Agnostic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-03-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: Agnostic
(09-03-2014 12:47 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  Haha i'm an agnostic amagicist
i don't know if magic exists ,and i don't believe it does

Correct, and by default we're likely all agnostic amagicists since the default position would be a skeptical approach to claims in lieu of evidence (which the person proposing the idea would have the burden of proof... who usually claims to be a gnostic magicist).

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2014, 02:01 PM
RE: Agnostic
(09-03-2014 12:59 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(09-03-2014 12:56 PM)Hobbitgirl Wrote:  I have to admit this is a personal prejudice of mine. I view just "agnostic" as "I'm too scared to jump off the fence"

I'm sure this is wrong, but we all have our hangups. Lol.

When it comes to deities, EVERYONE is agnostic, because neither side can PROVE their knowledge. You can claim to be gnostic, but until you prove it, you're just deluding yourself. It has nothing to do with being brave or scared. Big Grin

Some people believe they are gnostic theists and can prove a deity exists personally due to their subjective personal revelation. However because it is a personal revelation they cannot prove it to others. SO technically they are legitimately gnostic theists.
They know for themselves but cannot prove it to others.

In a similar vein as a mundane example I know what I did yesterday but no one else does and even if I proved what I did from personal experience others cannot know for sure if there were no witnesses or external trail of evidence.
i.e I can rely on my own memories much of the time (yes there is massive potential to be mistaken, but not all memories are mistaken)

Of course the difference in my example is it is largely irrelevant to others what personal experiences I had - and they are unlikely to demand a high burden of proof to my claim. However a gnostic theist claiming God spoke to them with a message to save humanity would be relevant to others - but would require a high burden of proof (after all the person claiming personal revelation may be delusional, mistaken, confused, irrational or lying or some other combination of these.)

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Baruch's post
09-03-2014, 03:40 PM
RE: Agnostic
(09-03-2014 02:01 PM)Baruch Wrote:  
(09-03-2014 12:59 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  When it comes to deities, EVERYONE is agnostic, because neither side can PROVE their knowledge. You can claim to be gnostic, but until you prove it, you're just deluding yourself. It has nothing to do with being brave or scared. Big Grin

Some people believe they are gnostic theists and can prove a deity exists personally due to their subjective personal revelation. However because it is a personal revelation they cannot prove it to others. SO technically they are legitimately gnostic theists.
They know for themselves but cannot prove it to others.

In a similar vein as a mundane example I know what I did yesterday but no one else does and even if I proved what I did from personal experience others cannot know for sure if there were no witnesses or external trail of evidence.
i.e I can rely on my own memories much of the time (yes there is massive potential to be mistaken, but not all memories are mistaken)

Of course the difference in my example is it is largely irrelevant to others what personal experiences I had - and they are unlikely to demand a high burden of proof to my claim. However a gnostic theist claiming God spoke to them with a message to save humanity would be relevant to others - but would require a high burden of proof (after all the person claiming personal revelation may be delusional, mistaken, confused, irrational or lying or some other combination of these.)

Correct, personal revelation accounts for nothing in the way of proof, so to believe you know something but you're unable to replicate it or have it proved doesn't make you gnostic. I fail to see how personal revelation legitimizes knowledge if you can't test it for us.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
09-03-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: Agnostic
Especially that different revelations contradict one another. Which means most of them must be wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes donotwant's post
10-03-2014, 12:22 PM
Agnostic
Since a supernatural being by its very nature would not be subject to scientific verification one way or the other, the debate will go on as long as people exist. The question is, "Do you want to accept that the universe and life accord with science and natural law or that they violate the laws of physics and science has nothing to do with it?".

Using Tapatalk
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2014, 01:12 PM
Agnostic
(10-03-2014 12:22 PM)dustinzilbauer35 Wrote:  Since a supernatural being by its very nature would not be subject to scientific verification one way or the other, the debate will go on as long as people exist. The question is, "Do you want to accept that the universe and life accord with science and natural law or that they violate the laws of physics and science has nothing to do with it?".

What's "Natural Law"?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2014, 01:22 PM
RE: Agnostic
OP, word of advice, you might have gotten a warmer welcome if your first post wasn't dripping with pretentiousness and intentionally vague.

Likewise, you managed to insult true agnostics by implying that they are willfully ignorant.

Based on your intro my Troll Alarm 2000 started going nuts... I had to take the batteries out to shut it up. So yeah... thanks... jerk.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kingschosen's post
11-03-2014, 04:29 PM
RE: Agnostic
(09-03-2014 03:40 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(09-03-2014 02:01 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Some people believe they are gnostic theists and can prove a deity exists personally due to their subjective personal revelation. However because it is a personal revelation they cannot prove it to others. SO technically they are legitimately gnostic theists.
They know for themselves but cannot prove it to others.

In a similar vein as a mundane example I know what I did yesterday but no one else does and even if I proved what I did from personal experience others cannot know for sure if there were no witnesses or external trail of evidence.
i.e I can rely on my own memories much of the time (yes there is massive potential to be mistaken, but not all memories are mistaken)

Of course the difference in my example is it is largely irrelevant to others what personal experiences I had - and they are unlikely to demand a high burden of proof to my claim. However a gnostic theist claiming God spoke to them with a message to save humanity would be relevant to others - but would require a high burden of proof (after all the person claiming personal revelation may be delusional, mistaken, confused, irrational or lying or some other combination of these.)

Correct, personal revelation accounts for nothing in the way of proof, so to believe you know something but you're unable to replicate it or have it proved doesn't make you gnostic. I fail to see how personal revelation legitimizes knowledge if you can't test it for us.

I think you misunderstood me. Personal revelation is useless proof to OTHERS but may be valid for the person having their subjective revelation.
For example I used to be interested in Lucid dreaming and even taken certain medicines to induce powerful lucid dreaming experiences. I personally *KNOW* what some lucid dreaming experiences can be like - but some people have never experienced a lucid dream and I can NEVER prove it to them.
For example I have has out of body like experiences and full blown volitional dreams when I am in complete control of a very vivid dream landscape - this is very different to your average passive dream experience - and if no one has experiences a fully volitional dream they may believe such an experience is impossible. Perhaps I am making this stuff up - your either asleep, awake or passively dreaming - you cannot completely control a dream environment volitionally would be their claim. Can I ever prove a lucid dream exists ?

SO likewise what if someone does have "God experiences" ?
For them it may be a form of proof.

Personally I think there cannot be personal proof of God because it may always be a projection or hallucination - i.e how do you know ITS GOD speaking to you ?
Any hallucinated entity can claim its God ?
Any hallucinated entity can bring on dramatic, fantastic experiences ?
So can a personal revelation really prove God TO ONESELF - that's the question.

(I think the forum agrees that it is never a public proof)

I have personal experience of this because during highly vivid lucid dreams one can meet strange entities with fully fledged 'personalities' - sometimes I wonder how my own mind can produce such intense experiences with dialogues with other "entities" when ITS ALL MY MIND !!!! (i.e the other entities 'feel' like other people who are independent and not directly related to normal daily conversations)
Simple answer is the must be a vast store house of memories and profound creativity which is not easily accessed during normal waking conscious experience.
I guess this would be evidence for the supernatural if information received from these other entities was somehow impossible to access from the normal waking world eg if a dream entity gave me the multiple winning lottery numbers - with only hits. (i.e avoiding confirmation bias and neglecting any misses)

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 04:44 PM
RE: Agnostic
Fair enough.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 05:20 PM
RE: Agnostic
Quote:SO likewise what if someone does have "God experiences" ?
For them it may be a form of proof.

Personally I think there cannot be personal proof of God because it may always be a projection or hallucination - i.e how do you know ITS GOD speaking to you ?
Any hallucinated entity can claim its God ?
Any hallucinated entity can bring on dramatic, fantastic experiences ?
So can a personal revelation really prove God TO ONESELF - that's the question.

Interesting question! A god ought to be able to express him/herself in the supernatural AND the natural. Some sort of a psychological indication *could* be a deity, but there's a very high chance of something else going on. However, as a god should be able to express themselves in a physical manner, a god should find it fairly simple to follow up such psychological/spiritual communications with an actual PHYSICAL manifestation.

For instance, a prophecy that is BOTH received AND recorded BEFORE the event being prophesied of. There are so many things that happen that some "prophet" claims after the fact to have known about beforehand. (too lazy to provide citations right now)

BUT, if I was to look into my crystal ball, get some falsifiable revelation, post it on this board, and then we all see this thing happening (on its own, no self-fulfilling prophecies please) then that would be cause for intrigue. If it's just a personal revelation or something, then it might be like I get a "message" about something and it actually happens, even though there's no way I can collect evidence of it.

UGH, huge ramble. Sorry about that.
In short, even a personal thing would need to be able to be backed up somehow. A god should have no problem doing this. Short of that, I would need to ask myself if I've been eating/sleeping properly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: