Define “Agnostic”

[Thermal]

"I don't know" doesn't answer the question as it's effectively saying "I can't answer the question because I don't know if I do or don't" (I don't know the answer). The default is "I don't believe" because you don't "do" until you do. The question doesn't ask "Do you know if you believe in live at first site?".

Ok, we may be on to a kind of common ground now.

If asked 'do you know if you believe in love at first sight', the answer is no, for me, because I don't know if I believe in it. Asking simply 'do you believe in it', I can't answer, having not experienced it myself but others may have. But I don't have enough info for a meaningful conclusion, to borrow from Asimov again.

 

[Thermal]

Not merely your imaginary god belief based biased (anti-atheist) opinion then?

FWIW, I live for all intents and purposes as an atheist. Except for when I'm diong God's work, of course. I just lack the faithful zeal y'all have

Eta: no, it wasn't my opinion, either. Stupid, cowardly, and dishonest were used to describe agnostics ITT.

 

[ynot]

FWIW, I live for all intents and purposes as an atheist. I just lack the faithful zeal y'all have

So what? Some Christians have told me that for all intents and purposes I live like a Christian. Doesn't make me a Christian or mean I don't have a bias against Christianity.

Eta: no, it wasn't my opinion, either. Stupid, cowardly, and dishonest were used used to describe agnostics ITT.

That's a complete contradiction of this (ITT) . . .

Is this the usual thing, to not talk about this subject civilly? I think the athiest crew has lobbed stupid, dishonest, cowardly...I'm losing track of the insults. The agnostic advocates seem civil enough. Is this some kind of hot button issue?

 

[Thermal]

So what? Some Christians have told me that for all intents and purposes I live like a Christian. Doesn't make me a Christian or mean I don't have a bias against Christianity.

You're not making sense. Why did you say my imaginary god-based biased anti-atheist opinion? You just made all that up to be...what? Civil?

That's a complete contradiction of this . . .

You're really losing me with this. What is uncivil about that? Atheist posters have in fact been using such terms. Is it the use of 'crew' or 'lobbed' that you find uncivil?

 

[ynot]

You're really losing me with this. What is uncivil about that? Atheist posters have in fact been using such terms. Is it the use of 'crew' or 'lobbed' that you find uncivil?

You've really lost the plot. My post that you responded to was specifically to do with a contradiction, not "uncivil".

Here's the contradiction in which you claimed . . .

Stupid, cowardly, and dishonest were used to describe agnostics ITT.

When you earlier used them specifically to describe atheists . . .

I think the athiest crew has lobbed stupid, dishonest, cowardly

And specifically excluded agnostics . . .

The agnostic advocates seem civil enough.

All "ITT".

 

[ynot]

Why did you say my imaginary god-based biased anti-atheist opinion?

Because it's self-evident that you do have such a bias. I have an anti-theism bias (that's not an anti theist bias)

 

[Thermal]

You've really lost the plot. My post that you responded to was specifically to do with a contradiction, not "uncivil".

Here's the contradiction in which you claimed . . .

When you earlier used them specifically to describe atheists . . .

And specifically excluded agnostics . . .

Oh, I get it. No, I mean that the athiest posters have hurled uncivil terms like cowardly, ets. at agnostics ITT. I'm not directing those terms at them; I am pointing out that they were literally used. I was't describing athiests with those terms at all.

 

[Thermal]

Because it's self-evident that you do have such a bias. I have an anti-theism bias (that's not an anti theist bias)

I do not. You are making it up. Why?

 

[ynot]

Oh, I get it. No, I mean that the athiest posters have hurled uncivil terms like cowardly, ets. at agnostics ITT. I'm not directing those terms at them; I am pointing out that they were literally used. I was't describing athiests with those terms at all.

Oh, I get it (now) .

Atheists being uncivil to atheists. It's like atheists might be human after all. At least atheists don't torture and kill other atheists because they don't agree, like some theists do to other theists (and atheists). Why don't you criticise theists for being uncivil to theists?

 

[ynot]

I do not. You are making it up. Why?

Perhaps we get false impressions when we interpret others incorrectly, as we just did? Perhaps we make things up because it suits our bias to do so? Perhaps others claiming we have made something up doesn't mean we did?

 

[Thermal]

Perhaps we get false impressions when we misinterpret others incorrectly, as we just did? Perhaps we make things up because it suit us to do so? Perhaps others claiming we have made something up doesn't mean we did?

I suppose. I would like to think that on a skeptic site, we should look at things neutrally and dispassionately, without the baggage from battles gone by.

Shall we pray?

 

[Thermal]

 

[Apathia]

Shall we pray?

Yes. let's. These threads have become such foxholes.

 

[ynot]

I suppose. I would like to think that on a skeptic site, we should look at things neutrally and dispassionately, without the baggage from battles gone by.

Shall we pray?

Skeptics tend to be people that are skeptical of other skeptics and not everyone on a skeptic site is a skeptic. Hardly a forum for neutral and dispassionate debate.

Shall we play?

 

[3point14]

No it's not.

I don't think just making random **** up to explain stuff - thereby creating an even more complex thing that needs to be explained - is a valid way of thinking.


"I have no explanation for this, therefore I'll fantasise something" is the comment of a lunatic. Often with this added: "and get upset when others point out I'm a fantasist"

Being agnostic about every damn fiction that's ever been created is just a recipe for madness.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Wow this went right to the "Atheists are big mean poopie head" well even quicker than normal.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Unlike atheism (which some adhere to, some don't) when it comes to agnosticism, everybody is an agnostic, because no one actually knows for sure whether or not there is a God.

 

[calebprime]

Heh, there are no real agnostics, because everyone has an opinion, like they have a ... body.

And even if they don't think they have an opinion -- not having an opinion is an offensive act. Mild people with reasonable views cannot be tolerated in today's polarized climate of opinion.

 

[3point14]

Unlike atheism (which some adhere to, some don't) when it comes to agnosticism, everybody is an agnostic, because no one actually knows for sure whether or not there is a God.

Nobody knows for sure that Hogwarts doesn't exist. Are we going to equivocate about that too?

 

[Thermal]

Oh, I get it (now) .

Atheists being uncivil to atheists. It's like atheists might be human after all. At least atheists don't torture and kill other atheists because they don't agree, like some theists do to other theists (and atheists). Why don't you criticise theists for being uncivil to theists?

Just saw this edit. I am not criticizing theists because AFAIK, no theists are even participating in this discussion, nor does the topic include the behaviors of extreme theists. Why would you expect criticisms at a group that is unrelated to the thread?

Your own thread title is Define "Agnostic", and here you are asking why I am not criticizing theists. Upthread, I was subjected to a psychotic psychic reading. Can a simple topic not be discussed without bringing in grudges from older battles with other posters?