• 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.

"Agnostics are Nowhere Men"

Chucky said:
In any case, I say it's way too early for anyone to be making assumptions of what is knowable or unknowable, at least until science and math have run their course as much as that is possible.
Click to expand...

Very well put. Except for a few words at the end. :p
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
Having spent most of my life as an agnostic, I find this thread's premise, and a large number of the alleged arguments, similar to a bunch of Christians sitting about telling atheists what they do or don't believe in.

A bunch of y'all don't get it.

BTW: Darat, nobody is required to offer an answer to you insipid question (what gods do you believe in?) with anything other than "where's my beer?"

...
unless you want to begin to require an answer to "have you stopped beating your wife/lover" as well.
Click to expand...


The question is a definition and this thread is about definitions, I know the question makes some folks uncomfortable especially honest folk but it is the only way to tell if someone is an atheist or not. (And it is not of the type of "have you stopped beating your wife/lover")
 
Dinwar said:
Agnosticism isn't fence-sitting, it's a statement about what we can and cannot know. If you believe that you cannot know whether gods exist, you're an agnostic, whether you conclude from that the gods exist or not. Atheism, in contrast, is a statement about one's believe as to whether or not a particular type of entity (gods) exists or not. The two are not comparable in the way the author is trying to compare them. One can be an agnostic atheist just as easily as one can be a red-bearded Irishman.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Atheism is the _lack_ of belief in gods. As far as I'm concerned agnostics, if they say they can't know, don't _believe_ in any god and therefore are atheists by definition. They just prefer the softer, less stygmatised term.
 
Last edited:
Mister Agenda said:
Some gnostic atheists don't like being lumped in with the agnostic ones, so a distinction is helpful to avoid having the term 'atheist' not apply to some atheists. If atheism is defined as 'agnostic atheism', it excludes gnostic atheists. The description of agnostic atheist can be considered the 'ground floor' minimum to be considered an atheist, but atheism has two definitions: denial of or disbelief in the existence of God. Those who deny also disbelieve, but not all of those who disbelieve, deny.

As has been pointed out before, these kinds of distinctions are irrelevant in normal conversation, it is only when you're getting very fine-grained that this has any importance.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I understand but still think it's an (almost) pointless distinction.
 
Sceptic Tank said:
It just means that I'm conceding the possibility that I'm wrong. I'm not sure it "adds" anything particularly, except for scrupulous accuracy.

I see it as part of the same argument as solipsism. If you're strictly applying logic, then you have to concede that all the information you have about the world is garnered through your senses and so you have to concede the very slight possibility that your senses are completely wrong and that what you're experiencing as reality actually isn't reality at all. You could be, as I've said before, in the Matrix, or you could be a brain in a jar with electrodes attached, or a computer simulation of a brain programmed to believe it's human, or so on. I think that you absolutely have to concede these possibilities and uncountable others like them, because you can't know with absolute certainty that they're not true.

But what does a philosophy based on those concessions tell us about the real world? Nothing. What use are they interacting with the real world? None. Is there any reason to doubt that the real world outside your brain exists? No. So, while you logically have to concede that things outside your brain might not actually exist, it's not something it's worth spending any actual thought on, unless you're doing so for the sake of an interesting conversation.

Is it useful? No. Is it something you have to concede if you're being 100% scrupulously accurate? Yes, I think so. Agnosticism, at least as it applies to me, is pretty much the same. In fact, were we to draw a Venn diagram of my solipsism and agnosticism, then there would definitely be areas of overlap.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I concede your logic but feel it adds more confusion than clarity, but then I've always been a bit of a 'black and white' person - seems easier to say 'black' than try and describe a shade of grey so close to being black it may as well be for any practical purpose....I accept you don't do that 'normally' though but reserve it for such distinct discussion.:)
 
Belz... said:
I disagree. Atheism is the _lack_ of belief in gods. As far as I'm concerned agnostics, if they say they can't know, don't _believe_ in any god and therefore are atheists by definition. They just prefer the softer, less stygmatised term.
Click to expand...

Unless they're agnostic theists, who don't claim knowledge but believe anyway.

I'm not sure where to put 'Somethingists'. You know, people who believe in 'something' even less defined than God; like 'a force' or 'higher power'.
 
There seems to be some emotional baggage with this topic that we don't bring to other areas of skepticism. If we're discussing the merits of creationism, we don't say "There's absolutely no evidence for creationism, but we don't know everything so I'm 'agnostic' about it." We accept that it's hooey and move on. Not so with "God", though.
 
With creationism we would have to deny the physical evidence for evolution. With a hidden God, there's no reason to believe it's not made up, but no way to confirm it.
 
There is a statement, "God exists". Theists are those who believe it is true. Atheists are those who believe it is false. Agnostics are those who will not address the statement for whatever reason.
 
Checkmite said:
There is a statement, "God exists". Theists are those who believe it is true. Atheists are those who believe it is false. Agnostics are those who will not address the statement for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

Where exactly does that leave agnostic theists and agnostic atheists?

Theism/atheism is a dichotomy. As is gnosticism/agnosticism. They answer different questions.

I do agree with that statement on one point. If someone answers "Do you believe a god exists?" with "I'm agnostic." that is not an answer. It is a refusal to answer.
 
'Agnostic atheists' still believe the statement is false, and 'agnostic theists' still believe it is true, whether or not they think it's definitely 'knowable'.
 
Beth said:
Are mathematics part of 'physical reality'? If so, can you tell me the physical composition of a number?
Click to expand...
A number itself has no physical composition. However, whether numbers connect to physical reality is a deep and complex question. It would take a huge amount of space to fully explain my views on this subject, but basically, numbers are a model of physical reality. The number 'two' is a model of two of anything. Necessarily, a model includes some of the aspects of the things modeled and not others.

Logic is also a model. The rules of logic are abstractions of the rules of reason that physical reality obeys. Because one can choose different aspects of these rules to model, one can create a number of different types of logic if one wants to. Classic propositional logic is but one.

The same is true of mathematics. In principle, one can choose a different set of mathematical axioms. The deep question is looking at the fact that particular axioms lead to particular theorems -- what is that a property *of*?

IMO, it's a property of the nature of our physical reality. But it's quite hard to explain why I feel that way. The short version would be that I really do equate "physical reality" with "all that exists". For example, to the extent that I'm willing to concede that the subjective experience of pain exists, I believe it should be considered part of "physical reality". If that means we have to consider things 'physical' even though you cannot point to them, so be it.

But this may just be a definitional thing. If you want to say "science works on more than just physical things, it works on all things" and I want to say "science only works on physical things, but there only are physical things", we're probably just 'arguing' over nuances about what should be considered physical -- what to call things and not their actual properties.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
There is a statement, "God exists". Theists are those who believe it is true. Atheists are those who believe it is false. Agnostics are those who will not address the statement for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
Please address the statement, "There is currently a dollar bill on my desk." When you're done, please address the statement, "There is currently a glorkiban on my desk." There are many positions one can have about a claim other than that it's true or that it's false.
 
JoelKatz said:
Please address the statement, "There is currently a dollar bill on my desk." When you're done, please address the statement, "There is currently a glorkiban on my desk." There are many positions one can have about a claim other than that it's true or that it's false.
Click to expand...

I believe these statements are both false.
 
It was not. I have seen no evidence that it is true, and the null is always the default in such situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom