Political Crossfire Forums

frunabulax · Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 132

How about a joke to start us off:

An atheist falls off a cliff and manages to grab hold of a branch. He is hanging there for dear life and realizes that this could be the end. As a last recourse, he starts calling for god.
"Please, almighty god, if you exist, then you can hear, and if you can hear me, then help me!"
Suddenly, the clouds in the sky part and a bright supernatural light shines through, and soon after, the atheist hears a deep, booming voice...the voice of god.
"I am here for you."
And the atheist says, "please help me. I will worship and praise you and never doubt you again, I swear!"
And god says, "You really want me to help you?"
And the atheist says, "Yes, please, I'll do whatever!"
God says, "Then let go of the branch."
And the atheist says," What? Are you crazy. I'm not doing that!"

Ok, so it's not a very funny joke, but it illustrates my point nicely, I think. My feeling is, you can't sort of half believe something. You either do or you don't. There is no middle ground here, as I can see.

I'm saying this because I see it a lot in these forums that people will call you agnostic because you claim to not know with certainty that god does or does not exist. Well, saying that god absolutely does not exist anytime or anywhere would require absolute knowledge of evey inch of space in the entire universe (not to mention time travel), and no human being has that knowledge, so for most atheists, disbelief comes from the unlikelyhood of gods existence given inherent contradictions in the concept itself.

Now belief. Belief implies that the believer thinks they have some knowledge of the way things are. And that brings me to the word, agnostic. What does it mean, exactly? The word itself is made up of two greek words: a, meaning without, and gnosis, meaning knowledge. I maintain that belief comes from the idea that the believer posseses some knowledge to justify their belief, and it is impossible to believe something unless you at least think you have the requisite knowledge to back up that belief.

So when we combine these ideas together, we see that the agnostic has no knowledge of god's existence, and so he is by definition not a believer. And a lack of belief in god is simply atheism, nothing less, nothing more.

Your thoughts please.

Edit:
Forgot to mention. The word agnostic is still relevant as a qualifier for either the word theist or atheist. In this case it would mean someone who doesn't know for certain, but still, for whatever reason, chooses to believe or disbelieve (if choosing to believe is even possible, but I'll not worry about that right now).

Shady · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 7413 Location: VA

Agnostics in my opinion generally refer to those who believe in a higher power but do not follow a particular denomination. And there is a lot of those.

feederband · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 4138 Location: Florida

I used to say I was agnostics but it was just a cop out...Atheist seemed real hard to say but thats what I was.

frunabulax · Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 132

Shady wrote: Agnostics in my opinion generally refer to those who believe in a higher power but do not follow a particular denomination. And there is a lot of those.

Sort of like a deist, I guess. In any case, at least you agree with my point that there is no middle ground between theism and atheism. One who believes in god is a theist, and a theist who does not follow any organized church or denomination is an agnostic, basically, a specific type of theist.

Shady · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 7413 Location: VA

frunabulax wrote: Shady wrote: Agnostics in my opinion generally refer to those who believe in a higher power but do not follow a particular denomination. And there is a lot of those.

Sort of like a deist, I guess. In any case, at least you agree with my point that there is no middle ground between theism and atheism. One who believes in god is a theist, and a theist who does not follow any organized church or denomination is an agnostic, basically, a specific type of theist.

Sure the general groups are theist and athiest, but there are certainly agnostics. They just happen to a member of the group of theists. I just was under the impression that you thought there was no such thing.

frunabulax · Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 132

feederband wrote: I used to say I was agnostics but it was just a cop out...Atheist seemed real hard to say but thats what I was.

I kinda went through the same thing. I thought if I admitted to myself my lack of belief, it somehow meant I was close minded or something. Fence-sitter-itis, still catch it from time to time (though mostly concerning other non-religious things).

frunabulax · Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 132

Shady wrote: frunabulax wrote: Shady wrote: Agnostics in my opinion generally refer to those who believe in a higher power but do not follow a particular denomination. And there is a lot of those.

Sort of like a deist, I guess. In any case, at least you agree with my point that there is no middle ground between theism and atheism. One who believes in god is a theist, and a theist who does not follow any organized church or denomination is an agnostic, basically, a specific type of theist.

Sure the general groups are theist and athiest, but there are certainly agnostics. They just happen to a member of the group of theists. I just was under the impression that you thought there was no such thing.

The impression I get, though, is that generally people regard agnosticism as somewhere between theism and atheism. If you ask someone if they believe in god, and they say I'm agnostic, and then you say, so you do believe in god, they will probably say no.

That's the impression I get when people talk about agnosticism. I haven't gone out and taken a census or anything, but it seems that way to me. What you describe I would call agnostic theism. Want to shorten it and call it agnosticism, I really don't have a problem. I'm sure though that there will probably be little to no consensus among agnostics as to which side of the fence they really sit.

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 9:19 pm Post subject:

The typical taxonomy is that theists believe in a higher power, atheists reject the idea of a higher power, and agnostics say that given the information we have, it is impossible to prove either assertion and we should suspend judgment.

Your argument is that agnostics refuse to believe in a God and are therefore just as easily classified as atheists because of this refusal. But it's not that simple. Atheism, strong atheism, goes that extra mile by saying that a God is not only illogical, but beyond any shadow of a doubt, impossible. A true agnostic acknowledges that all things are possible and therefore deserves his own word.

frunabulax · Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 132

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: The typical taxonomy is that theists believe in a higher power, atheists reject the idea of a higher power, and agnostics say that given the information we have, it is impossible to prove either assertion and we should suspend judgment.

Your argument is that agnostics refuse to believe in a God and are therefore just as easily classified as atheists because of this refusal. But it's not that simple. Atheism, strong atheism, goes that extra mile by saying that a God is not only illogical, but beyond any shadow of a doubt, impossible. A true agnostic acknowledges that all things are possible and therefore deserves his own word.

Well as shady pointed out, it really boils down to how you define it. For me, atheism merely boils down to absence of belief in god. You have two claims. God exists and god doesn't exist. An agnostic believes neither of these claims. But atheism only applies to the first one, and does not necessarily imply the second one. Judgment means a belief has been made, without judgment, there is no belief. No belief = atheism (albeit weak but nonetheless).

BTW, what do you think of my avatar?

neoritter · Joined: 19 Nov 2005 Posts: 454 Location: VA

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: The typical taxonomy is that theists believe in a higher power, atheists reject the idea of a higher power, and agnostics say that given the information we have, it is impossible to prove either assertion and we should suspend judgment.

Your argument is that agnostics refuse to believe in a God and are therefore just as easily classified as atheists because of this refusal. But it's not that simple. Atheism, strong atheism, goes that extra mile by saying that a God is not only illogical, but beyond any shadow of a doubt, impossible. A true agnostic acknowledges that all things are possible and therefore deserves his own word.
True, sum it up the agnostic is the person that says something might exist but there is no conclusive evidence for or against.

frunabulax · Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 132

But what I'm saying is that the word only describes what that person knows or claims to know. What does that person believe. If you only have two kinds of something, it doesn't make sense to have three categories.

neoritter · Joined: 19 Nov 2005 Posts: 454 Location: VA

frunabulax wrote: But what I'm saying is that the word only describes what that person knows or claims to know. What does that person believe. If you only have two kinds of something, it doesn't make sense to have three categories.
Reanalyise the break down of the word "agnostic"
"a" - a prefix meaning no or not
"gnosis" - meaning knowledge

So combine and we get "no knowledge".
So, we get to God or a higher power. There is a definite lack of knowledge that neither conclusively proves nor disproves the existence of God, gods or a higher power. This goes with what The Central Scrutinizer and I said. Agnostics believe that a higher power is possible, but do not know for certain who or what it is.

frunabulax · Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 132

neoritter wrote: frunabulax wrote: But what I'm saying is that the word only describes what that person knows or claims to know. What does that person believe. If you only have two kinds of something, it doesn't make sense to have three categories.
Reanalyise the break down of the word "agnostic"
"a" - a prefix meaning no or not
"gnosis" - meaning knowledge

So combine and we get "no knowledge".
So, we get to God or a higher power. There is a definite lack of knowledge that neither conclusively proves nor disproves the existence of God, gods or a higher power. This goes with what The Central Scrutinizer and I said. Agnostics believe that a higher power is possible, but do not know for certain who or what it is.
...or even if it exists at all. When you leave that out you are simply talking about theism. So what I'm saying is that the agnostic believes two things that are contradictory. The question becomes, is it possible for a person to truly belive two contradictory things to be true?

Snarf · Joined: 10 Jan 2005 Posts: 5459

frunabulax wrote: How about a joke to start us off:

An atheist falls off a cliff and manages to grab hold of a branch. He is hanging there for dear life and realizes that this could be the end. As a last recourse, he starts calling for god.
"Please, almighty god, if you exist, then you can hear, and if you can hear me, then help me!"
Suddenly, the clouds in the sky part and a bright supernatural light shines through, and soon after, the atheist hears a deep, booming voice...the voice of god.
"I am here for you."
And the atheist says, "please help me. I will worship and praise you and never doubt you again, I swear!"
And god says, "You really want me to help you?"
And the atheist says, "Yes, please, I'll do whatever!"
God says, "Then let go of the branch."
And the atheist says," What? Are you crazy. I'm not doing that!"

Ok, so it's not a very funny joke, but it illustrates my point nicely, I think. My feeling is, you can't sort of half believe something. You either do or you don't. There is no middle ground here, as I can see.

I'm saying this because I see it a lot in these forums that people will call you agnostic because you claim to not know with certainty that god does or does not exist. Well, saying that god absolutely does not exist anytime or anywhere would require absolute knowledge of evey inch of space in the entire universe (not to mention time travel), and no human being has that knowledge, so for most atheists, disbelief comes from the unlikelyhood of gods existence given inherent contradictions in the concept itself.

Now belief. Belief implies that the believer thinks they have some knowledge of the way things are. And that brings me to the word, agnostic. What does it mean, exactly? The word itself is made up of two greek words: a, meaning without, and gnosis, meaning knowledge. I maintain that belief comes from the idea that the believer posseses some knowledge to justify their belief, and it is impossible to believe something unless you at least think you have the requisite knowledge to back up that belief.

So when we combine these ideas together, we see that the agnostic has no knowledge of god's existence, and so he is by definition not a believer. And a lack of belief in god is simply atheism, nothing less, nothing more.

Your thoughts please.

Edit:
Forgot to mention. The word agnostic is still relevant as a qualifier for either the word theist or atheist. In this case it would mean someone who doesn't know for certain, but still, for whatever reason, chooses to believe or disbelieve (if choosing to believe is even possible, but I'll not worry about that right now).
Agnosticism is the only rational position. Both Theists and Atheists suffer from the same illogical position, stating something as true that is unknown and unproven. God may or may not exist. That is the truth that agnostics can acknowledge, which the others, illogically or ignorantly, ignore...

neoritter · Joined: 19 Nov 2005 Posts: 454 Location: VA

frunabulax wrote: neoritter wrote: frunabulax wrote: But what I'm saying is that the word only describes what that person knows or claims to know. What does that person believe. If you only have two kinds of something, it doesn't make sense to have three categories.
Reanalyise the break down of the word "agnostic"
"a" - a prefix meaning no or not
"gnosis" - meaning knowledge

So combine and we get "no knowledge".
So, we get to God or a higher power. There is a definite lack of knowledge that neither conclusively proves nor disproves the existence of God, gods or a higher power. This goes with what The Central Scrutinizer and I said. Agnostics believe that a higher power is possible, but do not know for certain who or what it is.
...or even if it exists at all. When you leave that out you are simply talking about theism. So what I'm saying is that the agnostic believes two things that are contradictory. The question becomes, is it possible for a person to truly belive two contradictory things to be true?
An agnostic believes neither so to speak. Both are possible, not true, possible. Take another example, ghosts. There is evidence that says there are and evidence that there isn't. But none that eliminates all possibility. There is a lack of knowledge to understand the phenomena of ghosts or spirits, same as there is a lack of knowledge to understand the existence of a higher power.

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:26 am Post subject:

frunabulax wrote: neoritter wrote: frunabulax wrote: But what I'm saying is that the word only describes what that person knows or claims to know. What does that person believe. If you only have two kinds of something, it doesn't make sense to have three categories.
Reanalyise the break down of the word "agnostic"
"a" - a prefix meaning no or not
"gnosis" - meaning knowledge

So combine and we get "no knowledge".
So, we get to God or a higher power. There is a definite lack of knowledge that neither conclusively proves nor disproves the existence of God, gods or a higher power. This goes with what The Central Scrutinizer and I said. Agnostics believe that a higher power is possible, but do not know for certain who or what it is.
...or even if it exists at all. When you leave that out you are simply talking about theism. So what I'm saying is that the agnostic believes two things that are contradictory. The question becomes, is it possible for a person to truly belive two contradictory things to be true?

What are the two things an agnostic believes that are contradictory? It was my impression that agnostics believe in neither option.

frunabulax · Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 132

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: frunabulax wrote: neoritter wrote: frunabulax wrote: But what I'm saying is that the word only describes what that person knows or claims to know. What does that person believe. If you only have two kinds of something, it doesn't make sense to have three categories.
Reanalyise the break down of the word "agnostic"
"a" - a prefix meaning no or not
"gnosis" - meaning knowledge

So combine and we get "no knowledge".
So, we get to God or a higher power. There is a definite lack of knowledge that neither conclusively proves nor disproves the existence of God, gods or a higher power. This goes with what The Central Scrutinizer and I said. Agnostics believe that a higher power is possible, but do not know for certain who or what it is.
...or even if it exists at all. When you leave that out you are simply talking about theism. So what I'm saying is that the agnostic believes two things that are contradictory. The question becomes, is it possible for a person to truly belive two contradictory things to be true?

What are the two things an agnostic believes that are contradictory? It was my impression that agnostics believe in neither option.
God exists, or god doesn't exist, when it comes to belief, one can only hold to one of the two options. Forget any claims to certainty of knowledge because it is unnecessary for holding to either belief. AN agnostic claims it is possible that god may exist and it is possible that he may not, but that is a different claim altogether. You can't believe and not believe at the same time.

Let me try an analogy (it may not be perfect, but I'm going to throw it out anyway). Let's replace the claim "god exists" with "I will get into a car accident." In this sense, most people are agnostic because few people would believe that there was absolutely no possibility of getting into an accident. At the same time, most people would also be atheist, because none of them truly believed that they would get into an accident, otherwise they wouldn't get into the car and drive someplace.

What I'm saying is that agnosticism is a word that describes the nature of belief or disbelief. Taking into account different possibilities does not exclude someone from the inescapable fact of the dichotomy.

Saf · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 377

If you refuse to make a decision on the topic, you are agnostic. It's that simple.

TheGirlNextDoor · Joined: 08 Jul 2004 Posts: 22608

Why do you believe there is no such thing as an agnostic? I myself, claim to be agnostic.

Why?

Simply because while I believe there *may* be a higher power of some sorts, I am unconvinced this to be the case. I neither fully accept nor dismiss the possibility that there may be or may not be a higher power. Be it a God or whatever sort of entity.

It does not mean I don't believe in "God" per se - only that I am uncertain... as I tend to look at things from a cynical standpoint.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5494 Location: Taxatraz

frunabulax wrote: Shady wrote: Agnostics in my opinion generally refer to those who believe in a higher power but do not follow a particular denomination. And there is a lot of those.

Sort of like a deist, I guess. In any case, at least you agree with my point that there is no middle ground between theism and atheism. One who believes in god is a theist, and a theist who does not follow any organized church or denomination is an agnostic, basically, a specific type of theist.
Should we consider it an irony for you to make this thread 'black and white'? :lol:

Agnostics do not believe in God nor do they disbelieve in God. They are open to the possibility of his existence, but objectively agree that the evidence in favor of God's existence is inconclusive. It's as simple as that.