Why do you call yourself an Agnostic? (3 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

I just thought i'd start this thread to comment on something that's bugged me on this forum for quite some time... people whom are atheists, calling themselves agnostics.

Now usually these people do not believe in a diety, but due to acknowledging that 'nothing is impossible', they refuse to call themselves atheists. Personally I believe this is wrong and people are categorising themselves in a deceptive way..

For example, most people would say they believe in flight, despite the possibility that it does not exist. Most people would categorise themselves as males, despite the possibility that they may be female...

I think when it comes to such categorisations of belief, the tiny possibility that your belief is wrong should not mean that you place yourself as having a neutral belief.

Agnostics in my opinion, are people whom are not sure if there is a diety or not... They do not have the miniscule doubt of 'nothing is impossible', but much more significant doubts.

Atheists in my opinion, are people whom are sure... as sure as they are sure that they are male/female, that there is no God.

What say you, forum?

 

[mr_brightside]

Its insurance...
That said...God does not exist...therefore you Agnostics look like fools..
Its 1 or 0...

 

[SashatheMan]

they are people who dont wanna argue with religion , but secretly know that there is no god and those religious folk are idiots

 

[Lundy]

I consider myself an agnostic because I consider the existence (or non-existence) of God as unknowable, so I choose not to make judgement either way. I have always been open to the possibility of God, or Gods, but I'm highly skeptical towards organised religion. Since I'm neither an atheist or a theist/deist, agnosticism best sums up my beliefs (or non-beliefs, if you will).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I consider myself an agnostic because I consider the existance (or non-existance) of God as unknowable, so I choose not to make judgement either way

Well of course it's unknowable, nothing is 'knowable'.

I have always been open to the possibility of God, or Gods, but I'm highly skeptical towards organised religion.

Well see an atheist is open to the possibility of God, or Gods, at least at the very edges of possibility.... but when you say possibility I don't believe you are talking about some extremely remote possibility, requiring alot of human concepts to be wrong, but as something which is possible without delving into the fantastic?

 

[Lundy]

I think it's a reasonable possibility, yes.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Then I'd say you are agnostic

 

[Lundy]

Do I win a prize?

 

[neo o]

I think it's a reasonable possibility, yes.

because I consider the existance (or non-existance) of God as unknowable

1. The existance of God(s) is (are) unknowable, therefore I won't make a judgement either way.

2. I think it's a reasonable possibility that God(s) may exist.

To me that makes about as much sense as organised religion .

 

[Lundy]

1. The existance of God(s) is (are) unknowable, therefore I won't make a judgement either way.

2. I think it's a reasonable possibility that God(s) may exist.

To me that makes about as much sense as organised religion .

I don't see what's so confusing. Even if the existence of something can't be known absolutely by us, the possibility that it may exist anyway is always there.

I think of it this way: there's 50/50 chance that God exists (either he exists in some form or another, or he doesn't). That's why it seems reasonable to me. However, since I can't know which is the truth, I don't care to place a bet either way.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Agnosticism goes further then the idea of a god. Here is a quote on agnosticism.

Usually used to mean denying the possibility of knowing the nature or existence of God, but used by Marxists with the meaning of denying the possibility of knowledge of the objective world. Agnosticism is an extension of Scepticism in that while scepticism is always a valid aspect of investigation, Agnosticism elevates this doubt into an absolute denial of the possibility of knowledge. The term was coined by the British natural scientist Thomas Huxley and could be used to encompass the philosophy of Hume, Kant, neo-Positivism and others.

Agnosticism has various forms: some agnostics see an objective existence of the material world (eg. the tree does make a sound if no one is there to hear it) but deny the possibility of knowing it for certain, others deny the existence of the material world because it cannot be known for certain. (The latter position is similar to Husserl and his philosophy of transcendental subjectivism (phenomonology), with the exception that this is based on the belief that the 'self' is for certain, and therefore transcends all reality, all existance.)

 

[Not-That-Bright]

but there is a 50/50 chance that you are in fact a boy.

Usually used to mean denying the possibility of knowing the nature or existence of God, but used by Marxists with the meaning of denying the possibility of knowledge of the objective world. Agnosticism is an extension of Scepticism in that while scepticism is always a valid aspect of investigation, Agnosticism elevates this doubt into an absolute denial of the possibility of knowledge. The term was coined by the British natural scientist Thomas Huxley and could be used to encompass the philosophy of Hume, Kant, neo-Positivism and others.

Agnosticism has various forms: some agnostics see an objective existence of the material world (eg. the tree does make a sound if no one is there to hear it) but deny the possibility of knowing it for certain, others deny the existence of the material world because it cannot be known for certain. (The latter position is similar to Husserl and his philosophy of transcendental subjectivism (phenomonology), with the exception that this is based on the belief that the 'self' is for certain, and therefore transcends all reality, all existance.)

The problem I have with that is that it leads to absurdities such as me being able to claim you have to have an agnostic stance on whether you are male or female...

 

[withoutaface]

http://home.exetel.com.au/jdsimon/blog/2005/12/religion.html

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The problem being that in the realm of known science, we can fairly accurately say that there is nothing 'inside the box' - What we have to delve in to to create the existance of say, the christian god, is the fantastic...

I mean are you going to tell me that you have an agnostic stance on whether you are male or female? on whether you really do exist?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I just thought i'd start this thread to comment on something that's bugged me on this forum for quite some time... people whom are atheists, calling themselves agnostics.

Now usually these people do not believe in a diety, but due to acknowledging that 'nothing is impossible', they refuse to call themselves atheists. Personally I believe this is wrong and people are categorising themselves in a deceptive way..

For example, most people would say they believe in flight, despite the possibility that it does not exist. Most people would categorise themselves as males, despite the possibility that they may be female...

I think when it comes to such categorisations of belief, the tiny possibility that your belief is wrong should not mean that you place yourself as having a neutral belief.

Agnostics in my opinion, are people whom are not sure if there is a diety or not... They do not have the miniscule doubt of 'nothing is impossible', but much more significant doubts.

Atheists in my opinion, are people whom are sure... as sure as they are sure that they are male/female, that there is no God.

What say you, forum?

It is a fair question, but I think I should point out that agnosticism is really about knowledge – or rather the limits of knowledge. We believe that we cannot know whether there is a God or not, so it is best to withhold judgment on the matter. It is not necessarily about the belief itself.

Probability, then, is neither here nor there. Absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence, for we would not necessarily have such evidence even if there was a God. How can we form conclusions about things without parallel, that we have no experience or possible basis for drawing our inferences from?

I must confess that occasionally I oscillate between atheism and agnosticism. However my usual position is that of agnosticism. I do not believe we can possess knowledge about the existence of a God or not.

[Also, I should note that when I talk about "God" I do not mean the untenable omni-benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God of some religions. I mean the concept of some sort of powerful (to us), thinking creator. That is all I mean by God.]

 

[ogmzergrush]

What confuses me is people who insist upon spelling existence wrong.

 

[Lundy]

but there is a 50/50 chance that you are in fact a boy.

But empirically, I know I'm not.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

but there is a 50/50 chance that you are in fact a boy.



The problem I have with that is that it leads to absurdities such as me being able to claim you have to have an agnostic stance on whether you are male or female...

Not really -- you can use evidence and reasoning from the material, observable world to identify those facts. Supposedly God is not observable.

 

[crazyhomo]

i call myself an agnostic because i believe in some sort of fantastic force, but i'm not sure what form it takes, or exactly what it does

or at least, that's what i used to believe when i was agnostic. now i'm an atheist

 

[xeuyrawp]

By the true sense of the word, an agnostic person really is atheist.

You can't 'half' believe in god, rather you believe that it's impossible to know whether he exists or not.

To that end, I believe:

1. It is impossible to know whether god exists unless he shows himself, (agnosticism)
2. If god showed himself, I would know he existed, (err... rationality?)
3. Since I do not know whether god exists, I do not believe in him yet. (atheism)

Also: Notice that 1. cannot be counter-argued (ie, god cannot not show himself).