Conquer Club

Look, I've seen a lot of threads about God versus science, (either in something about evolution vs. creationism, logic proving God exists, logic proving God doesn't exist, etc.) and really, everybody is just stuck in their views. Most claim to be open-minded, while it seems few actually are. God either does exist, or He doesn't, and everybody is positive they know which is the case. But I have seen no conclusive proof offered by either side, and so what about agnosticism? It seems the most logical thing, to me, I'm sure opinions will differ, that there may or may not be a God, and it is impossible for people to really know what the case is. What do you think?

It's stupid since it doesn't offer any answer. Not knowing for certain is pretty unimportant when deciding to have a life. Seriously, what is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist when concerning living your life? Do you go to church half the time or something?

sure it's an answer, it just isn't as clean cut as the others. and if there isn't any proof of it, how does a person go about convincing himself that there absolutely is a god, or isn't? and you would live your life the way you want. that's what people do in any case.

Snorri1234 wrote:It's stupid since it doesn't offer any answer. Not knowing for certain is pretty unimportant when deciding to have a life. Seriously, what is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist when concerning living your life? Do you go to church half the time or something?

None of the other options offer a definitive answer either. Science can't PROVE that God doesn't exist (you can't prove a negative). Religion can't PROVE that God does exist (that's why it's called faith). Agnosticism is simply recognizing both of those facts.

exactly. because it is a fact that you can't prove god does or doesn't exist, agnosticism is the only belief regarding ultimate knowledge that can be proven. so why not subscribe to it?

Dr_Acula wrote:sure it's an answer, it just isn't as clean cut as the others. and if there isn't any proof of it, how does a person go about convincing himself that there absolutely is a god, or isn't? and you would live your life the way you want. that's what people do in any case.

It an answer to the wrong question. It answers "Can we know?" instead of "Does God exist?". Most reasonable people (excluding Jay here) agree that we can never really know. However, that doesn't stop them from going for one option or the other.

And the point about living your life is that agnosticism isn't really much of a viewpoint with any practical use. It's completely useless oustide of debate, and it's not even very usefull in a debate. I'm deciding between having ham or cheese on my sandwich and your invaluable observation is "we can't know which is tastier". Thanks for the knowledge, but it doesn't really help me choose what to put on my sandwich.

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:It's stupid since it doesn't offer any answer. Not knowing for certain is pretty unimportant when deciding to have a life. Seriously, what is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist when concerning living your life? Do you go to church half the time or something?

None of the other options offer a definitive answer either. Science can't PROVE that God doesn't exist (you can't prove a negative). Religion can't PROVE that God does exist (that's why it's called faith). Agnosticism is simply recognizing both of those facts.

Exactly, however recognizing those facts doesn't do jackshit. It's not a practical solution.

how is it practical to live your life in fear of being subjected to an eternity in hell if you don't do what a god wants you to do, or live your life denying any possibility of of an afterlife?

Snorri1234 wrote:

Dr_Acula wrote:sure it's an answer, it just isn't as clean cut as the others. and if there isn't any proof of it, how does a person go about convincing himself that there absolutely is a god, or isn't? and you would live your life the way you want. that's what people do in any case.

It an answer to the wrong question. It answers "Can we know?" instead of "Does God exist?".

That's true enough, it does answer a different question. But that's simply because the first question is moot.

Snorri1234 wrote:And the point about living your life is that agnosticism isn't really much of a viewpoint with any practical use. It's completely useless oustide of debate, and it's not even very usefull in a debate.

How is it any less useful than "there is a god" or "there is no god"? Neither of those provide any more actual information than the agnostic perspective. In fact, I would say that a "true" agnostic understands both of the other perspectives perhaps better than either of the others understand both of those perspectives.

FWIW, I am an agnostic with religious tendencies (I was raised a Baptist (a normal one, not that Southern Baptist stuff) and much of my moral code comes from that rearing).

I'm an agnostic in the sense that I acknowledge the possibility of a god, but athiest in the sense that I find it implausible. I don't see why I can't have an opinion on something just because I can't prove it.

Frigidus wrote:I'm an agnostic in the sense that I acknowledge the possibility of a god, but athiest in the sense that I find it implausible. I don't see why I can't have an opinion on something just because I can't prove it.

You can have an opinion. It just wont mean anything.

Im kidding. My situation is very close to yours actually. I have all the trainng and schooling of a good catholic, including a dedicated altar boy, boy scout, and catholic school, but at the end of the day, my rational side just wont allow me to fully believe in a higher power fully.

If I had to choose, Id vote for there to be a God in a heartbeat, but that doesnt exactly make it true, and I find plenty of plausible arguments for how the world and people came to be without any actual creator. Further, taken en-masse, and including all the information I have at my disposal, I simply see to many contradictions to fully believe this is a world that any Good God created. So, if that makes me agnostic, then so be it. Most would just call it undecided to some point, but its past that.

I do however believe in the ideas and morals that I have learned though. I feel they are inherently Good, with or without divine creation. The little rules are silly of course however. Its the main principles that matter, and If I found out there was absolutely no chance of the existence of God, I would not change my belief in those principles.

Unfortunately, it is only possible for God to prove he exists, it is nearly impossible to ever prove he doesn't. It makes you want to pray to help out with that conundrum.

My opinion on God and Deities is simply that there is no way of empirecally proving or disproving it. There are logic arguements, and those that are faith-based (On both sides.), but there is still no concrete proof for either or. So I just gave up and decided to completely ignore that aspect of life. I geuss this makes me an agnostic... Or maybe atheist given I do not acknowledge any of that stuff. I do not really know, and frankly, I do not care. At all. It is a waste of time, and it is rare that one will fid a convert from either side. So screw it all.

Dr_Acula wrote: It seems the most logical thing, to me, I'm sure opinions will differ, that there may or may not be a God, and it is impossible for people to really know what the case is. What do you think?

This is exactly how science views God.

(At least for now... )

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Dr_Acula wrote: It seems the most logical thing, to me, I'm sure opinions will differ, that there may or may not be a God, and it is impossible for people to really know what the case is. What do you think?

This is exactly how science views God.

(At least for now... )

I would like to be there for the moment your wink suggests....

"Woops! Umm...well God....when I said there was a big bang, I really did mean it was you that made it...

"Damn...you have that whole omniscient thing going on now, dont you? .."

"Well, what can I say, you didnt really give us a lot to go on. A book, thousands of years old, with contradictions and vagueness to defy any conclusion. You pulled some ribs out of people, you had them killed and brought back to life, you parted some seas, talked through some bushes, made some pretty big flood, and then poof. We dont see you for 2000 years. Your most devoted followers were crusading, and butchering, and hanging people for having a hangnail at one point...I mean seriously...you have to admit...you could have made it easier for us. Maybe have thrown us a bone... maybe a little God was here stamped on an atom or something...or just waved at the hubble just once...

AAFitz wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Dr_Acula wrote: It seems the most logical thing, to me, I'm sure opinions will differ, that there may or may not be a God, and it is impossible for people to really know what the case is. What do you think?

This is exactly how science views God.

(At least for now... )

I would like to be there for the moment your wink suggests....

"Woops! Umm...well God....when I said there was a big bang, I really did mean it was you that made it...

"Damn...you have that whole omniscient thing going on now, dont you? .."

"Well, what can I say, you didnt really give us a lot to go on. A book, thousands of years old, with contradictions and vagueness to defy any conclusion. You pulled some ribs out of people, you had them killed and brought back to life, you parted some seas, talked through some bushes, made some pretty big flood, and then poof. We dont see you for 2000 years. Your most devoted followers were crusading, and butchering, and hanging people for having a hangnail at one point...I mean seriously...you have to admit...you could have made it easier for us. Maybe have thrown us a bone... maybe a little God was here stamped on an atom or something...or just waved at the hubble just once...

Dr_Acula wrote:exactly. because it is a fact that you can't prove god does or doesn't exist, agnosticism is the only belief regarding ultimate knowledge that can be proven. so why not subscribe to it?

"Agnostic" means "Don't know". It hardly counts as a belief or even an opinion.

It's closer to "can't know". Believing that it's impossible to know if God exists is still a belief. And that it's not an opinion is ridiculous.

It's not really an important point, but agnosticism is a lack of opinion. No?

There are questions on which I don't have an opinion, but the fact that I don't doesn't constitute an opinion.

I call myself an atheist (and I've said this before several times) because I can see no difference between the world I observe and one which has no gods. My friend William of Occam suggests that I not invent entities unnecessarily.

I have changed my mind often in my life as a result of argument or deep thought or reading (including on this exact point) and have even been known to admit I was wrong on more than one occasion in CC fora (although not on this point). I'm sure this is true of many others here. I know that a number of those who are most vehement on the god/no god argument tell us that they used tp be on the other side of the argument.

It is not a pointless discussion.

Anyone who is bored with it is free to start discussions of something else. Or just move on. But I would hazard a guess that it's a subject on which more people have drastically changed thier minds over the years than just about any other.

I'd bet that some of the deeper discussions have raised doubts in the most thoughtful and convinced on either side too. It's certainly made me go back and read my Bible for the first time in a coupla decades.

But I'm still right.

I certainly wouldn't say that it is a lack of opinion. It's not just giving up and saying you don't care. I've thought a lot about it, and there just isn't a way to prove either side. Because of that, it's my opinion, or belief, or what have you, that either side could be right, and it's impossible for me to know. This is opposed to holding the opinion that there is a god, or that there isn't. Just because it's not a yes or no doesn't mean that it's a less valid or thought-out position.

OK so you definitely don't know.

Keep reading, you might find yourself persuaded by one side or the other. You never know. Or at least you can't know if you'll ever know.

Sure, fair enough. I started the thread to get other opinions, and I'll definitely change mine if I think it needs changing.

Snorri1234 wrote:It an answer to the wrong question. It answers "Can we know?" instead of "Does God exist?". Most reasonable people (excluding Jay here) agree that we can never really know. However, that doesn't stop them from going for one option or the other.

It seems to me that you are suggesting most reasonable people are agnostic.

I mean, if you say "God exists" but you don't believe you can really know, aren't you acknowledging the fact that God might not exist? And if this is the case, you are really agnostic.

Similarly, if you say "God does not exist" but you don't believe you can really know, aren't you acknowledging the fact that God might exist? And if this is the case, you are really agnostic.

People seem to be afraid to admit they are agnostic. Why?

If someone says "I'm not a racist", but in their heart they hate a certain race, aren't they racist? Is it good enough that they only hate one race, so, "for the most part", they aren't racist? No, they are racist. Similarly, if you admit that you can't really know whether or not God exists, you are agnostic.

If a person follows the teachings of the Bible, goes the church every Sunday, says he believes in God, etc. etc. But, he admits that there might not be a God. He wants there to be a God. He thinks it is quite likely that there is a God. But a small part of him admits that there might not be a God. Isn't he agnostic?

This really boils down to the definition of "agnostic". I take this from this Web page: http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html

"The agnostic holds that human knowledge is limited to the natural world, that the mind is incapable of knowledge of the supernatural. Understood this way, an agnostic could also be a theist or an atheist."

Is this inaccurate?

wiki says "It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism, though it is not a religious declaration in itself, and the terms are not mutually exclusive, since agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief."

It seems that at least some people think you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. I think most people are one or the other.

Again, it all boils down to what is the definition of "agnostic".

Snorri, you said "It answers "Can we know?" instead of "Does God exist?". Really, how can you answer "Does God exist?" if your answer to the question "Can we know?" is "No."?

Unless your answer to "Does God exist?" is "Maybe.".

TheProwler wrote:It seems to me that you are suggesting most reasonable people are agnostic.

I mean, if you say "God exists" but you don't believe you can really know, aren't you acknowledging the fact that God might not exist? And if this is the case, you are really agnostic.

Similarly, if you say "God does not exist" but you don't believe you can really know, aren't you acknowledging the fact that God might exist? And if this is the case, you are really agnostic.

I agree with most everything you said there.

And, for what it's worth, I understand agnosticism more as it's defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

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

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:And the point about living your life is that agnosticism isn't really much of a viewpoint with any practical use. It's completely useless oustide of debate, and it's not even very usefull in a debate.

How is it any less useful than "there is a god" or "there is no god"? Neither of those provide any more actual information than the agnostic perspective. In fact, I would say that a "true" agnostic understands both of the other perspectives perhaps better than either of the others understand both of those perspectives.

Because with "there is a god" you can go and worship a god, and with "There is no god" you can go and not worship one. You can be agnostic about it (i.e. you admit that you can never be certain) but that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion either way.

I am agnostic about the question of god, but I am an atheist because I do not believe he exists.

TheProwler wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:It an answer to the wrong question. It answers "Can we know?" instead of "Does God exist?". Most reasonable people (excluding Jay here) agree that we can never really know. However, that doesn't stop them from going for one option or the other.

It seems to me that you are suggesting most reasonable people are agnostic.

I mean, if you say "God exists" but you don't believe you can really know, aren't you acknowledging the fact that God might not exist? And if this is the case, you are really agnostic.

Similarly, if you say "God does not exist" but you don't believe you can really know, aren't you acknowledging the fact that God might exist? And if this is the case, you are really agnostic.

I think my point is that agnosticism is not "the third option" here. It answers a different question because it doesn't just apply to God but to everything in life like sciences and all relgious or supernatural beliefs. I can't really know whether Zeus exists or has ever existed, but that doesn't mean I can't think he doesn't.

People seem to be afraid to admit they are agnostic. Why?

Actually, I think it's more that people are afraid to admit they're atheist because they don't understand that one can be atheist and agnostic at the same time.

It seems that at least some people think you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. I think most people are one or the other.

Yes pretty much. I really replied more to this topic because I thought the OP was implying that atheism or theism weren't compatible with agnosticism.

Snorri, you said "It answers "Can we know?" instead of "Does God exist?". Really, how can you answer "Does God exist?" if your answer to the question "Can we know?" is "No."?

Unless your answer to "Does God exist?" is "Maybe.".

My answer is "Maybe, but I don't think he does because I see no reason to believe he does"