agnostics???

Apologetic Agnomeicism:

The conviction of those who do not believe in gnomes and apologize for not doing so.
 
J3K

I have never heard of this belief before.(agnostics) What does it mean if you are agnostic?
Click to expand...


I will talk only of pure agnosticism (involving both knowledge and belief).Agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are not pure agnosticism and I will not refer at them.


Basically (as many other have already shown) a pure agnostic is 'without knowledge of God(s)' .That in what knowledge is concerned (objective and subjective).But real agnostics are implicitly 'without knowledge of no God(s)' too.This is a feature shared by all types of pure agnosticism in what knowledge (objective and subjective) is concerned.

I cannot include all 'weak' atheists here since they only claim 'I do not believe in God(s)' without a clear reference at knowledge (objective and subjective).I could suppose that they have no objective or subjective knowledge of God (intrinsically) but clearly they do not claim to be 'without knowledge of no God'.Agnostic atheists on the other part are talking about objective knowledge of no God only.

Agnostic theists cannot be included here since they accept only that there is no objective knowledge to settle the problem of God's existence/nonexistence today but (additionally) they consider (without making objective claims) that there is evidence that can be interpreted (subjectively) as supporting [for the moment] the belief in a God [this does not imply certitudes but only that God hypothesis is the most likely to be true in their opinion].


In what belief is concerned,in my acception (some disagree with this-I still wait for a rational argumentation against) pure agnosticism splits in the following two branches (depending on the additional claims made):


1.'Hard' agnosticism- 'God(s) cannot be known [forever]'.Here knowledge refers at objective and subjective knowledge.This type of agnosticism is often mistken as the only type of agnosticism.Given that it is self-defeating logically (implying that we already know objectively that 'God can never be known' is TRUE) many concluded from here (wrongly) that agnosticism is not a valid position.


2.'Weak' agnosticism-'I suspend judgement regarding disbelief/belief until I will have sufficient reason to believe/disbelieve'.
Weak agnostics DO NOT sustain that God cannot be known [forever] but only that today we have no sufficient reason to believe/disbelieve.'Sufficient reason' to believe/disbelieve does not mean necessarilly 'objective' (scientific) knowledge but only enough evidence that can be interpreted (subjectively varying from person to person-there is no unique,rigid standard) as supporting belief/disbelief
 
People are confrontational and like to fight. It's the human nature. Religion is just another pretext to go into fights. Agnostics are the people who choose to admit that they don't really know for sure if God exists or not. They are the one who are either apathetic to the religious debate or in a search for Truth. Either way, you can't debate with an agnostic.
 
evildave said:
Then there's Apathetic Agnisticism:

I don't know and I don't care.
Click to expand...
Then there's the Militant Agnostic:

I don't know, and you don't either.
 
What am I? I guess I'm an atheist, but I do have one question:

Is there a reason why there is something rather than nothing?

~~ Paul
 
Is there a reason why there is something rather than nothing?
Click to expand...

Maybe there's not.

Maybe only the person reading this post exist, and everything else is just a figment of your imagination?
 
toddjh said:

The more formal definition says that an agnostic is a person who believes that we cannot, even in principle, know whether gods exist. Bit of a curious position, really. It's unsupportable, and I don't even see the appeal.
Click to expand...
Unsupportable? If God does not exist, how might that be known? ;)
 
I will talk only of pure agnosticism (involving both knowledge and belief).Agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are not pure agnosticism and I will not refer at them.Basically (as many other have already shown) a pure agnostic is 'without knowledge of God(s)' .That in what knowledge is concerned (objective and subjective).But real agnostics are implicitly 'without knowledge of no God(s)' too.This is a feature shared by all types of pure agnosticism in what knowledge (objective and subjective) is concerned.

I cannot include all 'weak' atheists here since they only claim 'I do not believe in God(s)' without a clear reference at knowledge (objective and subjective).I could suppose that they have no objective or subjective knowledge of God (intrinsically) but clearly they do not claim to be 'without knowledge of no God'.Agnostic atheists on the other part are talking about objective knowledge of no God only.

Agnostic theists cannot be included here since they accept only that there is no objective knowledge to settle the problem of God's existence/nonexistence today but (additionally) they consider (without making objective claims) that there is evidence that can be interpreted (subjectively) as supporting [for the moment] the belief in a God [this does not imply certitudes but only that God hypothesis is the most likely to be true in their opinion].


In what belief is concerned,in my acception (some disagree with this-I still wait for a rational argumentation against) pure agnosticism splits in the following two branches (depending on the additional claims made):


1.'Hard' agnosticism- 'God(s) cannot be known [forever]'.Here knowledge refers at objective and subjective knowledge.This type of agnosticism is often mistken as the only type of agnosticism.Given that it is self-defeating logically (implying that we already know objectively that 'God can never be known' is TRUE) many concluded from here (wrongly) that agnosticism is not a valid position.


2.'Weak' agnosticism-'I suspend judgement regarding disbelief/belief until I will have sufficient reason to believe/disbelieve'.
Weak agnostics DO NOT sustain that God cannot be known [forever] but only that today we have no sufficient reason to believe/disbelieve.'Sufficient reason' to believe/disbelieve does not mean necessarilly 'objective' (scientific) knowledge but only enough evidence that can be interpreted (subjectively varying from person to person-there is no unique,rigid standard) as supporting belief/disbelief
Click to expand...


Few clarifications are needed (sorry for my english):

1.What mean 'subjective evidence' in the above context?

In the above context I used this term as meaning either personal evidence (for example direct experiences pointing toward the existence of a God) and objective evidence (for example the constatation that all important constant of nature are 'fine tuned' poiniting toward the possible existence of a God,the 'design' argument derived from the existence of a 'Big Bang' or the constatation that God hypothesis does not play any role in our today's science,that materialism has always worked so far,that current trends in neurology and AI point out that consciousness is computable and so on).
In both cases induction was used therefore even if the premises are considered 'objective knowledge' the conclusions are still 'subjective knowledge' valid only at personal level,anyway enough to base a rational system of personal belief.


2.Agnostic atheists on the other part are talking about NO objective knowledge of no God only.


Otherwise if,in what knowledge is concerned,agnostic atheism said that there is no objective and subjective evidence either way then there would be a big problem with it.
To sustain an affirmation like 'I do not believe in God(s)' one must still have a reason for that.In my opinion the simple fact that no theist has ever managed to give 'sufficient evidence' (not necessarily objective knowledge) to an agnostic atheist is not enough to base such an affirmation.There should exist something extra,'subjective' evidence in my above definition,which to support it.Implying a contradiction with the supposition that agnostic atheism concede that there is no subjective (in my above definition) evidence either way.
 
ReasonableDoubt said:
noncognitivism
Click to expand...
Thank you - I thought that only applied to propositions about morality, but evidently not.

That'll prove to be a real conversation stopper next time some one asks.
 
Given Huxley:
"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold fast by that which is good" it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him." (TH Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889)
Click to expand...
I would suggest that he might now prefer the phrase "methodological naturalism".
 
Franko said:


By demonstrating that the mutually exclusive alternate option is more True.
Click to expand...

"More True"? How can anything be "more true" than anything else that is "true"?
 
But real agnostics are implicitly 'without knowledge of no God(s)' too.
Click to expand...

Here I haven't 'digged' till the end.Obviously there could exist pure agnostics that accept that there is no objective knowledge either way but who accept that there is some acceptable (logically) subjective knowledge (in one direction,or in both ways),still not enough to make a decision of belief.A better approach would be:

But real agnostics are implicitly 'without reliable (judged from a personal,subjective,perspective) knowledge of no God(s)' too'.


In the case of agnostic theists or agnostic atheists the subjective knowledge (valid logically,being a valid possibility) is considered (again on a personal,subjective,basis) as being reliable to sustain a belief in God or 'I do not believe in God(s)' respectively.
 
"More True"? How can anything be "more true" than anything else that is "true"?
Click to expand...

In the same way that boinking some gorgeous hottie is "FUN", while boinking some gorgeous hottie and her sorority sister simultaneously is "MORE FUN".

In summary:

Boinking hottie is FUN = TRUE

Boinking hottie1 + Boinking hottie2 is FUN = MORE TRUE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom