Options
The Agnosticism Appreciation Thread.
spiney2
Posts: 27,058 Forum Member
✭✭✭
I just dont know about this one. if u cant decide then is that an "ism" ?
if there isnt enough evidence, is that a "belief" ?
if there isnt enough evidence, is that a "belief" ?
0
Comments
A pox on both their houses.
Agnosticism is the only polite way of approaching the question of whether something you'd be incapable of understanding exists or not. It's the height of arrogance to claim that not only CAN you know the answer to that question, but that you DO know the answer to that question.
Agnosticism FTW!
another thing. hairstyles arent important. since they dont represent anything so dont matter. be bearded or bald, whatever.
ok so t h huxley had huge sideburns. but they were decorative not religious.
being agnosics we dont know. we dont mind if u do. or if u dont.
God is like having a pizza delivered.
I LAUD the militant agnostic.
If you don't feel the faith, then you cannot personally KNOW, and the universe and everything is just too bloody impossibly impossible to really know much either.
I have the utmost respect for agnostics, they can not be accused of delusion, or of literality.
Long live them all.
Basically it means you have an open mind with regard to religion. It's a bit like betting on both red and black in Roulette.
Thank you.
Great post. Never let it be said that Agnostics are apathetic wasters that just sit on the fence. I'll confess I had a brief flirtation with the atheists but your fine words and use of capital letters appeal to both my heart and my mind.
Agnosticism FTW!
I have no idea whether a god/gods exist or not but I'm still an atheist.
theres a wikipedia article. also complete t h huxley writings downloadable from project gutenberg. including the essay in which he invents agnosticism.
i agree that its a valid position. and not disguised atheism for spineless wimps as idiots like dawkins claim. especially so for anyone who understands kant's philosphical analysis of all claims to metaphysical transcendent knowledge ......
1) temporary agnosticism in practice (TAP) - based on the idea that there is a definite answer one way or the other, but we so far lack the evidence to reach it
2) permanent agnosticism in principle (PAP) - something is inherently unknowable and therefore the idea of evidence is meaningless
The question of whether or not god exists is a scientific one, and therefore TAP is the only legitimate agnosticism to adopt in relation to it. However, arguments as to the existence or non existence of god do not share equal weight. The balance of probability has to be considered, and on the available evidence one has to concede the probability of god's existence is infinitesimally small. The only reasonable position to adopt is one based on the assumption that god doesn't exist, whilst recognising that you don't know with 100% certainty, just like you don't know with 100% certainty that an incorporeal omnipotent gorilla called Bob isn't currently residing in an invisible condo on a large rock somewhere off Betelgeuse.
Now you see what a pickle you have got into. What 'evidence' are you suggesting? That God turns up half way through dinner and turns your drinking water into wine?
But you've just made Bob up. Some concept of God seems hard-wired into the human psyche. Of course there are exceptions, but just look at how many people think they have jettisoned 'religion' then blether on about far sillier things like 'karma' (which they never understand) or things being 'meant' everything having a 'purpose', or other superstitions. As a PAP-ist (and spurning your PAP-smear) I am happy to accept that no one in this life experiences 'karma', that things are not 'meant' and that most things have no 'purpose'; but also that science only considers science, as most scientists through the ages have happily conceded.
And you could be agnostic about gods in general, but gnostic about specific gods.
But that just proves that humans are more likey to make up Gods than Gorillas called Bob.
Hardly surprising as concepts of God/s serve (or served) numerous emotional and even utilitarian purposes. Whereas Bob is pretty useless apart from appearing in hypothetical arguments.
Except many atheists don't say they 'know' the answer to the question but rather they have no belief in a god because there is no evidence for one.
Not believing in something for which there is zero evidence is what nearly everyone does when we're talking about anything other than god.
An impolite approach? I don't think so. The most sensible approach? Definitely.
I'm an extremist. Of course my views on atheists are a crass generalisation. It's one of the fun parts.
Fair enough
Whether something exists or not is always a question for science. It either exists, or it does not. Things get murky in the quantum world, but the basic principle stands. To suggest there are things that fall outside the realm of scientific inquiry is to assume the existence of a realm beyond science. Science may not have all the answers yet, or even be capable of asking all the right questions, but to suggest there is a realm where science cannot ever hope to explore is an intellectual cop-out, and usually played as the get-out-of-jail-free card by people who don't like their beliefs being questioned. I'm not suggesting that you are doing that, merely that others do.
I'm not suggesting any. What I'm noting is the lack of it.
A belief in Bob the omnipotent gorilla™ is no more or less reasonable or valid than a belief in any of the established gods. To support the established gods we have books, scrolls and heiroglyphs, written and carved by people. These writings add no more weight to the idea of established gods than my post does to the idea of Bob. They are all equally valid, or invalid, depending on your point of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism
Totally agree with this, any other position is just bad manners in my opinion.