agnosticism confuses me

[wollery]

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".

Feel free to post your proof of the non-existence of any form of deity (even ones that no human has yet conceived of).

Your statement of fact without proof is every bit as dogmatic as any theist.

 

[Roboramma]

Tricky, I think that to take the attitude you started off with is to be very, very pedantic.

The thing is, though, saying it's pedantic and saying it's false are two different things.

Yes, it's silly to have to make a distinction between being very very sure about something and being absolutely sure, but if you are asked to make that distinction, you would be wrong to say that the two are the same.

This is the "sun rising tomorrow" argument and I don't believe it works.

Why not?

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 agree - it's fine to take it for granted when going about your daily life- I do the same thing. It would be silly of me to start worrying about the possible existence of a Leprechaun of whom I have no reason to believe.
I think this is important to point out to any theist who thinks that the fact that we can't disprove god gives support to their viewpoint.

However, that doesn't mean that we can disprove god. And if you can't disprove something's existence, you can't say for certain it doesn't exist. If you could, it would be because you'd disproved it!

I am not and never will be a Leprechaun agnostic!

Well, you and I can agree that there aren't any Leprechauns, but how do we know?
A perhaps more meaningful question is, "Is there anything in the universe that I would find as strange or unlikely if I found out about it as I do Leprechauns?" I actually think there probably is. It's also very likely that whatever it is isn't a Leprechaun or anything else that we've imagined along the way. But it could be (just by some crazy chance).

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"]

It's also what I expect to hear from people who are honest with themselves. We all have to say "I don't know" at some point, because none of us knows everything.

All that said, the way that most people interpret agnosticism, I'm much closer to saying "I know there is no god" than to the viewpoint that they'd attach to it. As others have said, saying that you don't know for certain doesn't mean that you find both options equally likely. The no-god option is, in my opinion, far, far more likely than the god option. But I won't pretend to a certainty that I don't have.

That's why I call myself an agnostic strong-atheist.

 

[sesshin]

Hi there. First post. I just wanted to chime in and say I am an avowed agnostic in regards to the Judeo/Christian concept of god but not just an agnostic of the "I don't know" variety. I'm an agnostic of the "I don't know and I don't care" variety and I think this is an important distinction to make (although I'm not quite sure if that is technically classified as a strict agnostic or not).

I will gladly admit in all honesty I do not know whether or not god exists, but I think more importantly I don't care whether or not god exists. It is simply irrelevant to me.

 

[The Atheist]

As others have said, saying that you don't know for certain doesn't mean that you find both options equally likely. The no-god option is, in my opinion, far, far more likely than the god option. But I won't pretend to a certainty that I don't have.

That's why I call myself an agnostic strong-atheist.

Feel free to post your proof of the non-existence of any form of deity (even ones that no human has yet conceived of).

Your statement of fact without proof is every bit as dogmatic as any theist.

Once you have said "I am incapable of being wrong" then you have become unreasonable.

I can answer all three of these in one crack, because you've all come up with the same strawman. I'm not saying anything's proven at all. I said that it's so bloody unlikely that I'm happy to discount it. All three posts have credited me with a position I haven't staked.

We don't go around thinking we're in The Matrix; we don't go around wondering if the sun's going to come around tomorrow; we don't state that we "don't know" those things. God turning up one day is, in my view about as likely as the sun exploding tomorrow. It's not a certainty, but I'm happy to stake my non-immortal, non-soul on it.

 

[The Atheist]

Hi there. First post. I just wanted to chime in and say I am an avowed agnostic in regards to the Judeo/Christian concept of god but not just an agnostic of the "I don't know" variety. I'm an agnostic of the "I don't know and I don't care" variety and I think this is an important distinction to make (although I'm not quite sure if that is technically classified as a strict agnostic or not).

I will gladly admit in all honesty I do not know whether or not god exists, but I think more importantly I don't care whether or not god exists. It is simply irrelevant to me.

Strange how you're posting on a thread about it then...


Same position for other gods?

 

[qayak]

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.

So, every god that has ever been described and very god anyone can imagine has been overwhelmingly shown to be nonexistent but we have no knowledge? That is bizarre.

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.

I think your believe is mistaken. Do we not know that 2 + 2 = 4?

I also think this is not a belief you actually hold. I think this is something you like to argue because, although it is completely unimportant in any meaningful way, it is hard for someone to quickly disprove. If you really did believe it, I would expect that you would do things like drive your car into crowds of children because you "didn't know" it would kill some and injure others. I do not see you drinking drain cleaner because you "didn't know" it was bad for you. I don't see you advocating teenage boys play Russian Roulette because no one "knows" if a bullet in the temple will actually kill them.

Yours is not a belief, it is just an amusing play of words.

 

[qayak]

Hi there. First post. I just wanted to chime in and say I am an avowed agnostic in regards to the Judeo/Christian concept of god but not just an agnostic of the "I don't know" variety. I'm an agnostic of the "I don't know and I don't care" variety and I think this is an important distinction to make (although I'm not quite sure if that is technically classified as a strict agnostic or not).

I will gladly admit in all honesty I do not know whether or not god exists, but I think more importantly I don't care whether or not god exists. It is simply irrelevant to me.

So, why is it that you don't care? Are the implications of the issue not important to you? With religions causing so much harm in the world and if there are no gods, are you justified in not caring?

 

[SezMe]

I will gladly admit in all honesty I do not know whether or not god exists, but I think more importantly I don't care whether or not god exists. It is simply irrelevant to me.

I don't think ANYONE has ever included the concept of caring in the debate about what agnoticism/atheism mean. It's just irrelevant.

 

[Roboramma]

I can answer all three of these in one crack, because you've all come up with the same strawman. I'm not saying anything's proven at all. I said that it's so bloody unlikely that I'm happy to discount it. All three posts have credited me with a position I haven't staked.

We don't go around thinking we're in The Matrix; we don't go around wondering if the sun's going to come around tomorrow; we don't state that we "don't know" those things. God turning up one day is, in my view about as likely as the sun exploding tomorrow. It's not a certainty, but I'm happy to stake my non-immortal, non-soul on it.

Don't worry, Atheist, so am I. In fact, I agree with everything you just said here. I just happen to think that makes you an agnostic as well.

Please note that if I say I'm agnostic about god, I'm also saying that I'm agnostic about everything.

Maybe this isn't quite how you view the word, which is fine. And I agree that it's a stupid point that's often brought up by theists, "You can't prove god doesn't exist!" when trying to justify their belief. I just try to not to get around it by suggesting a certainty I don't have. It looks like you aren't either. So cool.

 

[Roboramma]

I also think this is not a belief you actually hold. I think this is something you like to argue because, although it is completely unimportant in any meaningful way, it is hard for someone to quickly disprove. If you really did believe it, I would expect that you would do things like drive your car into crowds of children because you "didn't know" it would kill some and injure others.

Just because he doesn't know that some children would be killed or injured (or both) doesn't mean that he can't find it likely.

There's a difference between being able to say something with certainty and having enough evidence to say that it's likely. A thing need not be proven for us to base our decisions or actions on how likely we find it to be true.

I do not see you drinking drain cleaner because you "didn't know" it was bad for you. I don't see you advocating teenage boys play Russian Roulette because no one "knows" if a bullet in the temple will actually kill them.

Actually the Russian Roulette example is a good one. Playing russian roulette, you go in uncertain about whether or not you'll die. Does that uncertainty mean that its a good idea to play the game?

Similarly Tricky can have uncertainty about the existence of god without finding existence to be equally likely to non-existence. Moreover he can make decisions based upon his conclusions of likelihood. I'd suggest that this is how we make all of our decisions.

 

[The Atheist]

Please note that if I say I'm agnostic about god, I'm also saying that I'm agnostic about everything.

That was going to be my next point - taken to its conclusion, that argument ends up in exactly that spot - we know bugger all.

I think sex is the only area I'm 100% non-agnostic in. I always know when I'm going to get laid. (and no, NOT because I pay for it!)

 

[qayak]

Just because he doesn't know that some children would be killed or injured (or both) doesn't mean that he can't find it likely.

There's a difference between being able to say something with certainty and having enough evidence to say that it's likely. A thing need not be proven for us to base our decisions or actions on how likely we find it to be true.

And that right there is why we know there is no god. Just as surely as I know driving my 3000 pound vehicle over a group of children will result in injury and death, I know there is no god.

 

[sesshin]

Strange how you're posting on a thread about it then...

This is a thread about agnosticism, no? I'm simply posting my interpretation of the agnostic position, that is all.

Same position for other gods?

Well it depends. Define the god and I'll define it's irrelevance to me. I would say for the most part though most gods are irrelevant, although I have always had an affinity towards the pantheistic version of god.

 

[SezMe]

I think sex is the only area I'm 100% non-agnostic in. I always know when I'm going to get laid. (and no, NOT because I pay for it!)

At the risk of looking foolish for taking your remark seriously, no you don't. You might be just about to do the nasty when a huge earthquake hits and immediately interrupts the festivities. Likely? No, of course not. Possible? Yep.

 

[The Atheist]

At the risk of looking foolish for taking your remark seriously, no you don't. You might be just about to do the nasty when a huge earthquake hits and immediately interrupts the festivities. Likely? No, of course not. Possible? Yep.

I've had an earthquake during sex - in Wellington, a high-frequency earthquake zone - and yes, I did stop and ask, "wow, did the earth...."

 

[bignickel]

Hi there. First post. I just wanted to chime in and say I am an avowed agnostic in regards to the Judeo/Christian concept of god but not just an agnostic of the "I don't know" variety. I'm an agnostic of the "I don't know and I don't care" variety and I think this is an important distinction to make (although I'm not quite sure if that is technically classified as a strict agnostic or not).

Hi, Sessbj, welcome to the forum.

Although it might 'appear' that 3 posters immediately jumped you, this is but an illusion; we don't 'know' that you got jumped. Or that these are really letters on a screen you're reading. In fact, this your computer could be randomly spitting out letters, and just by coincidence, they all form words which appear to be different people talking about 'evidence/no evidence' on an internet forum. More incredibly, if you look at the screen in exactly the right way, you can see an image of Penn Jillette eating a double cheeseburger.

Anyway, happy posting.

 

[Tricky]

I think sex is the only area I'm 100% non-agnostic in. I always know when I'm going to get laid. (and no, NOT because I pay for it!)

That's probably what John Bobbit thought.

 

[Tricky]

I can answer all three of these in one crack, because you've all come up with the same strawman. I'm not saying anything's proven at all. I said that it's so bloody unlikely that I'm happy to discount it. All three posts have credited me with a position I haven't staked.

Perhaps you missed this point that I made earlier.

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.

So what I call myself depends on the discussion. I won't go through this rigamarole of explaining why you can be agnostic AND atheist every time we discuss beliefs. Like you, I believe that it is so unlikely that there is no reason to consider the existence of any gods in one's daily routine. But if someone dirictly asks me if I know there is no god, then the only honest and correct answer is "no", thus technically making me an agnostic.

You and I don't differ in our positions (I'm sure that's a relief to you), only in how we choose to word things. You just said "I'm not saying anything's proven at all. I said that it's so bloody unlikely that I'm happy to discount it. " Technically, that makes you an agnostic. But don't worry, you don't have to call yourself that. I normally don't either, except when around those that I love who cannot seem to grasp the fine distinction. They see atheists as, well, like Thaiboxerken, as people who are incapable of admitting they might be wrong. No sense giving them ammunition to claim that "atheism is a religion". I make no claims of knowledge. My beliefs are based on evidence. Lots of evidence, but not all of it.

 

[Darat]

"Agnostic" - is a belief about the limitation of knowledge in regards to "god", in other words (courtesy of Encarta Dictionary- because I've got it up and running at the moment)

1. somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

An agnostic is someone who like a theist has a faith; it is not fence sitting, it is not saying we don't have enough evidence yet to come to a decision it is taking a stance that we can never have the knowledge whether god exists or not.

 

[qayak]

Perhaps you missed this point that I made earlier.

But if someone dirictly asks me if I know there is no god, then the only honest and correct answer is "no", thus technically making me an agnostic.

By definition, to know something you do not have to be 100% certain.