Am I the only Agnostic?

[2dimes]

Breakfast would be a nice option except for the fact that earlier you mentioned turkey bacon, which is utterly disgusting. I would much rather have spam with my eggs and toast than that dried up rubbery excuse for bacon that they make from turkeys.

I agree, it has to be crunchy. I prefer real bacon now but I was off pork for a few years. Turkey bacon is good you just can't be trying to pretend it's actually bacon, kind of like those things you shake on salads. Kept in context it's a tasty treat. Bologna is the same, I'll enjoy it cooked but there's people out there that will eat it right from the pakage in a sandwich.

[Balsiefen]

I'm assuming all the insults is just to try to stir up people to answer. If you leave that out, your statement is fair enough. The one problem with it, it seems to me, is the underlying assumption that facts and logic are the only way to "know" something.

Logically, the most efficient thing for the human race, for financial prosperity, survival of the species, making the trains run on time etc., would be to live under some fascist bastard. However throughout history people have staked their lives on the fact that they know that's wrong. I agree with them, and I hope you do too.

Logic is not the only way to "know" something. As a matter of fact, in some of the most important things in life, it is not even the best way. Have you seen I, Robot, with Will Smith?

Good point but I would dispute that. Fascist Bastard policy has very little logical support. While on the surface centralised power would seem more efficient, to be considered logical, much more would need to be considered: for instance, the one person you put in power will make mistakes, all humans do, but there is no efficient system of preventing these from causing damage. The leader themselves has the potential to make irrational and damaging decisions (such as Hitler often did, look where it got the Germans). Logic should also have logical goals and for a government, putting trains above the happiness of the populace would also be illogical. Therefore, logic from my perspective does not support your view. I feel that those who fought against authoritarianism would have large amounts of logic in their reasoning as well as emotion.

And I love I Robot, and the book too, but the point of the film was that what seemed like good logic actually had an abusable flaw.

Just because you can not know something with certainty, throwing your hands up and saying you don't know is hardly logical. I am agnostic about god(s) the same way I'm agnostic about wizards. While they could exist, I see no evidence to indicate that is a valid possibility and don't believe in them. This may seem offensive, but that is just how I came to my conclusion.

Very valid I feel but I think a supernatural being (not necessarily the Christian, or any other, god) may still have some supporting evidence. Somewhere in the middle of the logic dictates thread one of the more enlightened christians (i don't remember who) put forward an argument which quite interested me: of the four fundamental forces (Strong atomic, weak atomic, electro-magnetism and gravity) the first three are exactly equal but gravity is much much weaker. The strength of gravity also fits into a very narrow band of conditions which will support life and which allow stars to form. This to me is evidence to support to some extent the hypothesis of creation. I accept that there may be discoveries which will provide further evidence to this (though who knows which argument it will support) but I feel open agnosticism allows me to adjust my views as I learn more. I feel agnosticism is much more flexible and true to science than theism or atheism. The majority of scientists I have met are agnostics.

I'd have more respect for you if you were an atheist. At least then you'd be making up your mind, rather than wallowing in an incompetent state of indecision.

This is really not worth a response but I have nothing else to do right now. The statement here is roughly equivalent to thinking democracy is "wallowing in an incompetent state of indecision" because the damn idiots can't decide who their leader is. Why Soviet Russia
and Nazi Germany knew where they stood and had made up their mind instead of being flexible and adopting new policies in the face of new situations. Ha! No backbone!

And to all you folks who are trolling and trying to kill this thread (though I agree somewhat with herpes) I remind you of this sentiment:

[BoganGod]

A lot of religious debate with both the athiests and the christians pushing their points of views. Yes I do view believing that there is no god as an act of faith. Since there is no proof that there is or isn't a god, the true thinkers out there would with holdjudgement like myself. Seems to me that a lot of people are thinking with their emotions. The logical choice for those with an IQ anything above a drug dependant gerbil is been an agnostic.

There is no proof of the existance of a god/gods, there is no proof of the non existance of a god/gods. Therefor I will keep an open mind. People like to be sheep and share common irrational belief with others that is why the choose god or no god. QED believers are mindless sheep.

Howl all you want lame brains. Prove your point, or just accept your need to belong to a flock of mouth breathing conformists.

I'd have more respect for you if you were an atheist. At least then you'd be making up your mind, rather than wallowing in an incompetent state of indecision.

Making an incorrect decision on no proven evidence is even more incompetent in my opinion.

[BoganGod]

No offense Bogan, I think you're an alright guy. Honestly though, why do you grief about sharing or discussing your beliefs with people on the internet? It's not exactly a meaningful conversation with persons whom you can't even look eye to eye. Half the time people are just fucking around and would rather verbally spit in your face and laugh.

Connecting with anybody from the approach of disrespecting their beliefs is an immediate waste of effort. Just so you know, nothing but a neutral stance ever trumps another persons bias or ignorance on such subjects. I don't even get in between or belittle another persons religious beliefs in real life because it's a touchy subject for only them to decide. Only they can understand their religion or lack there of drawn from their individual experiences.

It's an uphill battle trying to portray the fundamentals of religion and persuade an opinion. Unless, you have somebody who is open minded or interested in its practice. Except when you actually make a thread about it, it tends to attract mostly the opposite of that. So it seems that perhaps you wanted to be attacked on the matter because you opened up on the defense. Which is the wrong way to go about changing a persons perspective.

Calling people sheep and mouth breathers isn't exactly going to get you any high fives. So let the people who want to talk about their religion have the time of their lives doing so. As for the head strong atheists, they'll get along either way without the weight of dogma on their shoulders.

In other words, if you were an emissary I would have already chopped off your head by now and sent it home in a sack.

I was trying to be a tad provocative, hoping to get more debate. I agree with most of your post. Seems to be a few threads trying to push the god squad or godless squad, thought I would get the middle ground out there into the debate. No I'm not a recovering alcoholic, I'm a drunk, alcoholics go to meetings

[BoganGod]

I'm assuming all the insults is just to try to stir up people to answer. If you leave that out, your statement is fair enough. The one problem with it, it seems to me, is the underlying assumption that facts and logic are the only way to "know" something.

Logically, the most efficient thing for the human race, for financial prosperity, survival of the species, making the trains run on time etc., would be to live under some fascist bastard. However throughout history people have staked their lives on the fact that they know that's wrong. I agree with them, and I hope you do too.

Logic is not the only way to "know" something. As a matter of fact, in some of the most important things in life, it is not even the best way. Have you seen I, Robot, with Will Smith?

Good point but I would dispute that. Fascist Bastard policy has very little logical support. While on the surface centralised power would seem more efficient, to be considered logical, much more would need to be considered: for instance, the one person you put in power will make mistakes, all humans do, but there is no efficient system of preventing these from causing damage. The leader themselves has the potential to make irrational and damaging decisions (such as Hitler often did, look where it got the Germans). Logic should also have logical goals and for a government, putting trains above the happiness of the populace would also be illogical. Therefore, logic from my perspective does not support your view. I feel that those who fought against authoritarianism would have large amounts of logic in their reasoning as well as emotion.

And I love I Robot, and the book too, but the point of the film was that what seemed like good logic actually had an abusable flaw.

Just because you can not know something with certainty, throwing your hands up and saying you don't know is hardly logical. I am agnostic about god(s) the same way I'm agnostic about wizards. While they could exist, I see no evidence to indicate that is a valid possibility and don't believe in them. This may seem offensive, but that is just how I came to my conclusion.

Very valid I feel but I think a supernatural being (not necessarily the Christian, or any other, god) may still have some supporting evidence. Somewhere in the middle of the logic dictates thread one of the more enlightened christians (i don't remember who) put forward an argument which quite interested me: of the four fundamental forces (Strong atomic, weak atomic, electro-magnetism and gravity) the first three are exactly equal but gravity is much much smaller. The strength of gravity also fits into a very narrow band of conditions which will support life and which allow stars to form. This to me is evidence to support to some extent the hypothesis of creation. I accept that there may be discoveries which will provide further evidence to this (though who knows which argument it will support) but I feel open agnosticism allows me to adjust my views as I learn more. I feel agnosticism is much more flexible and true to science than theism or atheism. The majority of scientists I have met are agnostics.

I'd have more respect for you if you were an atheist. At least then you'd be making up your mind, rather than wallowing in an incompetent state of indecision.

This is really not worth a response but I have nothing else to do right now. The statement here is roughly equivalent to thinking democracy is "wallowing in an incompetent state of indecision" because the damn idiots can't decide who their leader is. Why Soviet Russia
and Nazi Germany knew where they stood and had made up their mind instead of being flexible and adopting new policies in the face of new situations. Ha! No backbone!

And to all you folks who are trolling and trying to kill this thread (though I agree somewhat with herpes) I remind you of this sentiment:

Wow, excellent and well thought out responce

[Martin Ronne]

A lot of religious debate with both the athiests and the christians pushing their points of views. Yes I do view believing that there is no god as an act of faith. Since there is no proof that there is or isn't a god, the true thinkers out there would with holdjudgement like myself. Seems to me that a lot of people are thinking with their emotions. The logical choice for those with an IQ anything above a drug dependant gerbil is been an agnostic.

There is no proof of the existance of a god/gods, there is no proof of the non existance of a god/gods. Therefor I will keep an open mind. People like to be sheep and share common irrational belief with others that is why the choose god or no god. QED believers are mindless sheep.

Howl all you want lame brains. Prove your point, or just accept your need to belong to a flock of mouth breathing conformists.

I'd have more respect for you if you were an atheist. At least then you'd be making up your mind, rather than wallowing in an incompetent state of indecision.

Making an incorrect decision on no proven evidence is even more incompetent in my opinion.

Oh, you have a opinion now!

[Balsiefen]

A lot of religious debate with both the athiests and the christians pushing their points of views. Yes I do view believing that there is no god as an act of faith. Since there is no proof that there is or isn't a god, the true thinkers out there would with holdjudgement like myself. Seems to me that a lot of people are thinking with their emotions. The logical choice for those with an IQ anything above a drug dependant gerbil is been an agnostic.

There is no proof of the existance of a god/gods, there is no proof of the non existance of a god/gods. Therefor I will keep an open mind. People like to be sheep and share common irrational belief with others that is why the choose god or no god. QED believers are mindless sheep.

Howl all you want lame brains. Prove your point, or just accept your need to belong to a flock of mouth breathing conformists.

I'd have more respect for you if you were an atheist. At least then you'd be making up your mind, rather than wallowing in an incompetent state of indecision.

Making an incorrect decision on no proven evidence is even more incompetent in my opinion.

Oh, you have a opinion now!

Very droll I'm sure.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Sorry to split hairs here, I'm not saying I can't know, I'm saying when I know beyond all doubt I will make a decision. I hold onto the forlorn hope that proof may emerge in my lifetime........

So you are also not making any decisions on each and every supernatural claim then, right?

Agnostic = i do not know for sure if there is or isn't a god. I am an agnostic.
Atheist = I do not believe that there is a god. I am also an atheist.

The same can be said for most atheists and quite a fair share of theists too. Agnostic addresses another question, it has nothing to do with being a theist/atheist.

Before this recedes back to insults, could the agnostic guys address this point? Are you guys using a different definition for agnostic than what i said above?

[Balsiefen]

Sorry to split hairs here, I'm not saying I can't know, I'm saying when I know beyond all doubt I will make a decision. I hold onto the forlorn hope that proof may emerge in my lifetime........

So you are also not making any decisions on each and every supernatural claim then, right?

Agnostic = i do not know for sure if there is or isn't a god. I am an agnostic.
Atheist = I do not believe that there is a god. I am also an atheist.

The same can be said for most atheists and quite a fair share of theists too. Agnostic addresses another question, it has nothing to do with being a theist/atheist.

Before this recedes back to insults, could the agnostic guys address this point? Are you guys using a different definition for agnostic than what i said above?

Hmm, perhaps you could elaborate, I'm not quite sure where you are heading. You seem to have it right for agnosticism

Edit: actually I think I get it now, Here's my take:
Atheist: There is no evidence of any creator/god. They therefore do not exist.
Agnostic: There is no conclusive evidence either way. (though different agnostics will have different ideas on how much evidence there is for each argument, I for one am a quite atheistic agnostic, only not to the extent that I deny significant possibility of there being some sort of creator)

[Woodruff]

Sorry to split hairs here, I'm not saying I can't know, I'm saying when I know beyond all doubt I will make a decision. I hold onto the forlorn hope that proof may emerge in my lifetime........

So you are also not making any decisions on each and every supernatural claim then, right?

Agnostic = i do not know for sure if there is or isn't a god. I am an agnostic.
Atheist = I do not believe that there is a god. I am also an atheist.

The same can be said for most atheists and quite a fair share of theists too. Agnostic addresses another question, it has nothing to do with being a theist/atheist.

Before this recedes back to insults, could the agnostic guys address this point? Are you guys using a different definition for agnostic than what i said above?

If I understand what you're trying to say is:

Agnostic = I do not know for sure if there is or isn't a god, so I am agnostic.
Religious = Two options: (1) I am sure there is a god or (2) I do not know for sure if there is or isn't a god, but I choose to believe there is.
Atheist = Two options: (1) I am sure there is no god or (2) I do not know for sure if there is or isn't a god, but I choose to believe there is not.

Then I agree with you. Essentially, an agnostic CAN be religious or atheistic (as well as someone like me who simply chooses to sit on the fence on the issue), but those two groups of agnostics TEND not to be as vocal as the opposite group in each setting.

If not, then I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I'm saying that it's true that anybody who employs the tiniest bit of logic should be an agnostic, but this doesn't mean he cannot also be a theist/atheist.

As i see it, agnosticism addresses the question of KNOWING something. I do not know if god exists. I do not know if we are or we are not in the matrix etc.
As per solipsism, one should be agnostic about basically everything.

However, what i BELIEVE is very different. I find the hypothesis that we are living in the matrix unlikely, therefore i believe it is false. This does not mean my mind is closed, it simply means that until further evidence will comes along, i will believe that we do not live in the matrix and act accordingly. It's exactly the same for god.

What I'm saying basically is that this recent branding of people into theist/atheist/agnostic is wrong, because agnosticism addresses another question. I am fully both agnostic and atheist, and most of the atheist and some theists i know fit in the same category.


Also, just saw Woodruffs post in the preview screen, yes that is basically what i am saying.
However i do not believe you can "sit on the fence". Even if you say you hold no opinion, you must act as either an atheist or a theist.
Do you take part in theistic rituals( both mentally and physically, as in not doing it just for the sake of tradition and spending time with you family)?

[Balsiefen]

Possibly we are working from different definitions of belief?

- acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty
- trust: confidence that somebody or something is good or will be effective

I think we are using the first and you are using the second

[BoganGod]

I'm saying that it's true that anybody who employs the tiniest bit of logic should be an agnostic, but this doesn't mean he cannot also be a theist/atheist.

As i see it, agnosticism addresses the question of KNOWING something. I do not know if god exists. I do not know if we are or we are not in the matrix etc.
As per solipsism, one should be agnostic about basically everything.

However, what i BELIEVE is very different. I find the hypothesis that we are living in the matrix unlikely, therefore i believe it is false. This does not mean my mind is closed, it simply means that until further evidence will comes along, i will believe that we do not live in the matrix and act accordingly. It's exactly the same for god.

What I'm saying basically is that this recent branding of people into theist/atheist/agnostic is wrong, because agnosticism addresses another question. I am fully both agnostic and atheist, and most of the atheist and some theists i know fit in the same category.


Also, just saw Woodruffs post in the preview screen, yes that is basically what i am saying.
However i do not believe you can "sit on the fence". Even if you say you hold no opinion, you must act as either an atheist or a theist.
Do you take part in theistic rituals( both mentally and physically, as in not doing it just for the sake of tradition and spending time with you family)?

Maybe you can act as a bit of both, whilst still not been either an atheist or a theist. I attend weddings of any religious bent. I also make jokes that site evolution, ie suggesting someone is the missing link etc.
That in no way means that I swing either way. Am still seated firmly and painful on the fence

[Woodruff]

I'm saying that it's true that anybody who employs the tiniest bit of logic should be an agnostic, but this doesn't mean he cannot also be a theist/atheist.
As i see it, agnosticism addresses the question of KNOWING something. I do not know if god exists. I do not know if we are or we are not in the matrix etc.
As per solipsism, one should be agnostic about basically everything.
However, what i BELIEVE is very different. I find the hypothesis that we are living in the matrix unlikely, therefore i believe it is false. This does not mean my mind is closed, it simply means that until further evidence will comes along, i will believe that we do not live in the matrix and act accordingly. It's exactly the same for god.
What I'm saying basically is that this recent branding of people into theist/atheist/agnostic is wrong, because agnosticism addresses another question. I am fully both agnostic and atheist, and most of the atheist and some theists i know fit in the same category.

Also, just saw Woodruffs post in the preview screen, yes that is basically what i am saying.
However i do not believe you can "sit on the fence". Even if you say you hold no opinion, you must act as either an atheist or a theist.
Do you take part in theistic rituals( both mentally and physically, as in not doing it just for the sake of tradition and spending time with you family)?

I am of the opinion that a definite stance must be taken to be theistic or atheistic. I do neither, so I do disagree with you on that particular view. I've been called a fence-sitter many times for that, and I'm ok with it...I even agree with it completely. I'm willing to be a fence-sitter on the matter because I find it wholly unimportant (because I cannot know).