the Deist's Great Watchmaker, for example, cannot be personally known by definition, and similarly is completely unfalsifiable, so He can't be inferred, either.

I find the God Hypothesis unnecessary and unparsimonious, but that's not enough to raise me to the level of atheism....

Thank you, drkitten. You've summarized my view on agnosticism better than I ever have here, especially the last sentence. May I save this and quote it when asked to explain my views to friends/family/enemies?

 

[bignickel]

This is fine for a philosopher and I accept that on a philisophical level, but as a practical matter I see no reason to spend an inordinate amount of time considering the possibility that things are not really as they appear or that we might be living in a Matrix. If we ever discover real aliens, I'm not going to spend a lot of time worrying that they might just be hallucinations. I also think I can tell the difference between a hoax and the real thing. However, I always remain open to evidence. Science would progress if we threw up our hands and said we can never know anything, so let's just accept ignorance and leave it at that.

That's great, but we're talking about god/s, not about aliens.

An agnostic doesn't consider anything, he only recognizes his own limitations.

And if you think you tell the difference between god and Loki, or god and a super-advanced alien race, then more power to you. Care to share your secret in distinguishing between them?