Define “Agnostic”

[Fudbucker]

All that means is that the invention of Hogwarts is sufficiently recent that the identity of its inventor is still known, that the original work of fiction is still available, and that nobody has yet published derivative writings which make a claim of literal truth.



Take scientology as an example, then. We know it was generated as a work of fiction for personal enrichment of its creator. We know who its creator is. We know its claims to be expressed very clearly. We also know that there is a large body of subsequent commentary which treats its subject matter as entirely factual. Are you agnostic about the existence of body thetans, and is it incumbent on everybody in the population to have a stated position on their existence?

Dave

The ridiculousness of a particular fictional religion (Scientology) has a much to do with the possible existence of god(s) as the ridiculousness of a particular fictional alien life (Vogons) has to do with the possible existence of alien life. Which is to say, nothing.

 

[3point14]

The ridiculousness of a particular fictional religion (Scientology) has a much to do with the possible existence of god(s) as the ridiculousness of a particular fictional alien life (Vogons) has to do with the possible existence of alien life. Which is to say, nothing.

Can I ask how you, personally, distinguish a "fictional religion" from a religion?

 

[Fudbucker]

Can I ask how you, personally, distinguish a "fictional religion" from a religion?

The same way you distinguish a "fictional alien" from an alien.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The same way you distinguish a "fictional alien" from an alien.

Ask to be shown the alien? Ask for any proof of the alien's existence? Assume "The alien doesn't exist" is a safe default that isn't going to nitpicked to Narnia and back with semantics and hairsplitting and a billion different categories of "opinion" until sufficient proof has been shown?

 

[JesseCuster]

Who's equivocating anything? The bolded part is correct and doesn't contradict my statement. Don't be amazed though, that some people (very young ones) may actually believe Hogwarts exist even though they actually don't know this.

My point is that you don't need to know something is true, in order to believe in it. And that's where Atheism and Agnosticism differ. You can be either an Atheist or a Believer, but it still doesn't change that you don't know whether what you believe is true. So, when it comes to God, not everyone is an Atheist, but everyone is an Agnostic.

But an agnostic is not someone who doesn't know whether there's a God, an agnostic is someone who believes that they don't know whether there's a god (or believes it can't be known, or other variations on the idea).

If someone believes they know there's a god, or believes they know there isn't a god, then they're not an agnostic. The word agnostic is not about what someone knows, it's about what they believe they know (or can know).

There's a lot of really wonky ideas being thrown around in these recent threads along with a trend to make blanket ideas about who believes or doesn't believe those same wonky ideas.

 

[xjx388]

The ridiculousness of a particular fictional religion (Scientology) has a much to do with the possible existence of god(s) as the ridiculousness of a particular fictional alien life (Vogons) has to do with the possible existence of alien life. Which is to say, nothing.

Scientology is a real religion. You can go to major cities and walk into their Church just as easily as you can a Catholic Church.

You may regard their beliefs as fictional, but then I wonder how we distinguish fictional religious beliefs from non-fictional religious beliefs....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JesseCuster]

Personally, I'd favour the definition that agnosticism is actually a conclusion of sorts. That someone has at least given some thought to the question of the existence of god(s) and has concluded that there's not enough in the evidence, philosophical arguments etc. to conclude if it is true or untrue.

In my experience, the opposite is generally true. Agnosticism is commonly a waypoint on the road to atheism and they call themselves agnostic because they haven't given it enough thought to realise it's all a bunch of nonsense. They have their doubts, have questioned their religion and questioned the existence of God, and think that calling themselves agnostic is just being open minded and intellectually honest about some philosophical and spiritual question that isn't decided.

Just an opinion based upon my experience.

 

[JesseCuster]

Is Scientiology is a 'fictional religion' because it's obviously untrue, then Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. are also 'fictional religions'.

 

[3point14]

The same way you distinguish a "fictional alien" from an alien.

I don't know how you'd do that either.

Please explain.

 

[ynot]

Atheists special pleading for god beliefs is more weird and concerning than god beliefs.

 

[Fudbucker]

I don't know how you'd do that either.

Please explain.

Easy: It's entirely possible the first person to set foot on Mars will be a woman, right? What's the possibility that the first person who steps foot on Mars will be a 5'6'' left-handed woman who's first name starts with "M"?

 

[ynot]

Easy: It's entirely possible the first person to set foot on Mars will be a woman, right? What's the possibility that the first person who steps foot on Mars will be a 5'6'' left-handed woman who's first name starts with "M"?

Well I tried. Yep, I really tried. Read it several times every-which-way. But I just can’t find any correlation (not even remotely) with how to “distinguish a "fictional alien" from an alien”. Someone is dancing too far from the music, hope it’s not me.

 

[ynot]

Oooops!

 

[BadBoy]

There are at least 3 versions of agnosticism:
The chance of any gods or not are 50/50.
Holds neither belief nor disbelief in any gods.
Knows not whether there are any gods or not.

The 3 versions are respectively about probability, beliefs and knowledge.

E.g. I am only an agnostic as per the 3rd one and the first 2 ones.

With regards

Number 2 "Holds neither belief nor disbelief in any gods." is an incorrect statement logically imo.

You either hold a belief or you don't hold a belief. You can't be both or neither at the same time. And if you don't have a belief in a God - you are an Atheist - by definition.

 

[ynot]

Number 2 "Holds neither belief nor disbelief in any gods." is an incorrect statement logically imo.

You either hold a belief or you don't hold a belief. You can't be both or neither at the same time. And if you don't have a belief in a God - you are an Atheist - by definition.

"Disbelief" (belief of lack) and "don't hold a belief" (lack of belief) are not the same thing. Why does this have to be pointed out ad infinitum?

 

[Fudbucker]

Well I tried. Yep, I really tried. Read it several times every-which-way. But I just can’t find any correlation (not even remotely) with how to “distinguish a "fictional alien" from an alien”. Someone is dancing too far from the music, hope it’s not me.

Trust me, it's you.

 

[ynot]

Trust me, it's you.

Darn! Well I never was a good dancer.

Well being such a nice person you won't mind explaining how . . .

Easy: It's entirely possible the first person to set foot on Mars will be a woman, right? What's the possibility that the first person who steps foot on Mars will be a 5'6'' left-handed woman who's first name starts with "M"?

In any way correlates to . . .

The same way you distinguish a "fictional alien" from an alien.

Thanks in advance. I can't wait to start dancing with the music again.

 

[Egg]

...
You either hold a belief or you don't hold a belief. You can't be both or neither at the same time.
...

You would be amazed at what wonderful feats of illogicality human beings can be capable of!

We probably need a "Define Belief" thread too. I find I lean more towards a non-binary concept of belief. I think we often provisionally accept something as true, or accept things as possibly true, or believe in the likeliness of something being true, or believe something is metaphorically true, or believe partially in something incompletely defined, or any number of other positions along a multi-dimensional scale.

 

[BadBoy]

"Disbelief" (belief of lack) and "don't hold a belief" (lack of belief) are not the same thing. Why does this have to be pointed out ad infinitum?

ok, sorry. My mistake. I do understand the difference, despite appearance. I just parsed it incorrectly.

 

[BadBoy]

You would be amazed at what wonderful feats of illogicality human beings can be capable of!

We probably need a "Define Belief" thread too. I find I lean more towards a non-binary concept of belief. I think we often provisionally accept something as true, or accept things as possibly true, or believe in the likeliness of something being true, or believe something is metaphorically true, or believe partially in something incompletely defined, or any number of other positions along a multi-dimensional scale.

I believe you may be correct, though not totally because you need to provide evidence. But I think what you said could be true, and probably is true - to some extent. But I'm prepared to change my mind.