Please do.

Right now.

Alcar...

Yey BM's here to fuck shit up! Someone put a topic forward.

I have been quite scathing of self-professed agnostics in the past. I don't know, believe nor hope that Wings fits quite into the categories I lay out here, but a lot of people do, and it grinds my gears.

Firstly: they don't know what the word means. They think it sits neatly between atheism and theism, when in fact it isn't even on the same scale. They also believe that when faced with two opposing viewpoints, the stance perfectly between them is the one most enlightened and closest to the truth, or otherwise the best to hold pending additional information. This is rarely the case.

In fact, atheism and agnosticism are two answers to two different questions. Agnosticism and gnosticism (the intellectual stance, not the slightly mystic religious order) answer the question "do you know whether there is/are god/gods?" or "is it possible to know whether there is/are god/gods?". This is entirely different from the question that atheism and theism are answers to: "Do you believe that there is/are god/gods?". As such, almost all agnostics are atheists and almost all atheists are (at least technically) agnostics. Self-described agnostics often dislike labelling themselves as atheists partly because of the previously explained misconception, but also because of the weird and undeserved social stigma of atheism, and at worst because they like to feel superior to both theists and atheists, and have found a way.

There is one small group of people who, when the above is explained, insist that they actually are between theism and atheism in answer to the belief question. Who whom I can only say, this issue is boolean. You either believe in one or more gods or you don't. To sit between these points is to not know what your beliefs are, that is to say, to not know your own mind. I have no interest in the opinions of, nor discussion with, people who don't even know their own minds, and there is no respect to be had for those who permit themselves to remain in such a state.

I'm happy because I understood all of that.

Also, agnostics are dumb because I'm like pick a side or GTFO

I don't see the problem with Agnostics, to fail to understand whether there is or isn't a god seems to me to make sense since unless he reveals himself, we will never be certain. Unless you are of so powerful faith you are without doubt. I try to put myself into this category but my resolve is ever faltering and strengthening so it's hard to tell.

I personally believe there to be no God, because as a scientist I must accept the nul hypothesis unless disproven. Though as a philosopher the question of belief doesn't interest me at all compared to the question of existence. Which is why I label myself an agnostic.

Well that in itself is paradoxical, you cannot be an agnostic and 'not believe in god' that isn't possible, you are an atheist.

To believe isn't the same thing as to know.

Beliefs are transiet, true knowledge is solid.

As much as you veil yourself beneath such labels, you're essentially picking and choosing.

I must ask - is it the scientist or the philosopher in you that is winning out?

Alcar...

I'm rooting for the scientist, who is slightly less pretentious. Though I don't see why there should need to be a conflict at all.

I wonder, if religion wasn't so opposed to scientific explanation and eventual prevalence as is natural in a developing species, the two could co-exist, why not allow a philosopher and scientist to work together on both parts?

The scientist. I have an anthology on the philosophy of religion and the conclusion is a rather glorified 'We don't know'.

The point is that if God exists we will never* learn of His existence a posteori, we will never find empirical evidence suggesting us to believe there is a God that stands up to any degree of scientific enquiry. The existence of God is a case of knowledge and not belief. He can only be logicially a priori be proven to exist if exist at all. By the same token we can not disprove His existence with the same level of philosophical rigour. God's existence is beyond us and it might forever be.

*I will eat my hat if proven wrong

So why debate?

I prefer "God as a concept is woefully inadequate for the purposes and thus not worth consideration until his prophets get their act together". There's no more reason to get hung up on god specifically than there is for unicorns. Hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the point of which was lost on everyone who needed to get it the most.

In answer to STM: because it's fun, and I enjoy myself immensely, no matter how righteously indignant I sound.

YES

Also it's fucking rep central in this bitch.

Rep-central, I lost almost 100 rep last time, but I'm doing ok in this one, I lost more bollocking the US flag haha!

@BM - not gonna lie it is true.

When, where and why did you lose a load of rep for calling the Stars 'n' Stripes shit?

Just a shame we always pick religion or sexuality to debate about.

I like how people get neg-repped for trying to defend their point of view.

I like how this forum cares so much about rep that it defines their arguments.

I have and would never neg-rep someone for disagreeing with me, especially since that's where I get my jollies. Perhaps I'm nothing but a contrarian? I hope not.

Wings: I understand the desire to railroad a particular discussion onto the variation of the topic that it really should be, having attempted it many times on multiple subjects myself. But in his case I think you're trying to shift it the wrong way. Getting everyone to agree that we don't know and that that's what we should be talking about kills the discussion, there's no material to work with. But with beliefs there's an actual target. "What do you believe and why" is the question(s) that spark these discussions and give us something to actually talk about. What we know comes in at the "why" part (if ever, and is the part that STM so graciously complemented me on earlier in this thread), not at the "what" part.

Beliefs are transient, yes, and that's what makes them fun to talk about. They might change, or be changed for us. And they provide an actual goddamn discussion.

Wow.. Im honestly saddened to see you make a post like this. I think it's quite unfairly judgemental.

For one... Not every single person on the planet can be a scientist and make 'enlightened' posts.

I think you are looking at the case wrong. Sure some people may use some terms wrong, but terms are bound to get lost in the masses. Terms change meanings all the time, and at the moment a lot of people seem to believe that agnostics means you don't take a stance.

But I'm sure if you actually took the time to discuss with a self-professed agnostic about why they feel like they feel, you will get something totally different than you initially thought. It's not like they are lower than you for thinking the way they do.

I can understand the whole "I dont wanna discuss with noncommital people" which seems to be what you complain about. Because discussing with a person who doesn't even commit to the subject at hand will most likely lead to nowhere and be a waste of time. But why on earth do you need to make it an issue about respect. Some people simply don't care about religion, and maybe that is 'not knowing one's mind'... But there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with admitting that one does not have enough knowledge to even make a stance on the subject.
And there is nothing wrong in not taking an interest in the subject either.

I just think you shouldn't be so harsh about this, and just let people be. If they think they are atheists and they aren't, you can always just correct them without judging them for it. Today, most people refer to agnostics as indecisiveness about religion, so can you really blame them for taking that meaning to heart?

Also why is the issue boolean? Saying that you know for sure IS arrogant because science doesn't cover everything and neither does religion.
There is a slight chance that somewhere in the future someone will have discovered something so totally foreign and strange that some would call it supernatural.
I mean, based on the current knowledge we have, there isn't really any proof of a god(as far as I know)... But who knows... Maybe there will be. Who can say for sure. That's why i think it's important to keep an open mind both ways.


Im sorry if I sound angry, but I just feel disheartened seeing you being so harsh. I didn't think it was actually possible to see you this way x_x

Maybe I just also totally misunderstood what you were trying to say in which case Im sorry and nvm :D


Anyway personally I don't know what my label would be. I think things such as written religions are bullshit.
But I don't think powerful beings with god-like powers are impossible.
I mean there is a lot we still haven't discovered. Unfortunately I'm not really sciency enough to make an informed opinion. I just go by gut feeling.
Really, I really WANT there to be more to life than just what is. So I often delve into subjects about spirituality. I don't find the idea of spirituality impossible. Or maybe it's just that I don't want to because the world as it is doesn't interest me much.

Yea... Anyway sorry for this outburst. This is probably going to backlash at me somehow.

I won't name the dirty wanker but he neg repped me and said something like, fucking hilarious, it's in the flags and heraldry topic, not even my wittiest remark.

EDIT: Shit Nexy, take your meds! O__O

I don't judge people for their ignorance until after the missing information is made available. I'm always explaining what these terms mean. I know there are different meanings for words, and when enough people use them the wrong way for long enough they end up in the dictionary and become right. But for the purpose of expressing ideas I need to end everyone in the discussion on to the same page on language, at the very least. Then we can actually have the damn discussion. They're probably still agnostic then, but they also know whether they are theist or atheist, or pantheist and the other nonsense. Some of them might even be persuaded to admit it. I know those who write columns and blogs and so forth who have made this precise transformation, and I think their work on this particular topic has improved as a result. For starters, I get to agree or disagree instead of just being annoyed.

Lots of people have not even thought about it, which makes these discussions the start of that thought and conversation. I don't get shrill, strident, rude and whatever else we're accused of until they come back and say "I've given it a lot of thought and have concluded that I don't know what I think". They can get in the fecking sack, where they'll be beaten with sticks.

I can when they stick with it after beings asked "how would you describe yourself under these particular definitions?"

Er, check again? That was the one I specifically laid out as being about belief, not knowledge.


I'll take door number two please.

Lash back! BOOM!

Oh... Ok :)

Honestly, initially you just kinda made it sound sort of like "ahaha those pasky dumb little agnostic-wannabes"... Which I super dont approve of >: (.

But then I'm probably not exactly sure what you're complaining about.

Anyway Ill respond to this one since the rest I pretty much got an answer to.

I dunno... Even if its just about belief. Can you tell me why it's so important to already be sure about one's believe. It's just personally I don't understand how you can either believe or not believe. Why is indecisiveness such a bad thing(besides the fact that when conversing with these people it can be very unproductive and boring).

Taking a stance of indecisiveness and arguing in favour for it smacks of the Golden Mean Fallacy.

It's subtly different to my strategy of hanging around the middle and asking awkward questions at both sides until a non moderate religious 'debater' comes along.

Like Lord Stanley. Fucking Lord Stanley.

Just because a belief may not be as concrete or well-founded as yours does not make it any less valid. I don't think it's as much about indecisiveness as it is about feelings about identity, experiences with the religion itself and how much the person actually cares about religion.

Being an agnostic (noun) doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know their own mind. And tbh you saying that you have no time for agnostic people, it makes you sound a little pretentious.

But I don't think anyone should disregard it as a valid stance. In these sorts of debates all stances are valid and correct because they're all personal and individualised. However, some may be more fun in a debate than others.

I would say I lean alot more to the theist side than the atheist side, however I doubt the Christian church is for me because I have had alot of bad experiences with people who are Christian and there are some parts of the Bible that I don't agree with. I don't know really how a "personal God" or how interpretting the text as a metaphor actually affects the faith, and I don't agree with people picking and choosing the bits they do and don't like.

That said, I know very little about any other religion other than Buddhism.

- Rexy

I'd recommend Pantheism, it's very intuitive and singularly beautiful if you don't let any religious organizations get in the way of it.

Everything is god is the same as nothing is god. It further exacerbates the meaningless of the word.

I get the impression that my agnosticism post has been wildly misunderstood, but I really don't know how to be any clearer than I have already been.

The universe seems to hold up mostly to the Godhood tests of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenelovence. It's pretty much metaphysical certainty derived from everything physical. A hell of a lot more intuitive than big men with beards, elephants, six armed chicks and jackal headed dudes.

I'm not a spiritual person, but if I were I think I would be drawn towards the least egotistical concept of God.

But knowledge of every particle of the universe breaks the second law of thermodynamics. Anything capable of computing such a perfectly rendered model of the universe requires more storage and processing than can be achieved with all the matter in the universe. The entire universe can act as a model of that universe, if that is considered a worthwhile endeavour, but knowing it, understanding it, computing it, that would then have to be done by an external entity not constrained by the thermodynamics of being in that universe (or being that universe). And the external entity is just as nonsensical and unnecessary.

I think it's a little weak to chain a postulated metaphysical entity with physical laws.

This is purely theoretical anyway. I'm not saying I believe in it, just that it paints a more coherent picture than the Judaic God or any pantheon.

It can't be metaphysical. If you say that the universe, which is physical, is god, then you have immediately imposed the laws of the universe on it. To then say that the universe implies traits of this god, which is also the universe, that are clearly obviated by those very laws, cannot be anything but nonsense.

It's one thing to throw theories around about the universe of which we know about 0.000000001%. It's completely retarded to speculate how the universe would affect a god that doesn't exist, and which, if it would exists, would be far beyond our comprehension.

In other words, now you're trying to apply logic to something that is by definition illogical.

You'll have to excuse me for my general ignorance about the theology of pantheism, but wouldn't the response be to hold that the universe is merely the physical representation of God, which is by nature an entity that exists beyond the universe. Hence, a metaphysical entity?

He defined a hypothetical god into the realm of our understanding and comprehension. It can then be dealt with succinctly.

I may be wrong, but at least it's possible to show it now.

EDIT: and defined it back out again.

This is actually kinda interesting to me.

What is it that you mean that you lean towards theism? What's your thoughts and ideas? Elaborate =)

Three Quick Steps Towards Enlightening Your Masses

1, God's existence is fallible

2, God's existence is physical

3, Heaven is over thataway!

I predict a riot.

Who made you the Kaiser Chief?

My God is an old bat who lives on a mountaintop and occasionally ends up drunk.