ChatterBank0 min ago
What is an agnostic?
36 Answers
The Greek I learned at school tells me that an agnostic is "one who doesn't know" (a = "without"; gnosos = "knowledge") but believing in God is not a question of knowing � that is impossible � but of deciding.
A believer, a theist, is one who has made the positive decision to believe in a supernatural being for whose existence there is no evidence. That is perfectly clear.
An atheist is one who has made no such decision and dismisses the whole idea out of hand. That is also clear.
So what is an agnostic? One who cannot decide? But decide what? Not whether God exists, that is unknowable. Cannot decide whether to make that theist decision?
I will now shut up for a while and invite enlightenment from agnostics who are kind enough to respond.
A believer, a theist, is one who has made the positive decision to believe in a supernatural being for whose existence there is no evidence. That is perfectly clear.
An atheist is one who has made no such decision and dismisses the whole idea out of hand. That is also clear.
So what is an agnostic? One who cannot decide? But decide what? Not whether God exists, that is unknowable. Cannot decide whether to make that theist decision?
I will now shut up for a while and invite enlightenment from agnostics who are kind enough to respond.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Chakka, While I have been chomping at the bit at the chance to contribute to this thread, I have �til now refrained in respect for your request for agnostics to respond. I have waited patiently to allow this thread to run the desired course. Begging your pardon with the hope my patience has not worn thin prematurely I now eagerly submit my personal responses to your intellectually stimulating thought provoking assertions.
[The Greek I learned at school tells me that an agnostic is "one who doesn't know" (a = "without"; gnosos = "knowledge") but believing in God is not a question of knowing � that is impossible � but of deciding.]
Believing, (in anything), has never presupposed knowledge of that which one chooses to believe. Believing and possession of the prerequisite knowledge that justifies a belief need not be mutually exclusive but are not necessarily and far to infrequently mutually inclusive either. Insisting on objective verification for what one believes is the prime mover for obtaining this glue binding knowledge and beliefs. I can not readily think of a more profound incidence where a particular belief is so widely and unquestionably adopted as is the case of belief in the existence of a god/s where the need to objectively confirm or validate a belief is so universally ignored. I find this exceptionally odd by virtue of the fact that such a belief has such a profound impact on ones entire world view and belief system. But I will not digress any further at this moment pondering a greater breach in intellectual self-responsibility.
One issue I would like to make clear regarding those who choose the label of agnostic in the hope of gaining non-commitance is that holding this view does not exclude one from being designated as either a believer or non-believer. Even in the act of pleading ignorance, everyone is one or the other, there simply is no third alternative open to fence riders.
~ ~ ~
[The Greek I learned at school tells me that an agnostic is "one who doesn't know" (a = "without"; gnosos = "knowledge") but believing in God is not a question of knowing � that is impossible � but of deciding.]
Believing, (in anything), has never presupposed knowledge of that which one chooses to believe. Believing and possession of the prerequisite knowledge that justifies a belief need not be mutually exclusive but are not necessarily and far to infrequently mutually inclusive either. Insisting on objective verification for what one believes is the prime mover for obtaining this glue binding knowledge and beliefs. I can not readily think of a more profound incidence where a particular belief is so widely and unquestionably adopted as is the case of belief in the existence of a god/s where the need to objectively confirm or validate a belief is so universally ignored. I find this exceptionally odd by virtue of the fact that such a belief has such a profound impact on ones entire world view and belief system. But I will not digress any further at this moment pondering a greater breach in intellectual self-responsibility.
One issue I would like to make clear regarding those who choose the label of agnostic in the hope of gaining non-commitance is that holding this view does not exclude one from being designated as either a believer or non-believer. Even in the act of pleading ignorance, everyone is one or the other, there simply is no third alternative open to fence riders.
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
[A believer, a theist, is one who has made the positive decision to believe in a supernatural being for whose existence there is no evidence. That is perfectly clear.]
In addition, (as if �perfect� clarity were not enough), the choice to believe in the supernatural is a departure from the default non-belief we are all born with. Belief in the supernatural is a first step into the void of belief apart from the requirement of knowing about the nature of that in which you believe.
[An atheist is one who has made no such decision and dismisses the whole idea out of hand. That is also clear.]
I have a contention with that assertion. We are by default all born atheists with the option of dismissing the whole idea once the absurdity of such a belief becomes evident. It is the theist who must be �born again�. Even many believers admit to the necessity of that absurdity.
[So what is an agnostic? One who cannot decide? But decide what? Not whether God exists, that is unknowable. Cannot decide whether to make that theist decision?]
An agnostic is (as we all are by default) a born atheist unless and until they decide to make the conscious choice to believe and make of themselves a theist . . . which are by default also agnostics since knowledge of the supernatural is impossible.
~ ~ ~
[A believer, a theist, is one who has made the positive decision to believe in a supernatural being for whose existence there is no evidence. That is perfectly clear.]
In addition, (as if �perfect� clarity were not enough), the choice to believe in the supernatural is a departure from the default non-belief we are all born with. Belief in the supernatural is a first step into the void of belief apart from the requirement of knowing about the nature of that in which you believe.
[An atheist is one who has made no such decision and dismisses the whole idea out of hand. That is also clear.]
I have a contention with that assertion. We are by default all born atheists with the option of dismissing the whole idea once the absurdity of such a belief becomes evident. It is the theist who must be �born again�. Even many believers admit to the necessity of that absurdity.
[So what is an agnostic? One who cannot decide? But decide what? Not whether God exists, that is unknowable. Cannot decide whether to make that theist decision?]
An agnostic is (as we all are by default) a born atheist unless and until they decide to make the conscious choice to believe and make of themselves a theist . . . which are by default also agnostics since knowledge of the supernatural is impossible.
~ ~ ~
I agree that knowledge of the existence of The Big Lie in the Sky is impossible however just as certainly as this thread exists the idea/s of a god/s does exist. Therein lies the problem. Belief in something simply and only because one can bounce it around in the vacuum ones disassociated mind gives it no more validity than the self-generated delusion it is. It is the all too real and repeatedly proven self-evident danger associated with acting on such unjustifiable beliefs that constitutes the problem. It is because of such problems that I have taken the time and gone to the trouble to achieve the certainty that the logical absurdity of �God� most certainly does not exist as other than a delusion. Achieving that certainty, along with the mental clarity that comes with refusing to believe without reason, is our only defense against those whose actions they attempt to justify �in God�s name�.
Given the devastating consequences associated with beliefs in �God� there is no excuse for the intellectual irresponsibility of attempting to sit on the fence pleading ignorance of the obvious cause, the intellectual forfeiture of belief without reason. Don�t be an intellectual ostrich!
The world is a dangerous place not because of the people who are evil,
but because of the people who don't do anything about it. - Albert Einstein
[I will now shut up for a while and invite enlightenment from agnostics who are kind enough to respond.]
Good luck with that! LOL
I now stand ready to be duly reprimanded if I, as an non-agnostic contributor, have failed to sufficiently wait my turn and have spoken too soon.
[mib tells us that he is one of those who do know but, tantalisingly, doesn�t tell us what it is that he knows.]
Aw **** it . . .
Given the devastating consequences associated with beliefs in �God� there is no excuse for the intellectual irresponsibility of attempting to sit on the fence pleading ignorance of the obvious cause, the intellectual forfeiture of belief without reason. Don�t be an intellectual ostrich!
The world is a dangerous place not because of the people who are evil,
but because of the people who don't do anything about it. - Albert Einstein
[I will now shut up for a while and invite enlightenment from agnostics who are kind enough to respond.]
Good luck with that! LOL
I now stand ready to be duly reprimanded if I, as an non-agnostic contributor, have failed to sufficiently wait my turn and have spoken too soon.
[mib tells us that he is one of those who do know but, tantalisingly, doesn�t tell us what it is that he knows.]
Aw **** it . . .
It is not nor never has been enough for me to be told what someone else claims to �know�. Learning from others can only be truly achieved when said �knowledge� can be related to ones own observations and integrated with ones logically derived understanding without which knowledge, albeit factual is precipitous and potentially dangerous in its application.
[An atheist makes the easiest decision. Since the existence of God has the same probability as that of Harry Potter and Cinderella�s Fairy Godmother, and is backed by zero evidence, he makes the rational, logical, commonsense decision that a belief in God is untenable, not to say absurd.
A theist is much braver: he scorns reason, lifts two fingers at logic, and laughs at the lack of evidence, saying that he is damn-well going to believe in God despite it all.]
With this I wholeheartedly disagree. I will concede this may be due in part somewhat to a difference in sociological perspective. Where I come from the atheist�s stance at the time I first adopted it was virtual social suicide. Far from being an easy decision even as a closet atheist I had to deal with constantly being reminded of the threat of eternal damnation for holding such a belief. In a way this proved to be a blessing in that I had to repeatedly reevaluate and substantiate the validity of my processes of reason that made atheism essential to a rational view of reality.
To become a theist, at least in the context of my childhood, would have been the �easy� way out. I was totally alone in my conviction with even the thought of sharing it with others a horrifyingly sobering contemplation.
whatever . . .
[An atheist makes the easiest decision. Since the existence of God has the same probability as that of Harry Potter and Cinderella�s Fairy Godmother, and is backed by zero evidence, he makes the rational, logical, commonsense decision that a belief in God is untenable, not to say absurd.
A theist is much braver: he scorns reason, lifts two fingers at logic, and laughs at the lack of evidence, saying that he is damn-well going to believe in God despite it all.]
With this I wholeheartedly disagree. I will concede this may be due in part somewhat to a difference in sociological perspective. Where I come from the atheist�s stance at the time I first adopted it was virtual social suicide. Far from being an easy decision even as a closet atheist I had to deal with constantly being reminded of the threat of eternal damnation for holding such a belief. In a way this proved to be a blessing in that I had to repeatedly reevaluate and substantiate the validity of my processes of reason that made atheism essential to a rational view of reality.
To become a theist, at least in the context of my childhood, would have been the �easy� way out. I was totally alone in my conviction with even the thought of sharing it with others a horrifyingly sobering contemplation.
whatever . . .
In any age it has always been the heroic among us who have without exception guided their choices in what to believe by adhering to the voice of reason in their own mind as opposed to those who chose instead to silence it off for no better �reason� than to be in agreement with those around them, be it their tribe, their culture, the prevailing religion or simply a feeling of the truth is not what will make me happy in the end but what I want it to be now in spite of how it is defined by reality.
OK, now it�s my turn to shut-up (so as to listen to the snoring of any who have braved to read in full my musings).
Mibs, you are as eloquent as ever. I don't feel up to this, but compelled to make a few points.
Your clockwork universe is a chain of cause and effect, repeated ad-infinitum.
What came first? A cause? An effect?
Out of what?
So you don't observe required evidence? Look around, something happened, something out of nothing, a cause.
Do you dismiss the idea of an original cause?
An, "Original Cause," the Creator God! It's as simple as that.
Putting your faith in phsics to one day come up with the answer you desire, is as absurd putting out Unicorn bait and expecting to catch one. Not really logical after all.
Eloquent though.
Your clockwork universe is a chain of cause and effect, repeated ad-infinitum.
What came first? A cause? An effect?
Out of what?
So you don't observe required evidence? Look around, something happened, something out of nothing, a cause.
Do you dismiss the idea of an original cause?
An, "Original Cause," the Creator God! It's as simple as that.
Putting your faith in phsics to one day come up with the answer you desire, is as absurd putting out Unicorn bait and expecting to catch one. Not really logical after all.
Eloquent though.
I honestly do not know, nor do I expect to ever learn the complete chain of events that brought the universe to its present form. All the same I see no reason to make something up that contradicts everything I have observed in my lifetime and yet provides me with no greater understanding of the causal chain of evidence that has lead me to my current context of knowledge.
I have first hand experience of the negative consequences of actions I had not carefully premeditated and am now better prepared and enjoy the benefits of outcomes I have learned to predetermine. To the extent I have been able to achieve some success this pattern of acquiring the prerequisite knowledge first and then acting within the context of that knowledge has reinforced and further rewarded this pattern of behavior. I understand and accept that I will never know everything but when I am armed with the necessary knowledge I can be proactive rather then reactively protecting myself needlessly from an imagined threat the simply does not exist.
The closest thing I have found to what has been described to me as �God, The author of my salvation� has been knowledge, and I have worshipped it religiously. To the extent each of us has acquired it knowledge is a precious gift that is respected all the more because it is a gift earned at the price of learning to distinguish it from what we might have been implored or frightened into believing. Each new bit of knowledge fits together with none of the pieces contradicting the others and all combining to form a beautiful mosaic of a glorious reality to which I am able and happy to conform.
I have first hand experience of the negative consequences of actions I had not carefully premeditated and am now better prepared and enjoy the benefits of outcomes I have learned to predetermine. To the extent I have been able to achieve some success this pattern of acquiring the prerequisite knowledge first and then acting within the context of that knowledge has reinforced and further rewarded this pattern of behavior. I understand and accept that I will never know everything but when I am armed with the necessary knowledge I can be proactive rather then reactively protecting myself needlessly from an imagined threat the simply does not exist.
The closest thing I have found to what has been described to me as �God, The author of my salvation� has been knowledge, and I have worshipped it religiously. To the extent each of us has acquired it knowledge is a precious gift that is respected all the more because it is a gift earned at the price of learning to distinguish it from what we might have been implored or frightened into believing. Each new bit of knowledge fits together with none of the pieces contradicting the others and all combining to form a beautiful mosaic of a glorious reality to which I am able and happy to conform.
One thing reality had taught me is that to achieve certainty all the pieces must fit together harmoniously. The existence of a creator presupposes the preexistence of a world to live and learn in with a consciousness that relies on a preexisting means of consciousness, a brain, and something to be conscious of, existence. Without a preexisting universe, purposely directed mindful creation would not be possible. The only viable causal explanation is that existence came first followed by awareness, consciousness, learning, the integration of obtained knowledge from which the ability to create, through the processes of a living brain directing the actions of a physical body, anything of significance, let alone a universe, is made possible.
God is not a creator but a creation of a mind that refuses to accept that reality comes first and can only be changed by those who have first learned to understand it and appreciate what it has to offer.
Theland, if you�re not getting some must needed sleep by now than I give up. Take a pill. Your brain will not serve you well if you abuse it. A healthy mind is neither master nor slave but a mutually beneficial relationship. We all need friends but none more than ourselves. Learn to respect the essentials of life and life will return the favor. OK, now I�m getting sleepy . . .
God is not a creator but a creation of a mind that refuses to accept that reality comes first and can only be changed by those who have first learned to understand it and appreciate what it has to offer.
Theland, if you�re not getting some must needed sleep by now than I give up. Take a pill. Your brain will not serve you well if you abuse it. A healthy mind is neither master nor slave but a mutually beneficial relationship. We all need friends but none more than ourselves. Learn to respect the essentials of life and life will return the favor. OK, now I�m getting sleepy . . .
mib, wow! I have printed out your treatise so that I can read it at leisure!
Theland, I don't know where you get your cheek from. Time and again I have debunked that idea of yours, without a word of response from you. Now you are peddling it again, quite shamelessly. You're like the quack who, having had his snake-oil sussed out on one street-corner, moves on to the next in the hope of conning a new crowd.
I don't suppose mib will be fooled, though.
Theland, I don't know where you get your cheek from. Time and again I have debunked that idea of yours, without a word of response from you. Now you are peddling it again, quite shamelessly. You're like the quack who, having had his snake-oil sussed out on one street-corner, moves on to the next in the hope of conning a new crowd.
I don't suppose mib will be fooled, though.
Yes,Octavius, that�s what I said from the beginning. And I gave good reasons why �not knowing� is not enough to differentiate agnostics from everyone else. I can�t go through all that again.
That God has the same status as fairy-tale characters is why it is so odd that adults believe in him and (presumably) not in the others.
In many postal correspondences I have had over the years with theists and others I have pointed out that Santa, fairies and God are exactly equivalent in that all of them are supernatural beings who do magical things and for whose existence there is not a smidgeon of evidence.
Not once � on not one single occasion � has anyone refuted this, or even tried to. I realise that it irritates you, Octavius; cold truth often does annoy. But here�s your chance!
Show me how the concept of God differs from the other two (or any other fairytale character) and I will realise how wrong I have been and will promise never to make that comparison again.
Your ball, Octavius.
That God has the same status as fairy-tale characters is why it is so odd that adults believe in him and (presumably) not in the others.
In many postal correspondences I have had over the years with theists and others I have pointed out that Santa, fairies and God are exactly equivalent in that all of them are supernatural beings who do magical things and for whose existence there is not a smidgeon of evidence.
Not once � on not one single occasion � has anyone refuted this, or even tried to. I realise that it irritates you, Octavius; cold truth often does annoy. But here�s your chance!
Show me how the concept of God differs from the other two (or any other fairytale character) and I will realise how wrong I have been and will promise never to make that comparison again.
Your ball, Octavius.
No evidence for God Mib??? There may be no Proof! But proof is different from evidence. Fingerprints on a murder weapon is both proof and evidence. It cannot prove that whoever the fingerprints belongs to committed murder, but it can prove that the murderweapon was at some point touched by the person whose fingerprints are on it. The evidence presented suggests that the person is the murderer. In order to cause a jury to reach a conclusion, the amount of evidence needs to excede reasonable doubt. Agnostics look at the evidence for and against a God and cannot make up their minds. Athiests look at the evidence for and against God and make a decision based on that. Theists can also make a decision based on the evidence presented. In your opinion the evidence for God is not great enough for you to have any reasonable doubt in favour of accepting he exists. Can I ask you a question are you athiest about love too? Romantic love I mean???
No evidence for God Mib???
mallymooface, If I incorrectly assume that you are addressing that question to me or that you are under the impression that I personally ever suggested such a thing I beg you pardon. Otherwise I believe you have the wrong man. But since you�ve asked . . .
To begin with I must ask you, who specifically do you mean when you refer to this individual �God�. There are many many more entities to which that identity is attributed than there are people alive today that go by the name of �Jesus� and possibly as many more that have existed throughout history, all with different and often conflicting profiles.
I do not deny that �God� exists, if only as an idea or delusion, however the case against the possibility that the universe was created by an intelligent purposeful being is very strong. Evidence can be circumstantial, misleading and inconclusive and any eyewitness testimony would quickly be dismissed as hearsay, if not heresy.
Before I get any further involved with defending or prosecution of this suspect I need to know who specifically the alleged perpetrator is that is on trial?
As for romantic love, I have no doubt of its existence, that it is a natural thing with a distinctly human quality. I believe in love with good reason but what relationship you believe that shares with this topic evades my comprehension. Perhaps a new thread is in order. If you provide a link I might like to participate. Just don�t mistake me for someone else, even if they do happen to be co-defendants, however highly regarded.
mallymooface, If I incorrectly assume that you are addressing that question to me or that you are under the impression that I personally ever suggested such a thing I beg you pardon. Otherwise I believe you have the wrong man. But since you�ve asked . . .
To begin with I must ask you, who specifically do you mean when you refer to this individual �God�. There are many many more entities to which that identity is attributed than there are people alive today that go by the name of �Jesus� and possibly as many more that have existed throughout history, all with different and often conflicting profiles.
I do not deny that �God� exists, if only as an idea or delusion, however the case against the possibility that the universe was created by an intelligent purposeful being is very strong. Evidence can be circumstantial, misleading and inconclusive and any eyewitness testimony would quickly be dismissed as hearsay, if not heresy.
Before I get any further involved with defending or prosecution of this suspect I need to know who specifically the alleged perpetrator is that is on trial?
As for romantic love, I have no doubt of its existence, that it is a natural thing with a distinctly human quality. I believe in love with good reason but what relationship you believe that shares with this topic evades my comprehension. Perhaps a new thread is in order. If you provide a link I might like to participate. Just don�t mistake me for someone else, even if they do happen to be co-defendants, however highly regarded.
�
i am a Deist! (One who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion; a freethinker.)
de�ism (de'iz'?m, da'-)
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
�
And the question is what/where is the "evidence" for God?
It is difficult to provide evidence for something that man can't comprehend. But, logically, since something (the universe) can't come from "nothing", there must be "something" outside of the universe that Caused it to come into being. That something could well be a Creative Force which i choose to perceive of as God.
Evolution can explain the events occuring FROM the instant of the "Big Bang", but not for the Big Bang itself.
No one can provide evidence FOR God but no one can provide evidence against God's existence either!
�
From my chosen path i stray,
Yet my God ne'er turns away;
For i have learned -- and understand,
That where God is -- is where i am!
i am a Deist! (One who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion; a freethinker.)
de�ism (de'iz'?m, da'-)
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
�
And the question is what/where is the "evidence" for God?
It is difficult to provide evidence for something that man can't comprehend. But, logically, since something (the universe) can't come from "nothing", there must be "something" outside of the universe that Caused it to come into being. That something could well be a Creative Force which i choose to perceive of as God.
Evolution can explain the events occuring FROM the instant of the "Big Bang", but not for the Big Bang itself.
No one can provide evidence FOR God but no one can provide evidence against God's existence either!
�
From my chosen path i stray,
Yet my God ne'er turns away;
For i have learned -- and understand,
That where God is -- is where i am!
Oh dear, Ethmer, do we really have to go through all this again? OK, briefly then:
That something cannot come from nothing, therefore.... is an invalid argument because, if it is some god that did it, then that god could not have come from nothing. Ergo there must have been a supergod to make that god.... and so on, ad infinitum. I can expand on that if you wish.
That one cannot prove that there is no God is not an argument either. Surely you have heard of Bertram Russell's teapot? He said that he cannot prove that there is not a china teapot in solitary orbit around the sun but that does not mean that the idea that there is such a teapot is as valid as the idea that there isn't. It is for those who moot unnatural things to prove them, or at least to supply some evidence worth investigating. If they can't then there's no need for anyone else to take the idea seriously.
That something cannot come from nothing, therefore.... is an invalid argument because, if it is some god that did it, then that god could not have come from nothing. Ergo there must have been a supergod to make that god.... and so on, ad infinitum. I can expand on that if you wish.
That one cannot prove that there is no God is not an argument either. Surely you have heard of Bertram Russell's teapot? He said that he cannot prove that there is not a china teapot in solitary orbit around the sun but that does not mean that the idea that there is such a teapot is as valid as the idea that there isn't. It is for those who moot unnatural things to prove them, or at least to supply some evidence worth investigating. If they can't then there's no need for anyone else to take the idea seriously.
