Agnostics.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
What I did say, was that concerning anything, not only God, that the only automatic wrong decision is no decision.
That's a correct statement, and position.

So making blind decisions is better than waiting until you know better?

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Religious people don't want to burn in Hell, so they do what they are trained is right.
Atheists don't believe in Hell, so screw it all.
Agnostics are just busy pissing their pants over what to believe.

An intelligent question:
I am religious and I believe there is ORDER in the Universe.

Am I a Catholic, a Protestant, an Orthodox, a Jew, a Sunni Muslim, a Shi‘ite Muslim, a Zoroastrian, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Confucian, a Taoist, a pagan, a pantheist, a deist, a shamanist, an a-theist, an idolator, a materialist, a scientist, a positivist, a Communist, a sophist, a ..... ..?

I categorically refuse to fit in your small world!

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I was looking at Red Jons bisexual thread, and thinking that bisexuals were just sex hogs.

Which somehow got me to thinking about Agnostics vs. Atheists.
Seems to me that, like bisexuals, they just want all their bases covered.
Is this essentially correct ?

No. I am agnostic. I don't have any bases covered. I see no reason to believe any religion nor do I do see a good reason for saying there can't be at least some sort of god. Except of course for the lack of any evidence for a god.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Oh come on.
Religious people don't want to burn in Hell, so they do what they are trained is right.

Is that why most of the people in jail are christians?

Atheists don't believe in Hell, so screw it all.

So why are so few of them in jail?

Agnostics are just busy pissing their pants over what to believe.

You are mistaken we were laughing so hard at your trollish green skin that we all lost controll for a moment.

I know EXACTLY what to believe. That which can be proven or at least have a reasonable probability of being right. So I am Agnostic.

I guess I some faith. I have faith that you aren't aways such a troll.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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

I CHOSE a side. Agnostic.

You chose to go on faith wether you are religious or Atheist. I chose to go on facts.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I didn't hide the fact at all that I think agnostics are little pansies who are afraid to make a decision.
Where did I lose you, and what doubts of mine could you possibly be referencing?

I made a decision. You are a troll.

[Guynemer]

He gets that way sometimes. Other times, he's pretty reasonable.

[Ethelred]

I believe you. I BELIEVE.

I used to print Reverend Schuyler's photos. I always wondered what he would think if he knew that an Agnostic working for a Budist was printing his pictures. He is the televangelist that has the Crystal Cathedral near Disneyland in California.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Caligastia
If you really know something for sure then you do believe in it.

No I don't. The Earth exists independently of my beliefs. I know that it exists, such is not required of my beliefs.

Originally posted by Caligastia
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.

No. Beliefs entail uncertainty. Facts require no beliefs.

Originally posted by Caligastia
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.

Agnostics are dodging a simple question. The question is "Do you believe in the existence of a supernatural being (or a group of supernatural beings?"

Rather than answering, they go through all sorts of verbal acrobatics to avoid an honest answer.

Atheists simply give an anwser they believe in.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by paiktis22
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.

I am not disputing that religious believers, agnostics and atheists can share the same set of moral codes.

That has no bearing on the fact that agnostics are waffling though

[Mihai]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Agnostics are dodging a simple question. The question is "Do you believe in the existence of a supernatural being (or a group of supernatural beings?"

I belive that it is posible that a supernatural being exist, but I don't know for sure. Also I won't worship nor attack it, just ignore it.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
No I don't. The Earth exists independently of my beliefs. I know that it exists, such is not required of my beliefs.

No. Beliefs entail uncertainty. Facts require no beliefs.

Agnostics are dodging a simple question. The question is "Do you believe in the existence of a supernatural being (or a group of supernatural beings?"

Rather than answering, they go through all sorts of verbal acrobatics to avoid an honest answer.

Atheists simply give an anwser they believe in.

Who is dodging? I gave no verbal acrobatics. I gave a VERY honest answer. Yet you cast these vile aspersions on all that do not live by faith.

I live by reality not belief. I do not dodge questions about the existence of god. I answer forthrightly that I DON'T KNOW and NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE. Got that? There is not one shred or sign of waffleing in that answer. It is exceedingly specific and exact. NO ONE KNOWS and I don't run my life on belief.

I think of it this way. If you or I had been raised without any knowledge of religion you would not be likely to have any religious belief at all. You certainly would, when exposed to this sort of thinking, consider the Bible to be a load of fantasy. Same for nearly any other fairly specific religion.

You would still be unable to say there was proof that no kind of god could exist. If you were a fully honest person you have to say that while many gods cannot exist because the things said about them contradict reality there is simply no way to prove that there can be no god of any kind.

If you can show ANY waffling in that you will be the first.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Ahem:

Generally, when atheists say "there is no God", they mean it in the same sense as "there are no leprechauns". It does NOT require certainty. The agnostic equivalent would be "maybe there are leprechauns, maybe not, I don't want to commit myself on that one".

I am an atheist. I am also an aleprechaunist. If someone brings me a leprechaun in a jar, I'll believe. Until then, I am prepared to say that I do NOT believe. However, this does not mean that I have closed my mind to the possible existence of leprechauns. I have merely stated my position on whether I consider their existence likely.

If an "agnostic" considers the existence of God unlikely, then he's an atheist who (for some reason) won't state what he believes. Therefore a "true" (non-atheistic) agnostic is one who does not believe that the existence of God is either likely or unlikely.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless


I am an atheist. I am also an aleprechaunist. If someone brings me a leprechaun in a jar, I'll believe. Until then, I am prepared to say that I do NOT believe. However, this does not mean that I have closed my mind to the possible existence of leprechauns. I have merely stated my position on whether I consider their existence likely.

I was told that my Great Grandmother put out milk for the Little People even in the US.

If an "agnostic" considers the existence of God unlikely, then he's an atheist who (for some reason) won't state what he believes. Therefore a "true" (non-atheistic) agnostic is one who does not believe that the existence of God is either likely or unlikely.

You are an Agnostic. Though the line is fuzzy between a soft Atheist and an Agnostic. I choose to call myself Agnostic to make it clear that I am not one that actively disbelieves, like a hard Atheist. Nor am I beholden some claim by a writer of definitions to live my life by a dictionary in case anyone is planning on dredging up one.

I don't think there is a Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark either but I think a god is a tiny bit more likely than that. If only because a Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark implies a dependence on the pre-existence of non-invisible, non-orbiting, non-giant aardvarks.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Who is dodging? I gave no verbal acrobatics. I gave a VERY honest answer. Yet you cast these vile aspersions on all that do not live by faith.

That's not an answer, that's a dodge. "I don't know" is not an answer to "Do you believe..." type questions.

If you choose to believe that anyone who view such evasions as casting "vile aspersions" that is your personal choice.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I live by reality not belief.

Everybody has a basic set of beliefs that cannot be proved, even atheists acknowledge that. Such basic beliefs include assumptions such as:

- I exist
- My senses are an accurate reflection of an external reality
- etc.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I do not dodge questions about the existence of god. I answer forthrightly that I DON'T KNOW and NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE. Got that? There is not one shred or sign of waffleing in that answer. It is exceedingly specific and exact. NO ONE KNOWS and I don't run my life on belief.

That's a very exact answer, but that's not the right question. The question isn't whether you know a god exists or not but whether you believe in such an existence. There is no relation between your belief on wether a god exists and wether it actually exists or not.

I don't understand why it is so difficult to comprehend such a simple question.

As to whether you run your life on beliefs that's irrelevant.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I think of it this way. If you or I had been raised without any knowledge of religion you would not be likely to have any religious belief at all. You certainly would, when exposed to this sort of thinking, consider the Bible to be a load of fantasy. Same for nearly any other fairly specific religion.

As a matter of fact I am an atheist, my position is agnosticism is a philosophical untenable position. As a matter of fact it cannot be a philosophical position at all, since it violates the Law of Excluded Middle.

Originally posted by Ethelred
You would still be unable to say there was proof that no kind of god could exist. If you were a fully honest person you have to say that while many gods cannot exist because the things said about them contradict reality there is simply no way to prove that there can be no god of any kind.

That's besides the point. Let me reinterate: whether a god exists has nothing to do with whether you believe in the existence of said god.

I am not interested in finding out whether a god actually exists here. I am merely interested in your position as to the existence of said god. There are two choices:

1. You hold that there are good reasons to believe in the existence of this god

2. You hold that there are no good reasons to believe in the existence of this god

What's your choice?

[Urban Ranger]

Regarding Christians:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts

[-=Vagrant=-]

Do I believe in God? No I don't. But if He in all of His Glory would appear and say "Looky here folks!" I'll admit that I was wrong.
Am I atheist or agnostic? Frankly, I don't give a damn.
Why are there no people asking if I believe in Shiva or Mithra? S/He is a god too.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's not an answer, that's a dodge. "I don't know" is not an answer to "Do you believe..." type questions.

It is in no way a dodge. Belief doesn't enter into it. I neither believe nor disbelieve. That is not evasion nor a dodge. Its the answer. You just don't like it.

If you choose to believe that anyone who view such evasions as casting "vile aspersions" that is your personal choice.

That is another vile aspersion as I did not in any way evade. I answered the question with great exactitude. Its not a yes or no question. You only delude yourself into thinking it is. (some people need smilies to tell what a joke is).

Everybody has a basic set of beliefs that cannot be proved, even atheists acknowledge that. Such basic beliefs include assumptions such as:

- I exist
- My senses are an accurate reflection of an external reality
- etc.

Those are merely tentitive beliefs subject to change given suficient evidence to the contrary. The one about existence anyway is not a matter of belief. Its a matter of practicality. It would be a silly thing to assume the opposite off. My senses are NOT an accurate reflection of reality. They are an approximation. Especially with my abysmal eyesight.

That's a very exact answer, but that's not the right question. The question isn't whether you know a god exists or not but whether you believe in such an existence. There is no relation between your belief on wether a god exists and wether it actually exists or not.

I don't understand why it is so difficult to comprehend such a simple question.

I don't understand why you have such a difficult time understanding such a clear answer to the question.

As to whether you run your life on beliefs that's irrelevant.

It is very relevant when the question is one of belief.

As a matter of fact I am an atheist, my position is agnosticism is a philosophical untenable position. As a matter of fact it cannot be a philosophical position at all, since it violates the Law of Excluded Middle.

I find Atheism untenable. Its based on belief. Hardly an objective way to look at the world. This middle position is only excluded by a closed mind. Yours and Slowhands for instance.

You base your life on a belief. I do not. You have a religious belief. I don't.

That's besides the point. Let me reinterate: whether a god exists has nothing to do with whether you believe in the existence of said god.

Indeed. That has nothing to do with the question though. The question is whether I believe in a god or not. I answered it with extreme clarity. I don't believe one way or the other and that is Agnosticism.

I am not interested in finding out whether a god actually exists here. I am merely interested in your position as to the existence of said god. There are two choices:

1. You hold that there are good reasons to believe in the existence of this god

2. You hold that there are no good reasons to believe in the existence of this god

It was not originlly a yes or no question. In fact there was no question at all. Merely a vile calumney by people that go on faith against those that don't.

However now that you have actually asked a specific question. The answer is number two. Which does not turn me into an Atheist. It leaves me as an Agnostic because I see no good reason to say unequivocably that there is no god. You are trying to set up a false dichotomy. Typical of those that base their life on beliefs instead of facts. You make it clear with this tactic that Atheism is just as much a religious belief as Fundamentalist Christianity.

What's your choice?

I gave it before. You just want to redefine things in a vain attempt to define Agnosticsm out of existence.

[Aeson]

No I don't. The Earth exists independently of my beliefs.

Or so you believe...

No. Beliefs entail uncertainty. Facts require no beliefs.

So a person who believes without a doubt that their God exists can say that God's existance is fact? Their belief isn't belief (to them) because there is no uncertainty.

I won't go further into the debate about whether facts can exist without belief unless you wish to.

"Do you believe in the existence of a supernatural being (or a group of supernatural beings?"

The answer would be dependant on what you mean by "believe" and "supernatural". You have already given your definition for believe, but what exactly do you mean by supernatural?

A truely honest answer needs to first have an understood question. There are lots of interpretations possible for even your simple question. An all-encompassing answer to the possible interpretations would probably be wrong and could even be contradictory to itself.

su·per·nat·u·ral Pronunciation Key (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

3. Of or relating to a deity.

4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.

5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

If you use definition 1, then natural needs defining. Would alien intervention be considered natural, how about human? Would a being/force from another dimension be considered natural?

With definition 2, does it have to seem to everyone to be supernatural? Or just the person answering the question? Again a definition of natural would be needed as well.

Definition 3 is probably the most likely meaning. But what is the implied definition of a deity? Does it have to be a sentient deity existing apart from nature, or can it be defined as nature or a part of nature? This is a point where the answer "yes" in one case would usually mean "no" in the other.

In definition 4 there is a need to define divine and miraculous. Usually divine means intervention by a deity, bringing in the problems with definition 3. It could also mean faith based occurances, whether that faith is well founded or not. Belief can be a very powerful thing in it's own right, and to the person involved it is a divine power.

In definition 5 it is again miraculous that could use explaining. Would 'miraculous' as in an amazing feat (sports commentators use the term rather often) suffice? Or does it have to be caused by the intervention of a deity? Then again you need to define deity.

Rather than answering, they go through all sorts of verbal acrobatics to avoid an honest answer.

Hopefully that's enough acrobatics for now. In this case a honest answer depends on those acrobatics though. If a question isn't clear, it needs to be further refined until it is. With terms like 'God' and 'supernatural' which have so many possible definitions, one answer will usually not encompass all the honest possibilities. I would be more than willing to answer the question "do you believe in a God as described in (insert religious sect here)." so long as I am familiar with the definition of that God.

To answer without properly understanding the question would be dishonest regardless of what answer was given.

If an "agnostic" considers the existence of God unlikely, then he's an atheist who (for some reason) won't state what he believes. Therefore a "true" (non-atheistic) agnostic is one who does not believe that the existence of God is either likely or unlikely.

The term agnostic is made up of the prefix 'a-" and the term gnostic. 'A-' means without, and gnostic is greek for knowlege. An agnostic is one who admits to not knowing. I consider myself an agnostic because I don't believe any knowlege is absolute, regarding God or otherwise. I admit my beliefs are not knowlege, therefore I do not know.

"I don't know" is a valid answer to any question where the answer is not known. Giving this answer doesn't mean the question is being dodged. Often people are unsure about their own beliefs, so even asking "do you believe" doesn't require a definitive answer.

Only an omniscient being could be unconditionally considered "waffling" by giving such an answer. If you atheists are suggesting agnostics are omniscient you are wrong. (but we appreciate the sentiment) :P

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-

Why are there no people asking if I believe in Shiva or Mithra? S/He is a god too.

Shiva is definitaly a he. I am pretty sure that Mithra was also male.

[Aeson]

I am not interested in finding out whether a god actually exists here. I am merely interested in your position as to the existence of said god. There are two choices:

1. You hold that there are good reasons to believe in the existence of this god

2. You hold that there are no good reasons to believe in the existence of this god

What's your choice?

Can you give an honest answer without having defined God first? If there is a religion which worships the sun* as God, do you believe that their God exists? If I define God in the Catholic sense, do you believe that their God exists? If you were Catholic and I defined God in the Buddhist sense, would you believe that the Buddhist God exists? You would believe in a God, but not the one specified by the question.

You propose a yes or no answer to a question with an infinite number of meanings. If you define the question further you will get more defined answers as well.

* to be as clear as possible. This sect accepts the current scientific explaination as to the workings of the sun. It is not regarded as sentient.

[Ethelred]

* to be as clear as possible. This sect accepts the current scientific explaination as to the workings of the sun. It is not regarded as sentient.

I don't really see a non-sentient god as actually being a god. More like a natural thing akin to mathematics and physics. Besides if I must have a god I want one that is immortal and the Sun isn't permanent.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Have you stopped murdering people? Yes or no? Be honest.

[Ethelred]

No I haven't stopped.

Then again I haven't started either.


I once asked a guy I worked with, that was being a pain, "When did you stop beating your wife?" He answered that he stopped when he got a divorce. Unfortunaly I am pretty sure the answer wasn't a joke. I know he later beat his fifteen year old live in girlfriend at least once. He then slit his wrist. Good intentions I suppose but he botched the job by going the hospital.

[Aeson]

It really doesn't matter what you think 'God' is Ethelred, it could be your shoe, Godly-smurf, the number 7 or whatever. That's the point I'm trying to make about the question "do you believe God exists?". God is not defined in the questions in this thread, and as such could fit any possible definition.

Have you stopped murdering people? Yes or no? Be honest.

no

[Ethelred]

It really doesn't matter what you think 'God' is Ethelred,

I am fully aware of that. That wasn't directed at anything you said.


You are trying to redefine Agnostic. Thats typical of believers of all stripes. Arguement by definition. Arguements with false dichotomies. So far you you have used some very standard techniques the fundamenalists are fond of. Not all of them but if you keep going you may manage to hit more of them.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Aeson
That's not what I was implying. Here it is as plainly as I can put it:

Do you have any doubts whatsoever?
Do you ever qualify your statements or use agnostic reasoning (on any subject)?

Does a yes to either of the previous questions make you "[a] little pans[y] who [is] afraid to make a decision"?

Still don't get it ? It's not a question of having doubts, it's a question of collecting available information and making a decision.
To answer your question though, no.

I can say it here, because it won't as widely offend.
The original title of the thread was:
"Agnostics. Atheists Without Balls ?"
I understand, some, why the title was trimmed; but had it been left as it was, there was no doubt what I thought about little candyass agnostics.

[Ethelred]

I understand, some, why the title was trimmed; but had it been left as it was, there was no doubt what I thought about little candyass agnostics.

Believer.

[Aeson]

I am fully aware of that. That wasn't directed at anything you said.

It would be best not to quote someone you aren't directing your response to. (This isn't directed at anything you said )

You are trying to redefine Agnostic.

I'm not trying to define anything, although I did state the commonly accepted definition of the term agnostic. I was asking for definitions of vague terms in the questions being asked of agnostics. Didn't you wonder what UR meant by 'God' before you answer his question? Or did you just assume he meant it in the same sense that you do. It's entirely possible that he meant a different entity than you were thinking of. It might not change your answer, but it could.

So far you you have used some very standard techniques the fundamenalists are fond of.

I could be considered a fundamentalist in some ways no doubt. In others I am definitely not.

Arguement by definition.

I was trying to avoid argument by definition, which is why definitions were asked for. Without a common definition for a term, there can be no real discussion on it. If you truely believe definitions aren't required for valid discussion, why use words at all? They just are empty sounds.

If I invent a word and assign a meaning to it, it means nothing to you unless I first explain it's meaning. The term 'God' is very much like this. There are just so many different definitions for God that without specifying which one, there is no meaning to the term from a communications standpoint.

UR was asking for an honest answer, and I pointed out why an honest answer wasn't possible with the way he phrased his question. You can call my arguments fundamentalist or whatever you want, if you want to point out any flaws in my reasoning that would be more valuable to the discussion though.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
To answer your question though, no.

Which question was the no to? There were 3 of them. Is that a no to all 3?

Still don't get it ? It's not a question of having doubts, it's a question of collecting available information and making a decision.

Sorry, doubts was the wrong word for me to use in that question. I meant is there any situation where you would not make a decision (other than to wait to decide)?