Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Piggy]

How would you pronounce 'god' if you were speaking instead of typing?
Enquiring minds want to know.

Most observant Jews carry around an airhorn which they set off when saying the vowel.

 

[calcmandan]

Generally, labels don't mean the same thing here as they do other places. I call myself an atheist, but an agnostic atheist, because the terms are not describing the same thing.

And many people here (including myself) have said they wish there were a benevolent power, that protected humanity and had similar moral standards as they do. What generally turns people off here is insults, strawmen, bigotry and refusing to discuss things honestly. Stay away from those and you'll find friends here. Not with everybody, of course, but quite a few of us are perfectly fine with hopeful agnostics or even theists, as long as they are not jerks.

What he said...


-- Sent from my Palm TouchPad using Communities

 

[citizenzen]

May I ask why you write it that way, since that's not how the word is written in the dictionary ?

Let's all be adults here and admit that it's an attempt to deny the legitimacy of the belief. In following with that, I'd suggest people who choose to misspell God in such a way could also adopt that device to spell unic-rns, d-wsing, bigf--t, the L-ch Ness m-nster, and UF-s.

Woo can now become w--

By why stop there? Let's bring other vowels into play.

Show how little you think about ps--d-sc--nc- and the s-p-rn-t-r-l.

The more dashes you use, the more contempt you show! It's the perfect way to establish you skeptic credentials.

 

[laca]

Generally, labels don't mean the same thing here as they do other places. I call myself an atheist, but an agnostic atheist, because the terms are not describing the same thing.

And many people here (including myself) have said they wish there were a benevolent power, that protected humanity and had similar moral standards as they do. What generally turns people off here is insults, strawmen, bigotry and refusing to discuss things honestly. Stay away from those and you'll find friends here. Not with everybody, of course, but quite a few of us are perfectly fine with hopeful agnostics or even theists, as long as they are not jerks.

What he said...


-- Sent from my Palm TouchPad using Communities

What who said?

 

[Ryokan]

By why stop there? Let's bring other vowels into play.

Show how little you think about ps--d-sc--nc- and the s-p-rn-t-r-l.

Congratulations, you've just reinvented Serbo-Croatian..

 

[Dinwar]

Like the man says, everybody got a gris-gris,

As I understand it (I don't call myself a skeptic, so this is an exterior perspective), skepticism is a process, not a result. As long as one is willing to apply systematic doubt to a problem, one can call themselves a skeptic--they just haven't gotten around to that issue yet.

As I understood the term, agnostic means you cannot assign any probability to the existence of one or more gods.

I've always understood atheism to be a metaphysical position (ie, "There is a God/are gods" vs. "There aren't", which would imply fundamentally different universes), while agnosticism is an epistemological position (ie, "We can know" vs "We can't", which implies things about our minds and ability to comprehend things but not the universe at large). As such, I find agnostic atheism a bit odd. It implicitely assumes a supernatural element. The way around it is a proper view of the concept of a null hypothesis: until you show that there's something to explain, there's nothing to explain and postulating entities to not explain anything is just silly. A gnostic or agnostic theist makes perfect sense, in that they already assume a supernatural element and therefore either is internally consistent.

 

[Rasmus]

As such, I find agnostic atheism a bit odd. It implicitely assumes a supernatural element. The way around it is a proper view of the concept of a null hypothesis: until you show that there's something to explain, there's nothing to explain and postulating entities to not explain anything is just silly.

I don't quite understand you here.

I am agnostic atheist - I do not believe that there is a god, but I acknowledge that I cannot be 100% certain about whether there is a god - just like i cannot be 100% certain about anything, really.

Since I am convinced that there is no god, why would my stance imply its existence?

 

[tsig]

You and I probably hold nearly the same beliefs, but I still call myself an agnostic atheist because I can't find a way to assign a zero probability to the existence of any and all gods. The chance is vanishingly small, and would be counted as zero in any algebraic calculation, but something in me (probably stubbornness) refuses to deny the possibility of some very intelligent entity who is doing his best to decieve me with his incredible superpowers.

Or it could be aliens.

Then who made the aliens?

 

[laca]

As such, I find agnostic atheism a bit odd. It implicitely assumes a supernatural element.

Exactl... Wait... Nope, it doesn't.

 

[tsig]

I don't quite understand you here.

I am agnostic atheist - I do not believe that there is a god, but I acknowledge that I cannot be 100% certain about whether there is a god - just like i cannot be 100% certain about anything, really.
Since I am convinced that there is no god, why would my stance imply its existence?

Are you sure that you exist?

 

[Dinwar]

Since I am convinced that there is no god, why would my stance imply its existence?

Simple: How do you know? If reason and evidence aren't enough to convince you, there's an element of mysticism inherent in your epistemology. The whole idea that you can't know anything presumes that truth is supernatural and unobtainable, and the concept of being agnostic towards gods but not unicorns, the Easter Bunny, etc. can only be supported via mysticism--a rational person would see that there's no justification for such a separation, and therefore the same rules apply, and unless they can provide evidence that something exists to need explaining they'd conclude that nothing exsists to explain it.

 

[Rasmus]

Are you sure that you exist?

I thought about including that bit, but thought it wouldn't be necessary. I should have known better.

Yes, I am absolutely certain about my own existence. I experience my existence, and the entity that has the experience must necessarily exist in one form or another.

 

[Rasmus]

Simple: How do you know? If reason and evidence aren't enough to convince you, there's an element of mysticism inherent in your epistemology.

But I am convinced.
Really, I am.

But being certain is one thing. Assuming I'd be infallible another.

The whole idea that you can't know anything presumes that truth is supernatural and unobtainable,

Not that it is, but that for every individual truth it might be. And I have no way of finding out which bits those are,of if it is all of them.

I don't think there is something supernatural in the world, but if there was it might be impossible for me to tell. (Of course if I couldn't tell it would be idiotic to assume that there was. And I am not making that assumption.)

and the concept of being agnostic towards gods but not unicorns, the Easter Bunny, etc. can only be supported via mysticism--a rational person would see that there's no justification for such a separation, and therefore the same rules apply, and unless they can provide evidence that something exists to need explaining they'd conclude that nothing exsists to explain it.

I am agnostic towards the easter bunny and unicorns. To just the same degree that I am agnostic towards gods: I think they are all entirely made up. But I cannot know that with absolute certainty and I cannot prove that they don't exist.

Occam's razor doesn't say that the complex explanation is wrong - it might be right. But it is probably wrong and therefore it would be unwise to act as if it was true.

 

[tsig]

I thought about including that bit, but thought it wouldn't be necessary. I should have known better.

Yes, I am absolutely certain about my own existence. I experience my existence, and the entity that has the experience must necessarily exist in one form or another.

So you're 100% sure that you exist but insist that we can't be 100% sure that god doesn't exist? The same facts that lead me to believe that you exist leads me to not believe god exists. He/She doesn't post here or anywhere.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I can be 100% sure I exist, because if there is no me, then *I* can't be sure about anything.

 

[Rasmus]

So you're 100% sure that you exist but insist that we can't be 100% sure that god doesn't exist?

Yes.

The same facts that lead me to believe that you exist leads me to not believe god exists.

I am 100% sure that I exist. I am not so certain about you.

He/She doesn't post here or anywhere.

Maybe I don't, either.

Professor Yaffle has it right: The "I" that is sure about existing needs to be in order to be able to be sure. (Suppose I was wrong and didn't exist: Who or what would then mistakenly hold the belief of my own existence? It is not possible for me to not exist and for me to think I'd exist - or to think anything, really.)

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Its yer basic Descartes, innit?!

 

[Piscivore]

Reading through many of the threads on this forum, I am honestly wondering how posters on this site feel about agnostics, particularly agnostics with "hope" that there is an intelligent force in the universe.
For the record, I consider myself to be a very rational thinker. I cannot commit myself to saying that G-d exists 100% because I have no tangible proof. However, I refuse to say that G-d does not exist for the same reason. Also, I honestly hope that there is some intelligent, good force in this universe; I admit my unscientific bias but even Einstein believed that there was something behind all of this... which leads me back to my thread topic "Are agnostics welcome here?"

My opinion of you is going to largely depend on the quantity and quality of fish you provide. I'll optomistically say "Welcome!"

 

[Rasmus]

Its yer basic Descartes, innit?!

Yep, right up to the point where he should have just shut up

 

[Dinwar]

But being certain is one thing. Assuming I'd be infallible another.

That's nothing but the Nirvana fallacy--unless knowledge is perfect, it's not good enough.

But I cannot know that with absolute certainty and I cannot prove that they don't exist.

The fact that you accept the possibility of that for which there is no proof, and which contradicts all that you DO know, is a remanent of mysticism.

Occam's razor doesn't say that the complex explanation is wrong - it might be right. But it is probably wrong and therefore it would be unwise to act as if it was true.

It's more than that, though: you've accepted the basic premises of mysticism (there's a world that we cannot know, that's superior to the one we know) when you say "I can't be 100% certain about anything". Otherwise, why can't you be certain of anything? What stops me from being 100% certain that my coffee cup has alternating brown and tan stripes, for example?