How do you feel about agostics/agnosticism

[Anarcho-Socialist]

[ozone_man]

1. Annoyed?

:evilgrin:

I like Richard Dawkins' explanation of the "poverty of agnosticism" and long before him there was Bertrand Russell with his tea pot argument. Two good arguments to use against agnostics.

I've had discussions with several agnostics, one scientist in particular, who always said that the idea of God was an untestable hypothesis and refused to discuss probabilities, e.g., the tea pot argument. Agnostics are fence sitters. I say "either you believe in a God or you don't, there is no middle ground. If you don't believe in God you are an atheist, if you do believe in God, you are a theist." The agnostic does not accept that reasoning. He/she won't say what they believe, only what they know.

Another of my favorite agnostics is very metaphysical. He doesn't use the untestable hypothesis argument, but gets into these metaphysical arguments that lead nowhere, but are fun anyway.

[enlightenment]

3. Interesting.

I called myself agnostic when I was eleven and realised that all that stuff they were telling me in Sunday school made zero sense.

At fifty, I call myself atheist - in terms of a belief in god/s. But I'm happily and comfortably agnostic on many, many other things. Probably because it just doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

Nessie, for instance. Logically, there's no big critter swimming around Loch Ness. But it's fun to think there might be - so I sit on the fence. I won't say Nessie exists . . . but I won't say she doesn't. That way I can enjoy the idea of the unknown, but not be concerned about it. It certainly doesn't make any difference to me, the trees, or anything else!

I'm comfortable with shades of grey and fuzzy edges. I don't need for everything to be either/or. I realise that many people are terribly uncomfortable with fuzzy stuff. They need things to be concrete. It is - or it isn't. End of story. That's okay. Not much fun to have a debate with, though - and definitely not the person I'd want to go with me to visit a museum of the weird. But probably perfectly fine as a lunch companion.

So I don't mind agnostics, really, because in many ways (just not the god way) I am one! :)

[Synnical]

4. That would be skepticism

-Cindy

[enlightenment]

6. Of course it is!

But it's more fun to meander on about it - I don't obsess over terminology (too much!) :)

[ozone_man]

9. Agnostic and atheist are compatible terms.

Technically, I am an agnostic, since I don't claim to have knowledge that God doesn't exist. But I believe that God doesn't exist, therefore I am also an atheist. And agnostic atheist. Most atheist are of this variety.

I believe that Nellie doesn't exist either, but remain agnostic about her existence (no knowledge). Just as with God, I am an agnostic atheist about her.

These are the definitions that atheists prefer, since it clarifies the difference between belief and knowledge. There are four classifications: gnostic theist, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, and gnostic atheist.

Theists and agnostics that lean toward theism don't like this definition. They prefer only three classifications: theist, agnostic, and atheist. But this makes no distinction between belief and knoweldge. They prefer to not talk about their belief, but only their knowledge of God. I say to them "fine, now tell me what you believe." But they won't tell me that. That's why I find them annoying. :)

[enlightenment]

12. You know, I think I've

just gotten far too lazy to care much about the terminology. I'm familiar with all the varieties, and, in an intellectual debate I'm sure they are useful when making distinctions.

As far as I can tell from your posts, the issue (not a serious one, clearly, just one of those "hmm" things ;-) ) is whether or not agnostics "believe" or "disbelieve."

From my perspective, that just doesn't work. To believe (or not) requires an individual to make a choice. As you pointed out, agnostics are the classic fence-sitters. They are not making the choice. That's why they can't tell you whether or not they "believe" - because they haven't made the choice.

It isn't that they prefer not to talk about their belief - it's that they just do not know the answer because they feel they lack sufficient knowledge to make a choice in the matter.

For most things in life, that is an untenable position; say, for example, that we have a choice of two cereals for breakfast. We've never eaten either one and we don't have the box to read the details. All we know is that there are two and they are different. We lack sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision, so at some point we go on belief . . . we may even ask someone "which one do like? Which one would you choose?" Their answer doesn't inform us, really - unless they happen to have specific knowledge of the cereals in question.

In that moment of not knowing, we are agnostic - but we are also hungry - so we pick one. Now we are "corn flakes" or "wheat flakes."

Some things, though, lend themselves to fence-sitting. Whether or not there is a god or gods; whether or not Nessie really is eating all the fish in Loch Ness; whether or not fairies dance around toadstools . . . that sort of thing. Making a choice one way or another means nothing in the larger scheme of things - all you're saying is I believe or I don't believe in .

I made the choice to disbelieve in god - mostly because I find the entire belief set reprehensible. We don't build monuments and temples - or kill, maim, torture or brainwash people to believe in Nessie or fairies or the like. As a species we have done it with the whole god thing . . . and that annoys me enough to make a choice in the matter!

:-)

[ozone_man]

14. They don't have to know the answer to be an atheist.

It isn't that they prefer not to talk about their belief - it's that they just do not know the answer because they feel they lack sufficient knowledge to make a choice in the matter.

You are mixing belief with knowledge, not to imply that knowledge doesn't affect belief, but knowledge is not required to have a belief. Most have no knowledge of gods, but come to a decision as to whether to believe in them or not. Unless they are really apathetic, or have just not given it much thought, or in some cases, have never been exposed to the concept of god.

Richard Dawkins criticizes agnosticism from a probability perspective. When the probability of something being true is very small, almost zero, then it is practical and reasonable to believe that it is not true, unless evidence becomes available to support the existence claim. Also, from Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary claims such as the existence of gods, fairies, and sea monsters require extraordinary evidence.

Dawkins seems to use the narrow definition of agnosticism, which I don't care for personally, but understand that it is often used that way. I.e., he doesn't break things down to agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. But he does use probability to help make the decision as to whether to be an atheist, an agnostic or a theist about something. I think it is reasonable to call oneself an agnostic using the narrow definition, if the probability of existence is reasonable, for example, in the 0.01% to 99.99% range. Everyone will have their own level of probability level for something to be considered plausible.

In that moment of not knowing, we are agnostic - but we are also hungry - so we pick one. Now we are "corn flakes" or "wheat flakes."

I went X-country skiing last Saturday and stopped into the bagel shop before heading out and saw a cream cheese flavor called sun dried tomato and basil. I believed that it would taste good, so I ordered two bagels to go with that spread. I based my decision on my love of bagels, cream cheese, tomatoes, and basil, so it seemed like a reasonable belief to have.

As it turned out, the combination was not very good at all, but that was lunch and I had to live with my decision. So now I have adjusted my belief system based on that experience to no longer believe in that combination. :)

The primary argument that occurs between the atheist and agnostic, in my opinion, is over whether to use the narrow or the broad definition of agnostic. The atheist generally prefers the broad definition, while the self proclaimed agnostic generally prefers the narrow definition. In that way, he/she is not grouped in with the atheists, or the theists as the case may be. The true fence sitter. But that agnostic won't tell you what they believe in, only what they know or don't know. When it comes down to it in life, there really is not very much we actually know, but there is a lot we believe or don't believe. Gods should get no more special treatment than any other things we might believe in or not.

[cosmik debris]

2. Don't care.

Agnosticism has no impact on me, and I have no impact on agnostics.

It is like they don't exist. :)

[LynzM]

5. I spent a couple years being agnostic

Or looking back, that's what I probably would have called myself then.... not yet willing to totally let go of the idea of god, not yet willing to call myself an atheist. I can understand people who feel that way, but I can't understand the fact that they don't try to figure it out one way or the other!

[YankeyMCC]

7. When I called myself agnostic

it really was because I couldn't articulate my beliefs and general philosophy, I didn't really have one fully developed and I didn't really understand gnostic vs agnostic. I think that's where many people who call themselves agnostic are, just unable to make the assertion or not interested enough.

But there are I'm sure many more self identified agnostics who use that term rather than atheist because they see their examination of the universe as a complex and ever-evolving process and think the term agnostic reflects that better than "atheist" which is usually perceived as a hard line position or at least a sort of 'end-state'.

I don't agree with that, as an atheist I'm still exploring and refining my philosophy and world view but I can understand why some intelligent people whould rather use the term agnostic in mixed company.

[moggie]

8. Cute!

Looks like your gag went over a few heads...

[ozone_man]

10. I'm in two-minds about that.

:)

[moggie]

11. I'm reminded of a Monty Python quote

The inspirational statement "there's really nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not".

[Oeditpus Rex]

22. If only we had some kind of missile

we could take the steam out of those bells.



:)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

16. Yeah, I'm surprised it was taken as a serious question

and I noticed I typo'd the thing. D'oh!

[TZ]

17. ....

Hey, just think of it for cosmic payback for the evil, evil thing you perpetuated on me the other day!!!:P

[trotsky]

13. I get irritated when it is promoted as some kind of sensible "middle ground"...

between the "extremes" of atheism and theism. It's not. As others have pointed out, here and on other threads, it's about making a knowledge claim. (A)theism is about making a belief claim. The terms can be used together to be more precise. It's not a continuum of theist --> agnostic --> atheist.

[immoderate]

15. Other: Undecided.

--IMM

[and-justice-for-all]

18. I think it's a phase...

I was agnostic for sometime, then I got off the fence post. Thanks in large part to THE GOD DELUSION and finally coming to my senses.

[ozone_man]

25. My fence has pickets.

So it discourages fence sitters. Posts are not a practical option either. It's pickets or nothing. :)

[arcane1]

19. everyone is agnostic, whether they know it or not

:silly:

[JNelson6563]

20. haha Love your poll options

:toast:

[JNelson6563]

21. haha Love your poll options

:toast:

[elleng]

23. ANYTHING

is possible!

[moggie]

24. Ok

Given a circle, how do you construct a square of the same area using only straight edge and compass?

[provis99]

26. an atheist is one who cares about the religious topic enough to have an opinion

An agnostic just doesn't care about religion one way or another; boring, pointless topic, so why bother thinking about it.

To an agnostic, getting into a dispute about religion between religious people and atheists is like getting into a debate about whether aliens have visited Roswell. Who cares?