Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Belz...]

No it is not.
And with this wishful thinking, once we get our higher intelligence, we will want a higher than higher intelligence,
It's not turtles all the way down...

What are you talking about ? It seems your post is disconnected from the context of mine.

 

[Belz...]

No, I think I have it right. By definition a deist and theist have already decided there is a god and by being a god is without question. An agnostic is unsure of the existence of a god and thus can freely question the motives of this hypothetical existence. In fact, I think that asking these questions can help one choose what they really believe.

My father is an agnostic now (was a Christian as I was growing up) and does not believe in the benevolent god existence -- just a power that created and set the laws of the universe.

If he believes in it he's not an agnostic ! Please get your definitions right.

He believes that the universe had to be created, thus his agnosticism.

See ? That doesn't make any sense.

He's a very smart man willing to listen to his heretical atheist son and question his own belief systems.

He's still got a ways to go.

 

[Belz...]

This^.

Come on fellow forumites. You are all making us look bad dwelling on this ad hom that is off topic. Asking her questions about it is one thing. Pointing out problems with logical conclusions is one thing. But a lot of these posts border on ridiculing her answers and/or position and are uncalled for.

Righteous idignation aside, I'm trying to understand why it makes her uncomfortable. I think it's very much on-topic since she brought it up in the first place, if memory serves. I also don't see how it's an ad hom, but since the term is often misused here, I'm not surprised.

 

[Belz...]

I really must answer your questions with some questions of my own. Why would knowing that God doesn't exist not change anything for you?

I believe I've answered this in the post you quoted, so I'm a bit perplexed. It wouldn't change much for me because I would still like science-fiction, classical music, the colour blue, beautiful women, etc. The only thing the existence of god would change for me is how I view the creation of the universe. If it's a personal god, of course, it changes a few more things, but it doesn't change my tastes and preferences.

It would change everything for me. No it wouldn't change my clothes or hobbies but wouldn't knowing that we weren't alive by random chance but for some greater purpose supercede all of that anyhow?

No.

If you have children and have a "purpose" for them, should it change how they view themselves and their goals in life ?

However, I simply cannot compare the two. And how would I know that I'm deluding myself when I'm not sure?

Evidence.

Simply because I like many others want to believe in a God, does that somehow prove God doesn't exist?

No. But it should tell you something: that your belief might not correspond to reality. What if I want to believe in the Great Brown Chicken, instead ? Does that mean the GBC doesn't exist ? Of course not, but it should tell me something that I know I "want" to believe it.

(And yes, I'm typing "God"- quite frankly I'm sick and tired of all of the whining on here over what to me is a trivial point about how I choose to spell or not spell God.)

Not whining. Genuine curiosity. That you confuse the two is quite telling of your emotional bias.

Let's suppose that science prove God does not exist. What do you think will happen? Will the world become a better place? Will wars cease to exist? Or will people lose hope and become depressed and angry?

I don't know of any atheist who has become depressed or angry, so that option's out. And removing religious wars and nonsense from the equation surely will improve things.

 

[Belz...]

I can see where you're coming from. But why would you necessarily have to be a pawn?

Omniscience.

 

[Belz...]

The fact that you would call God useless is beyond arrogant. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you.

That sounds terribly convenient. But let's see... if God cannot be defined, detected or interacted with, he is by definition non-existent as far as this universe is concerned. How would you claim he is useful, then ?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

We shall have to disagree - I strongly believe that having a discussion about something that can't be defined is pretty meaningless.

That word is not undefined. Like all commonly used words, though, it does not have a concrete set in stone definition on which everyone agrees. Yes, the ambiguity allows for equivocation -- but that is what most 'philosophical' discussions tend to boil down to anyway.

 

[laca]

I am at least 75% of the opinion that they do exist, ie on balance I am more a theist than an athiest.

That means that you believe they exist, with 75% certainty. So which is it?

 

[laca]

The fact that you would call God useless is beyond arrogant. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you.

Right. Now I'm 99% convinced you're a theist, maybe slightly agnostic.

 

[Darat]

That word is not undefined. Like all commonly used words, though, it does not have a concrete set in stone definition on which everyone agrees. Yes, the ambiguity allows for equivocation -- but that is what most 'philosophical' discussions tend to boil down to anyway.

I think we are talking past each other. I agree that we can have a word that simply means "a set of something" and that can be discussed in a meaningful manner. But that was not my point, what I was saying is that when I look to discuss whether "a god" could/does exist I use a definition of "god" that can be found in the "set of god definitions that the major religions define". I leave it up to those that have a belief in a particular definition of god to argue with other people with such a belief as to whose defintion is the right one.

 

[punshhh]

That means that you believe they exist, with 75% certainty. So which is it?

So you assume that it is only possible to seriously entertain the existence of gods by having a belief in their existence.

I repeat I hold no beliefs in anything.

 

[SusanB-M1]

The fact that you would call God useless is beyond arrogant. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you.

But if you think that god is useful, then surely it would be a better idea to give an example. The idea of god might be useful, but that's all.

 

[Daald]

The fact that you would call God useless is beyond arrogant. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you.

You are correct. All the atheists in this site worship the god FSM. They all believe he boiled for them. They also think that FSM has a use. His use is to show how ridiculous a god belief is.

 

[ehcks]

Right. Now I'm 99% convinced you're a theist, maybe slightly agnostic.

I should have asked about this long ago.

Agnostic isn't a middle ground between theist and atheist, is it? Isn't it its own dimension of philosophy?

Theist vs Atheist refers to belief.
Gnostic vs Agnostic refers to knowledge.
Pathy vs Apathy refers to concern or care.

Right? You can believe without thinking you're able to know. You can even believe without thinking it matters.

 

[CriticalSock]

I should have asked about this long ago.

Agnostic isn't a middle ground between theist and atheist, is it? Isn't it its own dimension of philosophy?

Theist vs Atheist refers to belief.
Gnostic vs Agnostic refers to knowledge.
Pathy vs Apathy refers to concern or care.

Right? You can believe without thinking you're able to know. You can even believe without thinking it matters.

Yes. It's like AD&D. You can be Lawful Good, you can even be Lawful Evil but to be True Neutral you have to be a druid in which case you'll be boring and nobody will want to play with you.

 

[FattyCatty]

I should have asked about this long ago.

Agnostic isn't a middle ground between theist and atheist, is it? Isn't it its own dimension of philosophy?

Theist vs Atheist refers to belief.
Gnostic vs Agnostic refers to knowledge.
Pathy vs Apathy refers to concern or care.

Right? You can believe without thinking you're able to know. You can even believe without thinking it matters.

Does that mean that I am an agnostic theist? I believe in God, but I also believe that I can't know if there is a God.

And thanks for your post, it put very clearly something that was confusing me.

In terms of the OP, I think that agnostics won't be treated any differently than anyone else, especially in subforums other than Religion & Philosophy. Heck, even theists can be accepted (provisionally, if they don't bring up their religion - kind of a don't ask, don't tell situation).

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Yes. It's like AD&D. You can be Lawful Good, you can even be Lawful Evil but to be True Neutral you have to be a druid in which case you'll be boring and nobody will want to play with you.

Hold on, there. Druids put the D in CoDzilla. No one wants to play with them because they can kill everything ever in a single turn.

Does that mean that I am an agnostic theist? I believe in God, but I also believe that I can't know if there is a God.

Depends on what you mean by god. I've always seen "agnostic theist" interpreted to mean something like ietsism (something-ism): you believe there's "something" up there but you don't know what.

Nicole, in contrast, knows exactly which deity she's agnostic about and feels perfectly comfortable rejecting the rest out of hand. I would not call her an agnostic theist, just a not very good one.

 

[CriticalSock]

Hold on, there. Druids put the D in CoDzilla. No one wants to play with them because they can kill everything ever in a single turn.

Hmpf! They couldn't in my day, useless tree hugging hippies!

 

[Hokulele]

I can see where you're coming from. But why would you necessarily have to be a pawn? If there's a higher intelligence in this universe, maybe it's purpose was simply to give us life, in order for us to find our own purpose.

Because there really is only two choices, either I am serving something else's purpose, or I am making my own. If its purpose is only to create me to go and do whatever I wish, then it becomes as meaningless to venerate it as it would be to venerate the mashed peas I ate as an infant.

But that then wouldn't be going from what the religions themselves say about their version of god. I don't know any major Christian denomination that only has the Bible (of whichever version) as the source of their definition for their god?

I suppose, but that opens up the can of worms as to what should be taken as canon and what should be ignored. "The number of opinions about the nature of god is equal to the number of people discussing the topic + 1."

ETA: Just to reiterate (if I've already iterated it) I am not trying to tell other people what they must believe to self-label themselves as "Christian". Just that if we want to discuss definitions of gods then we have some regions that claim to hold the exclusive definition and have hundred of millions of people that they claim believe in their definitions. If the word god is reduced to nothing more then "whatever anyone believes" then it becomes a meaningless term.

I don't think it becomes meaningless, it becomes subjective. Personally, I see the word "god" as being more similar to the word "pornography" than the word "Poodle".

 

[slingblade]

The fact that you would call God useless is beyond arrogant. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you.

Okay, you have misrepresented yourself. You are clearly a theist. You are not agnostic.

And god is useless, both as an idea, and as a highly unlikely reality.

Frankly, if I were to judge by the descriptions of at least the major, well-known god depictions, God's impossible.


On a related note, I find that these days I look with great disdain upon those who, after some kind of accident or tragedy, urge everyone to pray for the victim.

If god had wanted that person to be safe, unharmed, uninjured, why did he not spare that person from the incident in the first place? Since god didn't spare the person, praying for his safety or recovery seems to be going against god's clearly expressed will.

Anecdotally, an example: My brother had had a major heart attack and was comatose for almost two weeks. His entire church prayed for him unceasingly. Finally, he woke up, though with very little memory of who he was, who his family was, or what had happened to him. Still, everyone said it was a "miracle," and god had spared him. There was much rejoicing that god had seen fit to save his life.

Two days later, the nurse turned my brother onto his left side while changing his sheets...and he had another major heart attack and died on the spot.

The church members were oddly silent. And god looked like total prick. Good thing I know he's imaginary.