Agnostics. - Page 3

Urban Ranger · May 23, 2002, 11:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Slow: Such an assertion is bullshit, because it relies on an either/or proposition. Nothing in the real world is black/white, either/or.

I am afraid you are wrong. It's like I ask you, "Do you believe that I have an invisble, non-corporeal dragon in my basement?"

You either believe or not believe, simple as that.

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 11:23

That's fairly accurate.
You also have to decide whether to accept or ignore evidence of the dragon.

Urban Ranger · May 23, 2002, 11:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Caligastia
I have more respect for an agnostic who has the humility to admit that he doesnt know whether God exists or not, than for an atheist who arrogantly states that he knows God doesnt exist.

First of all, not all atheists make this assertion.

Weak (negative) atheists hold that there is no good reason to believe in the existence of a god ("I do not believe in the existence of a god.")

Strong (positive) atheists hold that there are good reasons to believe in the non-existence of gods ("I believe that god(s) do not exist.")

I don't see how that can be construed as arrogance.

On the other hand, the agnostic position is a cop-out, a refusal to choose sides.

Caligastia · May 23, 2002, 11:28

Sloww-
Theres nothing wrong with admitting you dont know the answer to something. If I ask you whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, can you honestly say for sure that there is or there isnt? The only honest answer is "Im not sure".

Urban Ranger · May 23, 2002, 11:33

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
putting people in neat little boxes based on whether they are atheists, religious or agnostic doesn't really stick.

There are religious people who are great just as they are some who are disgusting.

same with the other 2 "categories".

Certainly, but that has nothing to do with the issue.

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
in the end of the day is the system of values that one holds that counts and that is NOT confined in one of the 3 categories.

you can find a religious person and an agnostic or an atheist who share virtually the same system of values.

What kind of values? Moral values? While the Christian morality can be successfully duplicated with secular moral theories, there really are some fundamental differences between Christians and atheists.

Caligastia · May 23, 2002, 11:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

First of all, not all atheists make this assertion.

Weak (negative) atheists hold that there is no good reason to believe in the existence of a god ("I do not believe in the existence of a god.")

Strong (positive) atheists hold that there are good reasons to believe in the non-existence of gods ("I believe that god(s) do not exist.")

I don't see how that can be construed as arrogance.

On the other hand, the agnostic position is a cop-out, a refusal to choose sides.

Its not arrogance to say that you see no good reason to believe in God as long as you admit that you dont know for sure. This is the case in the examples you gave.

I dont see being agnostic as a cop-out. Why should anyone choose sides on an issue they are either not interested in or dont know enough about to make a decision? If someone asked you if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and you said "Im not sure", would it be fair to accuse you of "copping out" or "refusing to choose sides"?

Urban Ranger · May 23, 2002, 11:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Caligastia
Sloww-
Theres nothing wrong with admitting you dont know the answer to something. If I ask you whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, can you honestly say for sure that there is or there isnt? The only honest answer is "Im not sure".

No, no, no. You have it wrong. It's not what you know but what you believe.

Christians believe in the existence of their God, and not in the existence of Odin, Zeus, Brahma, and Ralph the snake god.

Atheists do not believe in any of these.

Agnostics are waffling

Rogan Josh · May 23, 2002, 11:40

I thought an agnostic was someone who believed that one could never know whether or not God exists (ie. in principle)? Am I wrong?

Caligastia · May 23, 2002, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

No, no, no. You have it wrong. It's not what you know but what you believe.

Whats the difference? If you dont really know something for sure, then how can you say you believe it?

Urban Ranger · May 23, 2002, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Caligastia
I dont see being agnostic as a cop-out. Why should anyone choose sides on an issue they are either not interested in or dont know enough about to make a decision? If someone asked you if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and you said "Im not sure", would it be fair to accuse you of "copping out" or "refusing to choose sides"?

I am not sure if you are understanding this correctly, that's why you asked a wrong question.

The right question is, "Do you believe in the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe?"

You either believe or not believe. Even if you don't care, you still believe (or not believe).

Urban Ranger · May 23, 2002, 11:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Caligastia
Whats the difference? If you dont really know something for sure, then how can you say you believe it?

If you really know something for sure, why would there be a need to believe in it? Do you believe in the Earth?

Urban Ranger · May 23, 2002, 11:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I thought an agnostic was someone who believed that one could never know whether or not God exists (ie. in principle)? Am I wrong?

This is what the Merrriam-Webster dictionary says:

Quote:

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Caligastia · May 23, 2002, 11:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

If you really know something for sure, why would there be a need to believe in it? Do you believe in the Earth?

If you really know something for sure then you do believe in it. If you dont know something for sure then you cant believe in it 100% can you? and if you dont believe in it 100% then you have to admit you dont know for sure - if you are being honest.

Agnostics are just being honest about the fact that they dont know for sure, while atheists like to sound like they are sure of the answer when they really arent. Thats arrogance IMO.

Bereta_Eder · May 23, 2002, 12:00

urban,
an atheist and a religious or agnost person can share the same values of life, that includes mainly moral.

one religious person can put more emphasis to :gays go to hell" part of the scriputeres.

another can put more epmhasis to: judge not so you will not be judged.

an atheist can say gays are an abnormality
another atheist can say: freedom of sexual choice is good.

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 12:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Caligastia
Sloww-
Theres nothing wrong with admitting you dont know the answer to something. If I ask you whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, can you honestly say for sure that there is or there isnt? The only honest answer is "Im not sure".

Well, I'm no "Trekkie" or anything, but my answer would be "I have no doubt".

General Ludd · May 23, 2002, 12:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

No, no, no. You have it wrong. It's not what you know but what you believe.

Christians believe in the existence of their God, and not in the existence of Odin, Zeus, Brahma, and Ralph the snake god.

Atheists do not believe in any of these.

Agnostics are waffling

Agnostics believe that it doesn't matter.

Caligastia · May 23, 2002, 12:07

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Well, I'm no "Trekkie" or anything, but my answer would be "I have no doubt".

You can strongly believe it, but unless you have experienced alien life for yourself you cant say you are 100% sure.

Boris Godunov · May 23, 2002, 12:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

No, no, no. You have it wrong. It's not what you know but what you believe.

Christians believe in the existence of their God, and not in the existence of Odin, Zeus, Brahma, and Ralph the snake god.

Atheists do not believe in any of these.

Agnostics are waffling

Most agnostics I know are not waffling, they really believe (as I do) that the nature and reality of God is unknowable. So believing in anything concrete of yes/no is a pointless exercise in mental masturbation. Might make ya feel good, but the end result is that it won't make a difference.

I could easily say that Theists are cop-outs who are afraid of death and hence feel compelled to believe in a God so they can feel some kind of comfort in thinking there is an afterlife. And that they also just can't accept that there's no ultimate, all-encompassing "justice" in the universe. So they take the cop out way of believing there is a God who fix everything in the end and reward the good, punish the bad, etc.

I can also assert atheists are just anti-establishment types who reject God solely on the basis that they are angry, f*cked-up people who have had personal trauma. Since they are so arrogant and can't accept that a God would let them suffer at all, then they reject God.

Of course, both assertions would be patently silly, as it would be attempting to generalize the mindset of all who believe something or another. You can't assume to know why people think the way they do.

The same applies for agnostics. Sure, there are probably many who just don't know what to believe and therefore don't commit. Call them wafflers if it makes you feel superior. However, saying all agnostics are like that is an unfair generalization based on bias and ignorance.

The alien question is actually the similar for me. I do believe that, in this vast universe of billions of galaxies, that there is tons of other intelligent life out there. However, I think it is highly unlikely that mankind will ever discover such life, as the distances involved are just too vast and, AFIK, the means of travelling any such distances would be impossible. At any rate, it certainly won't happen in our lifetimes. So why even debate or argue about it? It's something we will never know.

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 12:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

No, no, no. You have it wrong. It's not what you know but what you believe.

Christians believe in the existence of their God, and not in the existence of Odin, Zeus, Brahma, and Ralph the snake god.

Atheists do not believe in any of these.

Agnostics are waffling

Christians believe in Christ, Islam believes in Muhammed, etc.
All prophets.
Unless I'm wrong, all believe in a God of creation.

Bereta_Eder · May 23, 2002, 12:09

IMO agnostics are the best of the bunch.

they accept that one CANNOT know.

and it is true. even that character jesus christ of nazareth said it: those who BELIEVE follow me. not those who are conveinced

just try to be a good man, if there's heaven you may go there if not, oblivion.

Boris Godunov · May 23, 2002, 12:11

Quote:

[SIZE=1]
another atheist can say: freedom of sexual choice is good.

THREADJACK

While I agree with your basic point, I still have to quibble with this phrase. If you can told me at what point you chose to be heterosexual, I might be able to say when I chose to be gay. But I didn't choose it...

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 12:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Caligastia

You can strongly believe it, but unless you have experienced alien life for yourself you cant say you are 100% sure.

Ever met Plato? Ever met George Washington? Ever met Marie Curie?
No? But you're sure they existed, right? Why?

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 12:16

Besides, this isn't a Believer vs. Non-Believer thread.
It's a thread about wussies.

Boris Godunov · May 23, 2002, 12:21

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Ever met Plato? Ever met George Washington? Ever met Marie Curie?
No? But you're sure they existed, right? Why?

You're playing semantics now. We know such people existed because their is a historical record of their existence, they left behind writings/artificacts/etc. And we have photos of Marie.

There is absolutely no evidence of aliens, no matter how many fuzzy photos of flying pot lids we see in the National Enquirer.

Caligastia · May 23, 2002, 12:22

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Ever met Plato? Ever met George Washington? Ever met Marie Curie?
No? But you're sure they existed, right? Why?

Because there is overwhelming evidence that they did. The evidence for the existence of alien life is far from overwhelming, in fact there is no evidence.

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 12:25

Into the trap steps Boris and Cal.
How are the people referenced any different than...anyone else?

Arrian · May 23, 2002, 12:30

Ever heard of Socrates, Slow? He of the "all knowledge starts with 'I don't know?'"

I am agnostic because I do not think humanity has figured out the universe yet, and may never do so. My inclination is to say that there is no God, and that science will eventually explain the workings of the universe. But science needs an awful lot more data before we can have a "theory of everything," unless you're content with Douglas Adams' answer, 42. Because we have explored so little of the universe, I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a God, or some form of Creator. I doubt it, but I refuse to assert that I KNOW something that I consider UNKNOWABLE, at least at this time.

If you think that's "sitting on the fence" or being a "wussie" well, good for you, since you've got it all figured out.

-Arrian

Caligastia · May 23, 2002, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Into the trap steps Boris and Cal.
How are the people referenced any different than...anyone else?

they are well-known historical figures?

SlowwHand · May 23, 2002, 12:32

If you're counting on scientists to "figure it all out", you're screwed.

Arrian · May 23, 2002, 12:41

I never said that I was counting on scientists to figure it all out. Frankly, though I think the pursuit of knowledge is interesting, I don't have an overwhelming need to understand everything, and I am never really troubled by the question "why am I here?" I am here, and I intend to enjoy myself.

-Arrian