Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Agnosticism

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
    #16
    Re: Agnosticism

    Originally posted by Denarius View Post
    Usually people who identify as agnostic are atheists, and Agnosticism is a philosophical position relating to the existence of gods. We already have places for those topics/discussions, Atheism and The Great Debate.
    "Agnostic" simply means "without knowledge."

    Agnosticism is the belief that one cannot know whether or not there is/are (a) divine being(s).
    Atheism is the lack of belief in (a) divine being(s).

    The Bible extolls agnostic theism, since it argues that proof would discount faith .

    Most atheists are agnostic atheists.

    VERY few atheists claim to KNOW that there is/are no god/gods.

    Theism is the belief in divinity
    Atheism is the lack of belief in divinity

    Agnosticism is the belief that one can't know, for sure, one way or the other.

    One can believe, but not know.
    One can also disbelieve, but not know.

    I am in the second category. I am an agnostic atheist.

    Agnostic DOESN'T mean "undecided," it is simply the logical interpretation of the data... science, as it stands, can neither prove, nor disprove, the divine.

    Theism/Atheism, has to do with what you decide to believe beyond what can be known (or what you believe can be known)... Theism/Atheism designates whether or not one believes that there is a/are divine being/beings; Agnosticism indicates belief that mortals can't prove one way or the other.
    "Don't ever miss a good opportunity to shut up." - Harvey Davis "Gramps"

    Comment

      #17
      Re: Agnosticism

      Agnosticism can also be reduced to hard agnosticism which is the belief that the existence of god/s cannot be known, and soft agnosticism which is the belief that the existence of god/s is merely not currently known.

      Most people in general are soft agnostics, the rest are objectively wrong.

      Edit: Or hard agnostics, which is debatable.
      Trust is knowing someone or something well enough to have a good idea of their motivations and character, for good or for ill. People often say trust when they mean faith.

      Comment

        #18
        Re: Agnosticism

        Originally posted by Denarius View Post
        Agnosticism can also be reduced to hard agnosticism which is the belief that the existence of god/s cannot be known, and soft agnosticism which is the belief that the existence of god/s is merely not currently known.

        Most people in general are soft agnostics, the rest are objectively wrong.

        Edit: Or hard agnostics, which is debatable.
        a) my understanding of the word "agnostic," based on research and etymology, falls in line with what you call "hard agnosticism."
        b) I'm not, by your description, a "soft agnostic,"... thus I am "objectively wrong"... despite the actual, objective, etymological definition of the word...

        care to explain that?
        "Don't ever miss a good opportunity to shut up." - Harvey Davis "Gramps"

        Comment

          #19
          Re: Agnosticism

          Originally posted by Denarius View Post
          Agnosticism can also be reduced to hard agnosticism which is the belief that the existence of god/s cannot be known, and soft agnosticism which is the belief that the existence of god/s is merely not currently known.

          Most people in general are soft agnostics, the rest are objectively wrong.

          Edit: Or hard agnostics, which is debatable.
          Narrowing things down to only two alternatives? -facepalm-

          Though perhaps in this instance you're somewhat correct. As it says on my profile, I am a militant agnostic. No one can ever know, EVER. No one has ever known, EVER.

          ...the rest are objectively wrong? Uh, WTF?
          No one tells the wind which way to blow.

          Comment

            #20
            Re: Agnosticism

            Originally posted by ThorsSon View Post
            a) my understanding of the word "agnostic," based on research and etymology, falls in line with what you call "hard agnosticism."
            Except you are using both hard and soft agnosticism in your previous post. Unless you believe that most atheists believe that the existence of gods absolutely cannot be known.


            Originally posted by ThorsSon View Post
            b) I'm not, by your description, a "soft agnostic,"... thus I am "objectively wrong"... despite the actual, objective, etymological definition of the word...
            In order to not be a soft agnostic you have to believe that the existence or non-existence of at least one god is known.

            Originally posted by Bjorn View Post
            ...the rest are objectively wrong? Uh, WTF?
            Because the existence or non-existence of gods has not been proven, duh.
            Trust is knowing someone or something well enough to have a good idea of their motivations and character, for good or for ill. People often say trust when they mean faith.

            Comment

              #21
              Re: Agnosticism

              I'm obviously one of the people who makes Bjorn snicker () and thus would never be in the Agnostics board... BUT I wanted to say that I really support the idea of having one.

              I've always been surprised by the number of agnostics and atheists here and I think that it makes perfect sense to have a subforum for them. I can see how it might be difficult to start some in depth discussion from that perspective when over half the people who might reply would obviously disagree. Perhaps change/combine the existing Atheism board into a single area for Agnostics and Atheists? Just a thought.

              Comment

                #22
                Re: Agnosticism

                Originally posted by Denarius View Post
                Because the existence or non-existence of gods has not been proven, duh.
                Most people in general are soft agnostics, the rest are objectively wrong. -- I read that as, "hard agnostics are objectively wrong."

                And don't 'duh' me.

                - - - Updated - - -

                Originally posted by Rae'ya View Post
                I'm obviously one of the people who makes Bjorn snicker () and thus would never be in the Agnostics board... BUT I wanted to say that I really support the idea of having one.

                I've always been surprised by the number of agnostics and atheists here and I think that it makes perfect sense to have a subforum for them. I can see how it might be difficult to start some in depth discussion from that perspective when over half the people who might reply would obviously disagree. Perhaps change/combine the existing Atheism board into a single area for Agnostics and Atheists? Just a thought.
                That is exactly why I want a place to discuss spirituality without mention of gods and whatnot. I can't post on the majority of things in the forum because I simply believe they're BS, but I can't post in the atheism threads either because I believe there's something out there. It'd be really nice to have some unbiased spiritual discussion without someone automatically being like, "BRO, BRO, you gotta pray to Athena, man!" or what have you
                No one tells the wind which way to blow.

                Comment

                  #23
                  Re: Agnosticism

                  Originally posted by Bjorn View Post
                  I read that as, "hard agnostics are objectively wrong."
                  Which is exactly why I appended my post with "Or hard agnostics," and hence duh-ed you.
                  Trust is knowing someone or something well enough to have a good idea of their motivations and character, for good or for ill. People often say trust when they mean faith.

                  Comment

                    #24
                    Re: Agnosticism

                    Originally posted by Denarius View Post
                    Which is exactly why I appended my post with "Or hard agnostics," and hence duh-ed you.
                    For the sake of my sanity, I am not going to reply because absolutely nothing I have to say right now would be kind or tactful. Kindly drop this, as I shall after this reply.
                    No one tells the wind which way to blow.

                    Comment

                      #25
                      Re: Agnosticism

                      Originally posted by Denarius View Post
                      Which is exactly why I appended my post with "Or hard agnostics," and hence duh-ed you.
                      you established a dichotomy of hard and soft agnostics (there is no such thing... agnostic is agnostic)

                      you defined your dichotomy of hard and soft agnostics.

                      you then said that there are soft agnostics, and those that are objectively wrong.

                      you THEN edited your post to pretend that "hard agnostics" were a third, previously undiscussed group.

                      sorry, "duh" doesn't excuse it.
                      "Don't ever miss a good opportunity to shut up." - Harvey Davis "Gramps"

                      Comment

                        #26
                        Re: Agnosticism

                        Originally posted by ThorsSon View Post
                        you established a dichotomy of hard and soft agnostics (there is no such thing... agnostic is agnostic)
                        Au contraire

                        you then said that there are soft agnostics, and those that are objectively wrong.

                        you THEN edited your post to pretend that "hard agnostics" were a third, previously undiscussed group.
                        I admit that I phrased that incorrectly, I meant to say that those who claimed not to be soft atheists, as in people who believed that the existence or non-existence of god/s was known, were incorrect. Which is why I edited the post, because I realized that what I said was ambiguous and could be taken to mean something that I did not intend.


                        sorry, "duh" doesn't excuse it.
                        It wasn't meant to excuse anything, but at any rate it was both unwarranted and unsportsmanlike.
                        Trust is knowing someone or something well enough to have a good idea of their motivations and character, for good or for ill. People often say trust when they mean faith.

                        Comment

                          #27
                          Re: Agnosticism

                          So we can't even agree what Agnostic is.
                          Greaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat.
                          We suck badly at this.
                          Let's all throw our definitions of what Agnostic is.
                          But let's bash the Agnostic because she doesn't know her own beliefs.

                          Fire fire fire everyone. You are all fired.
                          goodnight.:=I:
                          Satan is my spirit animal

                          Comment

                            #28
                            Re: Agnosticism

                            I also totally meant to say soft agnostics when I said soft atheists in my last post.
                            Trust is knowing someone or something well enough to have a good idea of their motivations and character, for good or for ill. People often say trust when they mean faith.

                            Comment

                              #29
                              Re: Agnosticism

                              I got caught up in the handwaving... I'm sorry for contributing.

                              My initial intention was only bring the thread back to topic, by explaining what agnosticism is... then I let myself get dragged off into a tangential discussion.

                              All of that said,I don't know whether I would vote for or against a whole new section for agnosticism.
                              "Don't ever miss a good opportunity to shut up." - Harvey Davis "Gramps"

                              Comment

                                #30
                                Re: Agnosticism

                                IMO just keep discussing it in this thread, if there's enough interest to get the thread to the point where it has to branch off or recreated, then maybe consider a new category.

                                Just don't like forums which have dozens of sub-sections which get one or two posts a year, it's confusing and messy and turns people off.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                                Working...
                                X