• 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.

Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

citizenzen said:
Well, I'm not going to judge the meaning for someone else, but I decided long ago to just spell the darn word.
Click to expand...

From a linguistic point of view, as long as your reader knows what the string of symbols means, typing "G-d" is no different at all from typing "God".
 
Us actual atheists seem to be a rather small minority here. Piggy is the only name that comes to my mind, but there are probably a few others I can’t remember (or aren’t aware of).

Agnostic atheism seems to be majority around these parts. Of course there are agnostics and theists of all varieties, as well. And they are welcome as much as anybody (and probably more because they bring different views into the discussions).
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Us actual atheists seem to be a rather small minority here.
Click to expand...


I generally label myself an ignostic these days (mostly to annoy people), but it is basically the same thing.

wiki said:
The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
I generally label myself an ignostic these days (mostly to annoy people), but it basically is the same thing.
Click to expand...

By that definition I'm simultaneously a "strong atheist" (i.e., one who believes we now know enough to state without reservation that God/gods doesn't/don't exist) and an ignostic.
 
Doubt said:
No. I will not play your little game. Do you understand why?
Click to expand...

'My little game.' LOL

Hokulele already posted it, but here's my position.


wikipedia said:
The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless.
Click to expand...

It's not my problem if you wish to remain incoherent.
 
Piggy said:
By that definition I'm simultaneously a "strong atheist" (i.e., one who believes we now know enough to state without reservation that God/gods doesn't/don't exist) and an ignostic.
Click to expand...

I guess I am, too. But I don't care for the ignostic label, really. Nah, not exactly sure why....except it does kind of make me look like an agnostic who can't spell :p.
 
Piggy said:
I do not accept that a proper application of skepticism and reason can lead to a belief in God, however; therefore, I don't agree that theists (even deists) can accurately describe themselves as skeptics, only as people who are skeptical about some things but not others, which makes them indistinguishable from non-skeptics.
Click to expand...

I suspect that by that definition there are no skeptics.
 
I still don't see any cookies, which I was really hoping for.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, however. Their descriptions just may not take the shape, form, and flavor that I'd really like to eat.

I may have to make some.
 
Agnosticism is logical in that it's pretty impossible to "prove a negative." OTOH, if forced to bet, most agnostics would probably lean toward the "no God" than the "yes God" side of the coin.
 
JoeyDonuts said:
I still don't see any cookies, which I was really hoping for.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, however. Their descriptions just may not take the shape, form, and flavor that I'd really like to eat.

I may have to make some.
Click to expand...
cookies%20warning.jpg
 
Well... I tend to go with agnostic, but that is a simplification.

To begin with, I tend to have a historian's point of view of religions. There have been many and they are all fascinating. Few things tell you more about a people than their beliefs, be it Gods, Spirits or unicorns. From a personal standpoint, I find the philosophy behind the religions also interesting. I am a big fan of Norse religions because of the philosophical basis behind them. That does not make me a believer... just a fan.

Secondly, I really don't think that we are anywhere near the scientific level at which we can start answering the big questions. There are some pretty impressive theories about the beginning of the Universe etc, but not a lot of definitive answers. So...

I wonder what is so wrong about saying "I don't know".

Are atheist right or are theist right? I don't know.

Do Unicorns exist... somewhere? I don't know.

What I do know is that, based on the lack of evidence concerning unicorns, I am not buying that unicorn horn that shady looking dealer is trying to sell me.

The list of things that we don't know as a race is likely pretty large. However, in every time period, in every country, people rush to decide things based on little to no evidence. Why not just wait and see what turns up?

In the meantime, base your life on what you do know, don't sell all your stuff hoping to be raptured before you starve... and keep an eye on what we do find evidence for in the future.

I am willing to bet that whatever it is, no one has a clue.


PS... on the other hand, there are people who I really hope aren't correct in their beliefs. I can't prove it... but if those tv evangelists are right, I am going to be very disappointed.

:)
 
Nicole Friedman said:
True, you cannot prove in either G-d or a flying spaghetti monster. However, that is the extent of their similarities. Saying the Easter bunny doesn't exist does not prove that G-d doesn't exist either.
Click to expand...

Are you really comfortable with god and the Easter Bunny inhabiting the same universe?
 
Hokulele said:
I generally label myself an ignostic these days (mostly to annoy people), but it is basically the same thing.
Click to expand...

The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless.
Click to expand...

I like that. I wish agnostic atheists would accept that as their definition (I have a hunch that’s what most of them actually believe, but just haven’t thought it out that far.)

However, I would take it further and not rely necessarily on non-cognitivism. For example, some have argued that God exists in another dimension that is not accessible from our current dimension. Everybody has a soul that exists (or will come to exist) in that other dimension. The fate of that soul, your soul, in that dimension is determined by the actions that you, your body (and/or mind), takes in this dimension. God has transmitted information from that other dimension to us (by prophets or signs or personal revelation) how we should behave in this dimension to ensure a good fate for our soul in God’s dimension.

This God is, by definition, unfalsifiable because we cannot detect anything (other than the non-empirical signs, prophets, personal revelations) from the other dimension. But this God, who will judge and control your soul in this other dimension, is far from meaningless to our existence in this dimension.

The God is meaningful, but unfalsifiable. So it is a matter of faith, they say. The agnostic atheist would simply claim it as unproven. Again, the believer would claim a matter of faith where agnostic atheism shares the same weight as agnostic theism. The ignostic approach, in this case, seems to take the same position, but simply couching it in non-cognitivism.

I would look at where the claim of this type of God came from in the first place. What I find are primitive societies that almost alaways create some gods, spirits, magical forces, etc. As the society grows (and interacts with other societies), those coalesce into a pantheon of gods. One god becomes the dominante god. That god becomes the only God, which interacts with the universes in ceratin way. When it is found that no God or anything interacts with the universe the way the that God is described, God becomes some fuzzy, general, guiding, influencial force. When no disruptive or non-regular force is found in the universe, God becomes simply the creator of the universe. Because God is simply defined as “the thing that created the universe” and has no other effect, there is no reason to have something called “God” when we can simply have something called “the thing that created the universe”. Since God has to be something irrelevant and undetecable in the universe, but still releveant, God becomes some other-diensional force that will affect our other-diensional selves, which FINALLLY cannot be proven or disproven.

But I know why that person brought the concept of such a God into consideration in the first place. They did it so that they could win the argument that “there could be a God”. Not personal revelation. Not belief. Not faith. Simply a hypothetical to justify a presupposition that can be traced back to many previously falified beliefs. So I can conclude that this God that is being presented is just that; and is therefore not true.

Now, with an unfalsifiable but meaningful God, it is possible (although extraordinarily unlikely) that they are right, but for the wrong reasons. We could, theoretically, It is within the realm of possibility that someday we would find a theory of physics that demonstrates an alternative dimension hat has some force that controls some force generated by our physical bodies based on our actions. Not at all likely. But theoretically possible. However, I would still take the position that the above belief in God was false. This would be like a fixed horse race where one horse is sure to win. Somebody bets on that horse and is sure it will win because it has a “lucky name”. The horse wins. Not because he had a “lucky name”, but because he was certainly the fastest horse in the race. The person who made the bet was wrong, even though they picked the right winner. In the question of an unfalsifiable, meaningful God, this is almost impossible to happen, but it doesn’t mater even if it does.

For a claim that there is a God, we can look at more than just the claim itself. We can look at why someone made the claim in the first place.
 
Doubt said:
If probed carefully, almost all skeptics have an area where they fail to think critically. What area that is can be quite a bit different for any one individual. By your definition, almost everyone ends up being indistinguishable from non-skeptics.

As for the OP, there are people here that will give you a hard time. A few folks here are determined to force their perspective down you throat by asking you loaded questions like "Which god do you believe in" rather than acknowledge that agnosticism can apply to the general topic of a god rather than any specific entity.

When that happens, an argument develops around positions of knowledge and positions of belief. Just about every time such an argument has happened there has been at least one person refusing to deal with the differences and try to force and atheist identity on to you regardless of your preferences. In short, there are some people here with issues that they try to work out by making you conform to their preferred point of view rather than accepting what you choose to call yourself.
Click to expand...

Yep, none of us skeptics can think critically because we don't believe in anything.


ETA:Careful with that probe!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom