Why agnosticism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-09-2015, 12:25 AM
RE: Why agnosticism?
(08-09-2015 05:34 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  All of them, myself included. I believe there is no such thing as a god (or gods). I also believe there are no such things as angels, demons, orishas, sprites, etc., etc.

All atheists that you met are saying that they believe there is no god? I'll find it strange as belief is best left for the theist.

And while my or your personal experience does not mean much in term of what atheism is I've never met atheist who believe that god does not exist. All of them simply found concept of god not compelling enough and without evidence to support it.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
09-09-2015, 03:19 AM
RE: Why agnosticism?
(08-09-2015 06:30 PM)Free Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 06:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, he is saying we have no knowledge.

No knowledge about what?

No knowledge of Option 1: God may not exist?
No knowledge of Option 2: God may exist?

Pick one, or both. What's he saying Chas?

If he says "I don't know if it is possible or not," then it isn't possible as far as he's concerned. He just doesn't understand the contradiction, and neither do you apparently.

Get it?

Is the existence of any supernatural god possible?

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. I do not know.

Determining whether or not the existence of a supernatural god is possible requires knowledge. Whenever anyone says "I don't know" they have no knowledge, but it is implicit that they have acknowledged that both "yes" and "no" as being possible.

So let's look closely at "I don't know."

Question 1: Is it possible God exists?
Answer 1: I don't know.

Question 2: Is it possible that God doesn't exist?
Answer 2: I don't know.

Answer 1 demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the possible existence of God. This means that there is no evidence brought to knowledge to qualify an answer of "yes or no." With no evidence, there can be no existence (garage dragons?), and therefore "I don't know" contradicts the correct answer of "No."

Answer 2 demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the possible non existence of God. This means that there is no evidence brought to knowledge to qualify an answer of "yes or no." But since the burden of proof is only upon the claim of the possible existence of God, and that burden of proof has not been met, then the "I don't know" answer contradicts the correct answer of Yes.

Whenever an agnostic makes a claim of "I don't know" in regards to the existence or non existence of God, he is making a positive claim of, "I know that I do not know whether or not the existence of God is possible or not possible."

Since they are claiming knowledge of a lack of knowledge in regards to the possible existence or non existence of God, well then ... from whence doeth this knowledge cometh hither?

Let's find out ...

If they know that they do not know if God exists, then it only stands to reason that they have no evidence of the existence of God to warrant a "Yes" answer to the question of the possible existence of God, and therefore the burden of proof to support possible existence has not been met. Hence, there simply is no evidence to warrant the possibility as far as they are concerned, and since there is no evidence to warrant a "Yes," then they do KNOW something.

They know that there is no evidence to warrant an answer of "Yes."

Now, if they know that they do not know if God doesn't exist, then it only stands to reason that they also have no evidence of no existence of God- which is a double negative denoting a positive, which leads directly to the positive Evidence of Absence.

Hence, they KNOW that there is no evidence of existence to warrant an answer of "I don't know," and that is exactly where the contradiction is.

They cannot make the claim of "I don't know" based upon the very evidence or lack thereof concerning the existence or non existence of God for the simple reason that they profess knowledge of what they claim they do not know.

So what do they know?

1. They know that they do not have the knowledge- due to a lack of evidence regarding the existence of God- to warrant a "Yes," for the simple reason that there is no evidence, and they know there is no evidence. If there was evidence, then they could say "Yes," so thereby when there is no evidence, then they can equally say "No." Since there is no evidence, and they know it, then saying "I don't know" is a contradiction.

They know something.

2. They know that they do not have the knowledge- due to a lack of evidence regarding the non existence of God - to warrant an "I don't know," for the simple reason that when there is no evidence, you know there is no evidence.

They know something.

Therefore, in the face of the evidence or lack thereof, when they claim they "Don't know" is pure bullshit, since it can be demonstrated that they do indeed, by necessity, know something, and it isn't "I don't know."

So ponder this one very important question:

Why do they not know?

You need to learn better choices for your cases of words and arguments.

Even if your case, which I strongly disagree with, is that if you are against one position you are therefore positive for an opposite... to say I don't know for certain God is impossible isn't to "CLAIM" God is possible. You have to be making the claim to be making the claim.

And in the case of as morondog jittered of being "possiblities all the way down" to a degree, it isn't taking a stance. If it's "I don't know for certain" all the way down, a routine of not knowing, and not knowing if you really do not know or not. You aren't making any certain claim of positive possibilty or not. Saying "i don't know" isn't a certainty that I am absoutely sure I don't know if you perpetually don't know if you don't know and remain skeptical to what it is you don't know.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
09-09-2015, 08:58 AM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2015 11:49 AM by Free.)
RE: Why agnosticism?
(09-09-2015 03:19 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 06:30 PM)Free Wrote:  No knowledge about what?

No knowledge of Option 1: God may not exist?
No knowledge of Option 2: God may exist?

Pick one, or both. What's he saying Chas?

If he says "I don't know if it is possible or not," then it isn't possible as far as he's concerned. He just doesn't understand the contradiction, and neither do you apparently.

Get it?

Is the existence of any supernatural god possible?

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. I do not know.

Determining whether or not the existence of a supernatural god is possible requires knowledge. Whenever anyone says "I don't know" they have no knowledge, but it is implicit that they have acknowledged that both "yes" and "no" as being possible.

So let's look closely at "I don't know."

Question 1: Is it possible God exists?
Answer 1: I don't know.

Question 2: Is it possible that God doesn't exist?
Answer 2: I don't know.

Answer 1 demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the possible existence of God. This means that there is no evidence brought to knowledge to qualify an answer of "yes or no." With no evidence, there can be no existence (garage dragons?), and therefore "I don't know" contradicts the correct answer of "No."

Answer 2 demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the possible non existence of God. This means that there is no evidence brought to knowledge to qualify an answer of "yes or no." But since the burden of proof is only upon the claim of the possible existence of God, and that burden of proof has not been met, then the "I don't know" answer contradicts the correct answer of Yes.

Whenever an agnostic makes a claim of "I don't know" in regards to the existence or non existence of God, he is making a positive claim of, "I know that I do not know whether or not the existence of God is possible or not possible."

Since they are claiming knowledge of a lack of knowledge in regards to the possible existence or non existence of God, well then ... from whence doeth this knowledge cometh hither?

Let's find out ...

If they know that they do not know if God exists, then it only stands to reason that they have no evidence of the existence of God to warrant a "Yes" answer to the question of the possible existence of God, and therefore the burden of proof to support possible existence has not been met. Hence, there simply is no evidence to warrant the possibility as far as they are concerned, and since there is no evidence to warrant a "Yes," then they do KNOW something.

They know that there is no evidence to warrant an answer of "Yes."

Now, if they know that they do not know if God doesn't exist, then it only stands to reason that they also have no evidence of no existence of God- which is a double negative denoting a positive, which leads directly to the positive Evidence of Absence.

Hence, they KNOW that there is no evidence of existence to warrant an answer of "I don't know," and that is exactly where the contradiction is.

They cannot make the claim of "I don't know" based upon the very evidence or lack thereof concerning the existence or non existence of God for the simple reason that they profess knowledge of what they claim they do not know.

So what do they know?

1. They know that they do not have the knowledge- due to a lack of evidence regarding the existence of God- to warrant a "Yes," for the simple reason that there is no evidence, and they know there is no evidence. If there was evidence, then they could say "Yes," so thereby when there is no evidence, then they can equally say "No." Since there is no evidence, and they know it, then saying "I don't know" is a contradiction.

They know something.

2. They know that they do not have the knowledge- due to a lack of evidence regarding the non existence of God - to warrant an "I don't know," for the simple reason that when there is no evidence, you know there is no evidence.

They know something.

Therefore, in the face of the evidence or lack thereof, when they claim they "Don't know" is pure bullshit, since it can be demonstrated that they do indeed, by necessity, know something, and it isn't "I don't know."

So ponder this one very important question:

Why do they not know?

You need to learn better choices for your cases of words and arguments.

Even if your case, which I strongly disagree with, is that if you are against one position you are therefore positive for an opposite... to say I don't know for certain God is impossible isn't to "CLAIM" God is possible. You have to be making the claim to be making the claim.

And in the case of as morondog jittered of being "possiblities all the way down" to a degree, it isn't taking a stance. If it's "I don't know for certain" all the way down, a routine of not knowing, and not knowing if you really do not know or not. You aren't making any certain claim of positive possibilty or not. Saying "i don't know" isn't a certainty that I am absoutely sure I don't know if you perpetually don't know if you don't know and remain skeptical to what it is you don't know.

That last question in my post was a very heavy question, and basically summed up the rest of the post when you think about it.

Why are they agnostic? Firstly, let's define the most accepted definition of agnosticism:

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable."

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...yto=850735

According to the definition, the fallout for an agnostic would be that they make the claim that they cannot take a position on the existence or non existence of a supernatural/metaphysical/divine God either way because they feel the truth about it all is unknown, or unknowable.

So then the next question is: "How do they arrive at this conclusion?"

They cannot arrive at that conclusion without pondering possibilities on both sides of the argument. To make a claim that the existence of such a God is unknown or unknowable absolutely implies that they have evaluated either some, or any and all evidence.

Therefore, they know something.

If they claim that they know absolutely nothing, then that is a claim of total ignorance, and does not jibe with the definition of agnosticism. One cannot be agnostic regarding the existence or non existence of God if one doesn't know anything about it.

Therefore, they know something.

Agnostics by necessity are in a position of indecisiveness. They feel they cannot make a decision based upon the existence or non existence of God because they believe that the knowledge/evidence either does not exist, is unobtainable, or is insufficient. To be able to claim agnosticism on the question of existence or non existence of God it is absolutely required that the agnostic has reached a decision of indecisiveness based upon the available knowledge/evidence, or lack thereof.

Therefore, they know something.

And that is why they are agnostic. They know something regarding the knowledge/evidence concerning the existence or non existence of God, but cannot reach a decision either way on the only two possibilities that can exist:

1. God could possibly exist.
2. God could possibly not exist.

To be agnostic, by necessity, absolutely implies the acknowledgement of those two possibilities, otherwise they cannot be agnostic about them according to the very definition of agnosticism, and the state of being the agnostic claims to be in.

Therefore, when I ask an agnostic for evidence to qualify the first proposed possibility that God could possibly exist, it is an absolutely valid question since by necessity that possibility must exist for them or they could not be agnostic.

Agnosticism is not a position of ignorance, but rather a position of knowledge about the only two possibilities; God may exist, or God may not exist.

So, what evidence do they have to qualify the possible existence of God?

If they make the claim that they don't know if the existence of God is possible or not, then they cannot be agnostics according to the very definition. They would be completely ignorant, and therefore, in a total state of atheism about it according to the 3rd accepted definition of atheism stated below:

"Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Hence, with no knowledge and claiming total ignorance, one cannot have any beliefs, knowledge, or opinion whatsoever on the existence, non existence, possible existence, or possible non existence of any supernatural/metaphysical/divine entity known as God, for that is the complete and total absence of belief that any deities exist as per the definition of atheism, and that is not agnosticism in any way whatsoever.

Therefore, agnosticism is also- by absolute necessity- a state of belief in the possible existence or possible non existence of a supernatural/metaphysical/divine entity known as God.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 09:06 AM
RE: Why agnosticism?
Yes, I'm not making any case for Agnosticism of that claim. I can't stand the position of Huxley defined Agnosticism as it is because it asserts they KNOW it is unknowable. I think that proclamation is rather silly.

"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
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
09-09-2015, 09:55 AM
RE: Why agnosticism?
(09-09-2015 12:25 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 05:34 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  All of them, myself included. I believe there is no such thing as a god (or gods). I also believe there are no such things as angels, demons, orishas, sprites, etc., etc.

All atheists that you met are saying that they believe there is no god? I'll find it strange as belief is best left for the theist.

And while my or your personal experience does not mean much in term of what atheism is I've never met atheist who believe that god does not exist. All of them simply found concept of god not compelling enough and without evidence to support it.

Perhaps this is a difference between our cultures? Among people I know, the folks you describe would be more likely to call themselves agnostics.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 10:12 AM
RE: Why agnosticism?
(09-09-2015 09:55 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 12:25 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  All atheists that you met are saying that they believe there is no god? I'll find it strange as belief is best left for the theist.

And while my or your personal experience does not mean much in term of what atheism is I've never met atheist who believe that god does not exist. All of them simply found concept of god not compelling enough and without evidence to support it.

Perhaps this is a difference between our cultures? Among people I know, the folks you describe would be more likely to call themselves agnostics.

Perhaps.

I don't really care though how others describe their belief or lack of it. I would never say that I believe in nonexistence of god but others could feel differently about this issue and could feel that such statement best describe their outlook.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 09:36 AM
RE: Why agnosticism?
(08-09-2015 08:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 05:41 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Let me fix it.

Theists try to define god into existence, while 6.9'ers and above try to define god out of existence, while agnostics claim that both sides don't know Jack Schitt. Tongue

It's the same guys who are telling us that a garage dragon that exists, doesn't exist. They're all like, "see, by existing, it doesn't exist.....etc...."

Still wrong.

I'm at 6.99999+, but I am still an agnostic atheist. I do not accept theists' claims.

And without any evidence, the claim is no different than a garage dragon.

Ok, can you tell me exactly what it is that you are certain doesn't exist (if you are 99.999% certain "it" doesn't exist, you must have a good definition of what "it" is)?

Can you be certain that there is no reason/purpose for the universe's existence?

To say "I don't know why we exist, but I know it isn't god," suggests that you know more about our existence than you actually do IMHO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: Why agnosticism?
(11-09-2015 09:36 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 08:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  Still wrong.

I'm at 6.99999+, but I am still an agnostic atheist. I do not accept theists' claims.

And without any evidence, the claim is no different than a garage dragon.

Ok, can you tell me exactly what it is that you are certain doesn't exist (if you are 99.999% certain "it" doesn't exist, you must have a good definition of what "it" is)?

Can you be certain that there is no reason/purpose for the universe's existence?

To say "I don't know why we exist, but I know it isn't god," suggests that you know more about our existence than you actually do IMHO.

As a fellow claimer of the same region as 6.999/99.999%. The god claims I have been given by people in some undefinable not possibly likely case. The deistic type or primal force type claims that some people project that haven't been proven. I have a high standard for what is making a certain claim. It is true some of these deistic defined gods may be described as simply Garage Dragons and non-exist-enable, but I'm not certain we can say all of the claims are that. I don't know whether it is the case or not. Though to me I'm not trying to define god. If anyone is trying to define god out of existence to me it's those who say all the claims of that god are garage dragons because they use supernatural explanations. I don't know they are all proclaimed supernatural or natural law breaking figures so I don't say I know they are all garage dragons or that these gods are impossible by their defined manner.

a 6.9999 isn't really saying the ". . . I know it isn't god" part. That's what a 7 would be saying.

"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
11-09-2015, 10:43 AM
RE: Why agnosticism?
(11-09-2015 10:27 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  a 6.9999 isn't really saying the ". . . I know it isn't god" part. That's what a 7 would be saying.

Why don't you listen to a 7 rather than making shit up? Tongue

Having experienced revelation and accepting it as a form of psychosis, I have concluded that stories of god are just that, stories. Besides, it's an integral scale - an informal one at that - this 6.9 crap just reads to me as a soapbox brought out by people anxious to pronounce their intellectual integrity.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 10:56 AM
RE: Why agnosticism?
(11-09-2015 10:43 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 10:27 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  a 6.9999 isn't really saying the ". . . I know it isn't god" part. That's what a 7 would be saying.

Why don't you listen to a 7 rather than making shit up? Tongue

Having experienced revelation and accepting it as a form of psychosis, I have concluded that stories of god are just that, stories. Besides, it's an integral scale - an informal one at that - this 6.9 crap just reads to me as a soapbox brought out by people anxious to pronounce their intellectual integrity.

Thumbsup it is. I'm not making it up, it comes from the posts of other 7s on here who also view it different than yourself.

It's really no different than 6, it's just stupid but people have said eff off to the integer.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: