Agnostic belief
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2015, 06:33 PM
RE: Agnostic belief
Also when I first clicked on this thread I saw Lilith and that made me sad.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 07:53 PM
RE: Agnostic belief
(22-07-2015 06:31 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Necro thread!



Anyways I tend to prefer using the word agnostic for having no dogmatic bias either way. An example of this would be my position towards personal experiences with the supernatural. If my friend tells me they experienced demonic activity I can remain agnostic since if it proves to have been a demon then fine, I believe demons exist. If it was merely the mind playing tricks then fine, I have nothing against that either. I approach the situation with an open mind, and either conclusion does nothing for my world view.

I don't know, maybe you experience the term that way, I find it has as much a dogmatic term because Agnostic has multiple meanings as well as atheist. A person like Ghost in this thread was a Agnostic in the originally Huxley defined belief which I find a bit dogmatic. It's not using agnostic in the etymological breakdown of being without-knowledge but it's of the stance that we "can't know." I don't think it's certain to know what we can't actually know just yet so I've not been a fan of that term either because of those alternate original meanings.

Ha, there was just a thread of Lilith in it I saw necroed a few days ago which made me think that way, then seeing Ghost in this thread made me a bit sad seeing it's been 2 years since his leaving.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 09:20 PM
RE: Agnostic belief
(22-07-2015 07:53 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 06:31 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Necro thread!



Anyways I tend to prefer using the word agnostic for having no dogmatic bias either way. An example of this would be my position towards personal experiences with the supernatural. If my friend tells me they experienced demonic activity I can remain agnostic since if it proves to have been a demon then fine, I believe demons exist. If it was merely the mind playing tricks then fine, I have nothing against that either. I approach the situation with an open mind, and either conclusion does nothing for my world view.

I don't know, maybe you experience the term that way, I find it has as much a dogmatic term because Agnostic has multiple meanings as well as atheist. A person like Ghost in this thread was a Agnostic in the originally Huxley defined belief which I find a bit dogmatic. It's not using agnostic in the etymological breakdown of being without-knowledge but it's of the stance that we "can't know." I don't think it's certain to know what we can't actually know just yet so I've not been a fan of that term either because of those alternate original meanings.

Ha, there was just a thread of Lilith in it I saw necroed a few days ago which made me think that way, then seeing Ghost in this thread made me a bit sad seeing it's been 2 years since his leaving.

I use agnostic in several ways. Which is very odd for me since I tend to be very inflexible with definitions. One of the ways I use it is to define my posts. I try to keep my posts as agnostic as possible, by that I mean I neither affirm nor deny the existence of God. For example I may say that "the Catholic church teaches x" in no way am I affirming the validity of x, merely that that is what the church teaches.
A big influence upon me was Chesterton who seemed to have used the word to refer to someone without a dogmatic bias. He often referred to himself as a "good agnostic" despite being one of the best popular Catholic apologists. In case you didn't know, he was quite famed for his paradoxes.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 09:20 PM
RE: Agnostic belief
(22-07-2015 09:20 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(22-07-2015 07:53 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't know, maybe you experience the term that way, I find it has as much a dogmatic term because Agnostic has multiple meanings as well as atheist. A person like Ghost in this thread was a Agnostic in the originally Huxley defined belief which I find a bit dogmatic. It's not using agnostic in the etymological breakdown of being without-knowledge but it's of the stance that we "can't know." I don't think it's certain to know what we can't actually know just yet so I've not been a fan of that term either because of those alternate original meanings.

Ha, there was just a thread of Lilith in it I saw necroed a few days ago which made me think that way, then seeing Ghost in this thread made me a bit sad seeing it's been 2 years since his leaving.

I use agnostic in several ways. Which is very odd for me since I tend to be very inflexible with definitions. One of the ways I use it is to define my posts. I try to keep my posts as agnostic as possible, by that I mean I neither affirm nor deny the existence of God. For example I may say that "the Catholic church teaches x" in no way am I affirming the validity of x, merely that that is what the church teaches.
A big influence upon me was Chesterton who seemed to have used the word to refer to someone without a dogmatic bias. He often referred to himself as a "good agnostic" despite being one of the best popular Catholic apologists. In case you didn't know, he was quite famed for his paradoxes.

Also Ghost was one of my favourites here, along with erxomai. So sad.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 11:41 PM
RE: Agnostic belief
(22-05-2011 04:18 PM)TheThinkingAgnostic Wrote:  First I would like to say that this is now my favorite website ever. I admire everything thethinkingathiests are doing. I have one question though.

If the editors and founders of this page are thinking athiests, doesnt that make them/ya'll closer to agnostics? Because one can never be sure if god exists?

Im assuming ya'll have thought of this though. Angel
I am a strong atheist. My reasons are the following:

1. There is no objective evidence for gods.

2. I can not be called upon to prove a negative.

3. Christianity, Judaism and Islam make claims about the fundamental nature of the universe which can be falsified. God violates known facts, i.e., fundamental principles such as the axioms of philosophy and the primacy of existence principle. Existence is the one irreducible primary. It is a precondition to, i.e., it has primacy, to every other fact. No cause can precede the fact of existence including time. Therefore it is uncaused and eternal and to ask what or who caused it commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.

4. Acceptance of the possibility of gods is fallacious because it allows the arbitrary into the realm of cognition.

5. The idea of a consciousness which created everything distinct from itself logically reduces to a consciousness which at some point had no objects to be conscious of which commits the fallacy of pure self reference by positing a consciousness which references only its own objectless referencing.

There is no rational reason to accept the possibility of any gods which are said to create reality from nothing by an act of conscious will. But rationality is a choice.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
23-07-2015, 05:50 AM
RE: Agnostic belief
(22-07-2015 05:08 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  
(22-05-2011 04:59 PM)TheThinkingAgnostic Wrote:  Ok. This means that I am a 5 simply because i believe both believers and nonbelievers have no proof of the right answer.

This is true for the clean-cut yes/no debate but the circumstantial evidence is off the scale.

Archi

It's not about 'proof', it's about evidence. And the balance of evidence swings the conclusion far towards 7 on the Dawkins Scale.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 05:52 AM
RE: Agnostic belief
(22-07-2015 11:41 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(22-05-2011 04:18 PM)TheThinkingAgnostic Wrote:  First I would like to say that this is now my favorite website ever. I admire everything thethinkingathiests are doing. I have one question though.

If the editors and founders of this page are thinking athiests, doesnt that make them/ya'll closer to agnostics? Because one can never be sure if god exists?

Im assuming ya'll have thought of this though. Angel
I am a strong atheist. My reasons are the following:

1. There is no objective evidence for gods.

2. I can not be called upon to prove a negative.

3. Christianity, Judaism and Islam make claims about the fundamental nature of the universe which can be falsified. God violates known facts, i.e., fundamental principles such as the axioms of philosophy and the primacy of existence principle. Existence is the one irreducible primary. It is a precondition to, i.e., it has primacy, to every other fact. No cause can precede the fact of existence including time. Therefore it is uncaused and eternal and to ask what or who caused it commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.

4. Acceptance of the possibility of gods is fallacious because it allows the arbitrary into the realm of cognition.

5. The idea of a consciousness which created everything distinct from itself logically reduces to a consciousness which at some point had no objects to be conscious of which commits the fallacy of pure self reference by positing a consciousness which references only its own objectless referencing.

There is no rational reason to accept the possibility of any gods which are said to create reality from nothing by an act of conscious will. But rationality is a choice.

That should be known as the ''Yes, true scotsman" argument. Big Grin

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 09:09 AM
RE: Agnostic belief
(22-07-2015 11:41 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Therefore it is uncaused and eternal and to ask what or who caused it commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.

Are you saying that our universe always existed?

It was my understanding that our universe is about 13 billion years old....maybe I'm missing something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 09:12 AM
RE: Agnostic belief
The big bang was nearly 14 billion years ago. But the big bang describes the start of the universe's (current) expansion. We don't know what conditions were like before that time. The universe may have existed eternally before then, or time itself may begin with the universe. The universe as we know it may be just part of a larger structure, a mere bubble in a boiling ocean of universes.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 09:13 AM
RE: Agnostic belief
(23-07-2015 09:12 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The big bang was nearly 14 billion years ago. But the big bang describes the start of the universe's (current) expansion. We don't know what conditions were like before that time. The universe may have existed eternally before then, or time itself may begin with the universe.

Exactly, we don't know.

We should just admit that gap in our knowledge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: