We are all agnostic

[Hokulele]

As for more typical people, there is a tendency to attribute events to the supernatural. Ramachandran has studied this and it's very much worth watching:

Ramachandran rocks. I usually refer people to his work when discussing neurology and theology and how and where they intersect. Fascinating stuff.

 

[El Greco]

This discussion comes up often and I always repeat that I am a strong atheist

I know that one can't prove God's non-existence. In the same way, one can't prove the non-existence of the IPU, the FSM or that my great grandmother is alive somewhere in the Himalayas having drunk a rejuvenating filter and working as a stripper in a local bar.

Who cares ? Why should I care to define my position towards God any more than I should care to define my position towards the possibility that a blue-green marble is buried 500km below Venus's surface ? Agnosticism is a purely theoretical concept, totally useless to me; atheism is something tangible that I live by day by day.

AFAIAC, agnosticism simply means that you are paying too much attention to the God idea.

ETA: And this is corroborated by the fact that "agnosticism" refers almost exclusively to our view on God's existence. Why do we waste a word with the beautiful meaning of "the stance of not knowing" on religious affairs ?

 

[Hokulele]

It would appear that these popular misconceptions continue even in this thread. I wasn't kidding about agnosticism not being a third option.

Now that I am home from work and have a little more leisure to review this thread, I have just learned something new.

I now consider myself ignostic. Thanks Cosmo!

 

[wollery]

Well, there's certainly a lot for me to think about so far in this thread, and I've learned a lot.

I haven't changed my mind on anything yet, but I might.

 

[Hokulele]

Well, there's certainly a lot for me to think about so far in this thread, and I've learned a lot.

I haven't changed my mind on anything yet, but I might.

If you do not mind, I do have a quick question. Do you think that agnosticism means you do not know, you cannot know, both, or something else? (Sorry, I am arguing definitions again. )

For example, I consider myself agnostic regarding string theory. I do not know if it is useful, or even correct, but I think under the right circumstances, it would be possible to find out. A deist god, not so much.

If you think it could mean both do not know and cannot know (or possibly something else), then I would agree that I am agnostic on the god question.

 

[wollery]

If you do not mind, I do have a quick question. Do you think that agnosticism means you do not know, you cannot know, both, or something else? (Sorry, I am arguing definitions again. )

For example, I consider myself agnostic regarding string theory. I do not know if it is useful, or even correct, but I think under the right circumstances, it would be possible to find out. A deist god, not so much.

If you think it could mean both do not know and cannot know (or possibly something else), then I would agree that I am agnostic on the god question.

In the strictest definition it means you do not know, but I believe it should also apply to things you cannot know because, fairly obviously, you don't know things that you cannot know.

Which was kind of my point to begin with.

ETA - Never apologise for arguing about definitions, in many discussions they are incredibly important.

 

[Hokulele]

In the strictest definition it means you do not know, but I believe it should also apply to things you cannot know because, fairly obviously, you don't know things that you cannot know.

Which was kind of my point to begin with.

ETA - Never apologise for arguing about definitions, in many discussions they are incredibly important.

Well, that all makes sense to me, but^*, I would say that there is a subtle but important difference between "cannot know" due to circumstances and "cannot know" due to definition. For example, I cannot know what it is like to grow up as a boy, although I can gather evidence that could lead me to one conclusion or another. If a specific god cannot be known by definition (deism again), what is the point in assigning any truth value to knowledge regarding it?



* You just knew there had to be a "but", didn't you?

 

[El Greco]

I would say that no true agnostic D) should say "we cannot know". How can the agnostic be so sure ? Maybe God (who, according to the agnostic, may exist) will appear tomorrow and gladly answer all our questions. So, if you accept the probability that God exists, you should also accept the probability that we will learn.

 

[wollery]

Well, that all makes sense to me, but^*, I would say that there is a subtle but important difference between "cannot know" due to circumstances and "cannot know" due to definition. For example, I cannot know what it is like to grow up as a boy, although I can gather evidence that could lead me to one conclusion or another. If a specific god cannot be known by definition (deism again), what is the point in assigning any truth value to knowledge regarding it?

I never said there was any point to it.

In fact I find the whole debate on the existence of god utterly pointless. I just get annoyed by people describing my personal position in regard to the whole thing as wishy-washy. It isn't, it's an acknowledgement of the limits of knowledge.

* You just knew there had to be a "but", didn't you?

With you, of course there's a but!

 

[Richard Masters]

Have there been any studies done on the brain activity/structure/chemistry of atheists?

I couldn't find any, but I must point out that some of the people who experienced religious delusions were not necessarily theists when lucid.

 

[El Greco]

I couldn't find any, but I must point out that some of the people who experienced religious delusions were not necessarily theists when lucid.

Nobody is a theist when lucid

 

[Darat]

Well, not exactly. Don't get hung up on the christian definition of god, or any specific definition of god.

...snip...

For us to have any meaningful discussion we have to agree on what a word means - if you don't have a definition for the word "god" then any discussion about it is absolutely meaningless.

...snip..

The answer to the question "could god exist" is most definitely yes, but that isn't the important question.

...snip...

The answer could be yes, no or don't know but we have to agree on the what we mean when we say god before we can give any answer.

 

[geni]

While Pard didn't make the statement all that clear, I think you are twisting the intent of his statement.

I believe the matter is regarding zero evidence to consider the existence of something rather than the matter of making an assumption that something is plausible because of the evidence we do have. Do you honestly consider fairies possible because their existence has not been disproved?

No because evidence we would expect to see if they did exist as described does not.

 

[Richard Masters]

Ramachandran rocks. I usually refer people to his work when discussing neurology and theology and how and where they intersect. Fascinating stuff.

Yes. I put him next to Neil deGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku, for making science fascinating.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Well, not exactly. Don't get hung up on the christian definition of god, or any specific definition of god.

The answer to the question "could god exist" is most definitely yes, but that isn't the important question. The important question is, as you stated at the start of your post, "does god exist", to which the answer, if you are honest, is, "I don't know". You can add, "but I don't think so", or "but I seriously doubt it", if you want, but in the end you cannot answer the question absolutely one way or the other.

As for the existence of god being a scientific question, I agree that "god exists" is a theory, but I disagree that it presents a scientific question, since god, by definition, can be outside the laws of the physical universe, and thus untestable by the scientific method. If god made the Universe then it must "predate" it, and is therefore not bound by its laws. God, if it exists, may be bound by some laws, but good luck with defining what they might be.

Please answer this simple question - do you know for certain whether or not god exists?

If the answer is no, then you are agnostic.

I guess my answer to that question is that I am as certain as I am of the existence or nonexistence of anything else in the universe. If this concept of "god" set-up the physical laws that we all recognize today as making up our "reality" then that god is part of that reality or at least can manipulate it on occasion. If god exists, wouldn't you consider he/she/it part of the natural world? Anything else would be as worth considering (or believing in) as the tooth fairy.

And most for which there is evidence against.

As for a Deist god, it is my opinion this belief is just an attempt to move the goal post as god claims are knocked down as false one after the other. But using logic, one can also say that not only is such a god equally likely as the tooth fairy, by definition, there is no way for someone to become aware of a god which never interacts with the Universe. It would seem Deist believers conveniently forget this fact as they claim to believe in a God which merely created everything and sat back.

I generally agree with what you've posted.

Yes, see above. And as Hok and Cosmo, without a mutually agreed upon definition of god, the discussion is moot. I would go further and say that it is exactly because of that lack of definition combined with a lack of any evidence supporting any of the current god theories, that I am an atheist.

I think it was Hok that used String Theory as an example of something that may be outside our ability to ever "know". How does one test something that may have eleven dimensions? Because of that, can it really be considered a "science"? IMO, the god theory is the same concept.

Perhaps I am ignostic, but for now I don't see the need for another definition, but I'm willing to be swayed.

 

[Richard Masters]

Nobody is a theist when lucid

 

[wollery]

Okay, I've read the wiki page on ignosticism, and have now changed my mind.

I am, as far as I can be certain about anything, ignostic.

Seriously.

As I said a few posts ago, I've always thought that the entire debate about whether or not god exists is utterly pointless, I just never had the word to describe my position before. I thought agnostic atheist described it best, but my eyes have now been opened (give me a chorus of hallelujahs ).


I'm now incredibly happy that I started this thread.

Thanks to all who responded, particularly Cosmo for the ignostic link.

 

[fls]

So the existence of a god cannot be proven beyond doubt, but equally, the non-existence of god cannot be proven. Try it, I dare you. Make all the arguments you can. And when you're done, review your arguments, sit back and smile smugly, and I'll simply respond, "Nice try, but that just disproves that particular definition of god".

But what else would we be talking about? Is it possible to create a definition of god that eludes what we already know about the nature of the universe and has nothing to do with what people talk about when they refer to God? Of course it is, but who would bother?

Someone started a thread here a while ago that postulated that this argument doesn't exist unless one or the other positions is defined in such a way as to make it untenable or ridiculous. To use 'agnostic' in the sense that you are using it, as simply representing the difficulty of proving a universal statement, makes it ridiculous by making it meaningless - it doesn't communicate any information that distinguishes one person's stance from another.

So, I'll go one stage further and posit that, in reality, we are all agnostic. Seriously, think about it. If it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god, then we are all, by definition, agnostic. You can believe all you want, one way or the other. You can argue about it until you are blue in the face. The truth is, you don't know. You cannot know.

As Dogdoctor used to say in his sig line, I have started to think of myself as a militant agnostic - I don't know, and you don't either.

So, as I said before, Agnosticism is not a position of mealy-mouthed fence-sitting, it is a statement of fact.

Feel free to argue about it. Lambaste me all you like. The truth is that, just as it is impossible to prove the existence of god, so it is impossible to prove the non-existence of god.

In the final analysis, we are all agnostic.

Right. We are all agnostic on universal statements. So what's the point of using the term in a way that makes it redundant? It's not like we go around describing ourselves as bipedal humans.

Linda

 

[fls]

Okay, I've read the wiki page on ignosticism, and have now changed my mind.

I am, as far as I can be certain about anything, ignostic.

Bleah.

Why couldn't you have said that before I responded?!

Oh wait. You did.

Linda

 

[Cosmo]

Okay, I've read the wiki page on ignosticism, and have now changed my mind.

I am, as far as I can be certain about anything, ignostic.

...

I'm now incredibly happy that I started this thread.

Thanks to all who responded, particularly Cosmo for the ignostic link.

Perhaps I am ignostic, but for now I don't see the need for another definition, but I'm willing to be swayed.

Now that I am home from work and have a little more leisure to review this thread, I have just learned something new.

I now consider myself ignostic. Thanks Cosmo!

Wowie, new converts! Glad to be of help.

Please see Brother Ian before you leave; he will distribute your Ignostic pins, t-shirts, and a free sample of Purina™ Puppy Chow™. Welcome to the fold!