[a]gnostic people are dishonest?

All agnostics "think some lying is OK"? It's a very foolish - indeed, childish - claim: everyone agrees with me really, and if they say they don't they're being dishonest.


Richard Masters said:
A stance of agnosticism is not equivalent to accepting religion as truth. It doesn't mean one is confused or hasn't made up his or her mind. An agnostic person usually believes the answer to the question "is there a god?" is currently unknown or unknowable.

Any agnostics/atheists agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

I'm an agnostic and sort of agree, but for many definitions of "god", including those offered by all organised religions, I'm a strong atheist. Also, "currently" is crucial. Whether the laws of physics and/or the universe were created by a mind, whether there is a morality more fundamental than the biological and social needs of a particular species of intelligent ape, for example, are scientific questions and therefore in principle knowable (apparently, this view makes me a weak agnostic :().


Jimbo07 said:
Claims for monsters are rather mundane, but atheism/agnosticism/ignosticism/deism/theism/pastafarianism... are all claims about the fundamental nautre of the universe. It's something about which we currently lack knowledge. We can debate about whether a photo represents a monster or a pile of flotsam, but we don't know some of the "whys" of the universe, or even if asking "why" is relevant!

I say, call yourself neither atheist nor theist, but watch what physics has to say over the coming centuries. ;)
Click to expand...

That expresses my position nearer than I've seen it stated before in this forum. The existence (or otherwise) of god (however defined) is a physics discipline.

Fables about orbiting teapots, invisible pink unicorns etc. completely miss the point, because they are introducing inexplicable, mind-bogglingly improbable entities into a scenario that works perfectly well without them - so they are, in the true sense, extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. Whereas it's very far from the case that we have a godless (mindless) scenario (or understanding) of the basis and origin of the laws of logic, the laws of physics and the universe(s). There's no valid reason to choose "just happened to pop into existence" over "created by a mind" as the default position. And even less reason to choose "only naturally-selected, biological entities can possess the property of mind" over "mind is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex system (of the right type)".
 
CurtC said:
I agree that if you're not a believer, you're an atheist. Agnosticism is a separate question.
Click to expand...

Dichotomies rule! :D

CurtC said:
Why? If he existed, couldn't God just show himself to us tomorrow morning?
Click to expand...

No. I keep the little bastard at bay with my mystical barrier of skepticism +5 AOE spell. Don't worry; I got your six, bud. You see proof of my mystic prowess every day God doesn't rear his ugly head...

There are two ingredients to knowledge. The known and the knower. The knower is the active agent. That's the point of verificationism. That's why it works. We aren't passively waiting for something to reveal its secrets; we are actively engaged in the process. If the something is such that we are denied by definition our active agency in principle, as knowers, then we had best recognize that fact, dontcha think?

ETA: Actually, the means to "knowledge" is rather important, too. ;)
Three! Three ingredients to knowledge. Break out the comfy chair!
 
Last edited:
Ocelot said:
And I have damn good evidence people make up gods.
Click to expand...

So? Made up things by definition don't exist. Since they don't exist humans certainly didn't create any Gods - just abstract concepts with no basis in reality. An infinite number of stories concerning moon landings (See: Jules Verne, C.S. Lewis, others) doesn't have any bearing on space travel. Similarly made up stories have no bearing on a hypothesis.
 
GreyICE said:
So? Made up things by definition don't exist. Since they don't exist humans certainly didn't create any Gods - just abstract concepts with no basis in reality. An infinite number of stories concerning moon landings (See: Jules Verne, C.S. Lewis, others) doesn't have any bearing on space travel. Similarly made up stories have no bearing on a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Would you have equal difficulty comprehending the idea that Arthur Connan Doyle created the character of Sherlock Holmes?
 
Last edited:
Ocelot said:
Would you have equal difficulty comprehending the idea that Arthur Connan Doyle created the character of Sherlock Holmes?
Click to expand...
Only if you're trying to make claims about what Sherlock Holmes can and cannot do and whether detectives are fictional entities based on Sherlock Holmes.
 
Last edited:
Marquis de Carabas said:
Or we could make our own...

Theist - one who believes in god(s)
Deist - one who believes in non-interfering god(s)
Pantheist - one who believes everything is god
Pottheist - one who believes, like, everything is god, man...y'know? I mean, think about it [cough]
Atheist - one who does not believe in god(s)
Aaaaatheist - one who does not believe in the Fonz
Gnostic - one who believes it is possible to have knowledge of the existence of god(s)
Agnostic - one who does not believe it is possible to have knowledge of the existence of god(s)
Naustic - one who is just sick of the discussion
Click to expand...

I've got a few to add to that:

Apathetic - One who doesn't care enough about the question to get wrapped up in it.
Apatothetic - Greek term used to describe a deceptive thetic, due to one's resemblance to the sea-dwelling mosathetic.
Gay atheist - An atheist who is gay.
Gaytheist - A religious homophobe who is a closeted gay (read: all religious homophobes).
Gatheist - One who believes God is gay.
Gagnostic - One who believes God is bi-curious.
 
Last edited:
Ocelot said:
Which I'm clearly not.
Click to expand...
Ocelot said:
ahem...

Gods are created by man, man never created an artificial intelligence capable of travelling back in time in order to create the universe and bring about it's own being, therefore it being there would more or less constitute positive evidence, if not absolute proof, of the existence of the supernatural.

Needs a little work but you can see what I've getting at.
Click to expand...
You're arguing with yourself here.
 
Richard Masters said:
"Those that don't accept [religious] lies become atheist or, for those that think some lying is OK, agnostic."

A stance of agnosticism is not equivalent to accepting religion as truth. It doesn't mean one is confused or hasn't made up his or her mind. An agnostic person usually believes the answer to the question "is there a god?" is currently unknown or unknowable.

Any agnostics/atheists agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

I think the perception of dishonesty may arise from the common use of the term agnostic to describe someone as being neither atheist nor theist, which some might find hard to believe. Used properly as a description of what one believes about what can be known, I don't see how anyone could take it as being dishonest.
 
Of the terms presented, I am best described as a weak agnostic I suppose.

In general, I hesitate to engage in labeling, though, the label that truly best describes my current position towards religion and humans is ignostic existentialism with a touch of humanism.

ETA: I am also very much of the perspective that undue certainty of any flavor is what flirts with dishonesty.
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
You're arguing with yourself here.
Click to expand...

Pehaps using the world clearly was optimistic. This is getting tedious.

You suggested that there was a difference between the celestial teapot and God. Remember that? What you just quoted was my parody of your argument regarding the celestial teapot. It is not my opinion its a parody. It highlights the faults in your argument.

DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOUR? DO YOU UNDERSTAND PARODY?

People make teapots - this does not necessarlity mean that the celestial teapot must be manmade. You cannot generalise about all teapots from the ones you know are man made.

People make up Gods - this does not mean Yahveh must be man made. You cannot generalise about all gods from the ones you know are made up.

People make up detectives - this does not mean any real detectives must be made up. You cannot generalise about all detectives from the ones you know are made up.

There is no fundamental difference between the celestial teapot and God. The argumnent you make about the celestial teapot hypothesis does not differentiate it from the God hypothesis as the same argument can be transformed to say "God" where your agument says "teapot"

You are the one who made a generalised comment from something you know is man made and applied it to all similar entities.

I'm the one taking the piss out of you for doing so. Don't pretend for one minute that my pisstake of you is my opinion.

I'm bored of this now. I'll let you have the final word and that'll be the end of the matter as far as I'm concerned.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom