Agnostics are pussies

[Sagesound]

12.16.06.1785

@Twiffy

1-None of my post, and also none of my personal reflection as an agnostic, was in any way focused on or limited to Christianity. 2-When I gave examples of how “whether or not God exists” was an extremely important question, I used concepts of god that are very strong in both Christianity and Islam, but never even mentioned those religions by name, and certainly never even implied that those were the only relevant considerations.

1- I never said that you specifically were limiting yourself to Christianity. If you look back, you will find that I came to the assumption, as in, I assumed you did based on the limited information you supplied. If you choose not to inform people exactly what your beliefs are and how they came about, you leave them to draw potential conclusions. I hope that in the future you will rectify this mistake. Certainly you can appreciate the position of the reader as opposed to the writer, yes?
2- Honestly Twiffy, if you wanted us to not assume otherwise, you should have explained so. Furthermore, when you chose to use concepts of a deity, it is best to keep it simple rather than complex. By using an example that led the reader to assume a Christian or Islamic influence, you set yourself up in a closed box. You could have gone simple, using an example of the Spinozan god. Regardless, even if you never implied that Christianity or Islam were the only relevant considerations, you still never implied that they were not.

@Twiffy

1-I was speaking of the difference between actively seeking for knowledge, and between passively letting the issue go without at all pursuing a solution in any form. 2-Since the entire structure of How You Should Live Your Life may depend upon it, it seems irrational, or self-destructive, to do the latter. 3-If you are TRULY undecided on whether or not god exists, it seems the former is the only plausible path to take.

1- Yet again, you made the mistake of not specifying that difference in your original post. Don’t you see? You can go on like this, claiming indirectly that our responses are basically at fault just because we didn’t understand the full concept of your view. Really, it does not work that way.
2- You have yet to show any proof whatsoever that shows that being Agnostic leads to a irrational or self-destructive life. I asked before and you didn’t answer, so I’ll ask again: Since when did the universe have to be so black and white?
3- You did not answer my questions: Certainly you or any other human being on this planet cannot truly grasp the mysteries of quantum physics, yes? Would you then say that humanity is just going to have to go on with its existence until it figures it out later when we have either obtained the knowledge or the tools to obtain the knowledge that will allow us to understand the answer?
You can claim to believe something, but until you can prove it, the idea of Theism and Atheism becomes a puppet belief; a facade.

@Twiffy

(The reason that you have people who really are agnostic but who act more according to the latter is because they think they already know what god would be like if there WERE a god. They don’t know if god exists, but they DO (somehow) know that if god did exist, god wouldn’t send him to hell for disbelief. Of course, these people are thinking emotionally and not rationally.)

If you want to continue talking about Agnosticism, you have to eliminate complex aspects of religious belief from the discussion. Words like “hell” do not apply as they are conditionary to belief… one must first believe in the deity (or deities) of a belief system before the ideas of that system may apply.
You have yet to convince me that you understand Agnosticism… maybe you should check out my thread.

@Twiffy

Sagesound, the rest of your post repeats the entirely incorrect assertion that I’m focusing exclusively on Christianity, and as such is really not worth addressing. Let me know if I missed something of substance - otherwise, reread my article, and we can talk about something more interesting.

If you take the time to “reread” my article, you will find that I never directly asserted that you are focusing exclusively on Christianity, as I used the words “if” and “under the assumption,” meaning that I based my comments on the limited information that you supplied.
I could go on to assert that you are validating your Atheistic stance by attacking Agnosticism as if it were the Jew to the Christian. To elaborate, the Christian would argue that the Jew is stupid because even though to the Christian the evidence that Christ was the Messiah is plain and obvious, the Jew doesn’t see that and they are automatically wrong by default.

[size=125]Really Twiffy, you seem less interested in actively discussing the topic, and more interested in dodging questions and relevant discussion entirely. Have you noticed yet how no one has sided with your argument; that everyone is making points against your reasoning?[/size]

[matthatter]

Here’s what I mean. Let’s go back to what DorkyDood said, about Dawkins’ comment about Santa. This is the perfect example. None of us believe in Santa. If someone on the street approached us and said “do you believe in Santa?”, our response would be “no.” It would NOT be “well, I can’t be certain one way or another” - that’s an entirely different issue. If someone asked “can you PROVE that Santa doesn’t exist”, or “can you be 100% certain that Santa doesn’t exist”, being a rational person, you’d say, no, of course not. There is always the possibility, however faint, that Santa really DOES exist - but it’s so unlikely that it’s ridiculous to really use that fact to label yourself a Santa-agnostic.

This example is absurd; it’s one of the stupidest thingsa to come out of Dawkin’s mouth (and he repeats it time and time again, with different variations).

It only makes sense if one starts with the “fact” that God does not exist.

Otherwise, it means nothing.

Every definition of Santa Clause states that he gives gifts to all the good children, and there is one proof that he does not… the parents don’t find any gifts under the tree that they didn’t put there themselves.

That is the ONE key definition of Santa, and it doesn’t hold.

The one key definition of God, that all religions share, is that he is either created the universe, or he is the universe himself, or other kins of variations that come down to stating that our existence is impossible without this “God”.

Once again, understand that the word God doesn’t have one definition, so it is doesn’t make sense to compare him to santa caluse, a flying spaghetti monster, a flying teapot, etc.

We know spaghetti and teapots cannot fly (by their own accord), just as we may know that if there was a God that looked down on his creation, loved all his people (as we love) and could intervene whenever he wanted, he wouldn’t allow the suffering that occurs in this world.

Some religious people kill in the name of God because they’re idiots, they actually think that they are gaining favor of God by doing this, that God favors THEM. That he is part of their group.

The next stupidest belief is that the only possible identity fitting the varying ideas of “God” is the one above.

No athiests understands the essence of a possible “God” just as he doesn’t understand the essence of the universe.

Grow up, have some humility, and realize you either

a) have childish anger towards religion because certain negative characteristics (that you associate with religion, but need not to, the characteristics exist outside of it) have resulted in behaviors that have harmed you…

ior

b) you are desperate to consider yourself smarter than the majority, so you want to make up your mind on an issue so you can tell other people the “correct” answer when it comes up. You can keep saying the same thing over and over, despite others’ constant pointing attention to flaws in your reasoning and explanations as to why the reasons are flawed.

What is the best way to do this? Find an extremely credible source.

Both God, and Dawkins, are extremely credible. All the other people who argue either don’t have God in their heart, or don’t accept the powerful, perfect, exhalted view of “Science”.

Science is the novice intellectual’s God.

[i-spake]

@Sagesound

2- You have yet to show any proof whatsoever that shows that being Agnostic leads to a irrational or self-destructive life. I asked before and you didn’t answer, so I’ll ask again: Since when did the universe have to be so black and white?
3- You did not answer my questions: Certainly you or any other human being on this planet cannot truly grasp the mysteries of quantum physics, yes? Would you then say that humanity is just going to have to go on with its existence until it figures it out later when we have either obtained the knowledge or the tools to obtain the knowledge that will allow us to understand the answer?
You can claim to believe something, but until you can prove it, the idea of Theism and Atheism becomes a puppet belief; a facade.

You broke my heart with that last one, Sage. But, again, it comes down to some new semantics. What would you describe as proper PROOF for anything? Quantitative evidence? Is that possible in the case of a deity?

And, if so, what could use to PROVE divinity? It would have to be something spectacular.

Caprice would be the new science.

Or could we somehow measure his ability to be so utterly complex, and apparently, eternally so? But how could we do THAT? A God that could create the universe must be several times more complex than the universe itself. And we certainly don’t understand much of the universe, let alone it’s alleged creator.

I laughed the other day as my freind informed me that a group of Christian-minded scientists did a blood test on a soaked host. Aparently Jesus is Type AB. (this proves nothing; maybe if he was Type DE-divine entity—but that’s proposterous).

The scientist can certainly not prove God’s existence any more than the theologian can. There is simply a lack of evidence. And what evidence there is goes against the very idea of EVIDENCE. Evidence of any kind, for anything, is evidence within the observed materialistic universe. Otherwise it is not evidence but merely unexplainable phenomona which certainly cannot be explained with the unexplainably complex entity called 'God.

What could we possibly use to DISPROVE divinity? That, I would venture to say, is impossible. God, whether deistic or theistic, has been constantly adapted to scientific evidence until his role and omnipotence continues to shrink (or deistically stay exactly the same for no aparent reason).

If you cannot PROVE nor DISPROVE an assertion with satisfaction then, as far as I’m concerned, the ‘it’ moves into the realm of nonentity. There is the possiblity of it’s existence, as I believe I’ve said before. But that, in no way, makes me an agnostic.

There’s a possiblity that the sand-man continually causes me to sneeze (even though I consider it allergies). But why would I explain allergies with the sand-man but when I cough it’s a physical reaction to my environment? Why would I bother with the sand-man at all? ----I’m not partial to living in “mickey mouse land” as I’ve been refering to the spiritual/physical nonsensical overlap lately.

For the deistic model I ask–If God created the universe, arranged everything in this alleged “perfect harmony” what’s he doing now? Why can’t I explain the fact that I’m here typing with the same principal?

I’m certainly quite ignorant of all the variables that allow me to do this. Should I not succumb to the God explaination to fill this deterministic/psychological/biological/physical/chemical/phlosophical ignorance-gap?

I’d say no. Why? Because it’s NOT AN EXPLAINATION. It only complicates the explaination. Ruins it, if I may go so far.

And For the theistic model—So God intervenes when I’m walking to the drug store and someone shoots me and the bullet misses? But what if I make it to the end of the street untouched without any problems with a murderer in the shadows? Isn’t THAT a miracle? What IS a miracle? When you almost die but you don’t? But didn’t God also cause the man to shoot you? He’s playing some strange games isn’t He?

Oh, yes, and in terms of Twiffy: you are falsely dismissing the agnostic argument (which you obviously don’t understand).

Also: How can you “objectively think” about God’s existence?

[onlyhuman]

@Twiffy

You guys are all coming from the exact same position, and that position is that atheism = 100% certainty that god doesn’t exist, theism = 100% certainty that god exists, and agnosticism = everything else, most notably including Reasonable Doubt.

According to these redefinitions, I agree with all of you - agnosticism is the only reasonable stance, and the others are ludicrous.

BUT, I think that all of your positions are USELESS. I don’t mean wrong per se, since we only differ in the definitions we’re using and not in our conclusions, and since definitions can’t BE wrong. I mean that the definitions you are using are impractical, whereas the ones I am using are practical.

Any less practical than saying something does not exsist when it is very possible you are wrong. To say agnostics are without belief would be a flawed statement, by simply being human we possess beliefs, but we are simply open to the possability that we could be wrong.

What about you, can you say the same?

I’m not going to waste time arguing semantics, particularly not with someone simply out to start pointless conflict, If I were you I would redefine some of my definitions of people and remove those that neglect human nature and are entirely one sided.

Try to open your eyes before you open your mouth.

[Navigator]

@Twiffy

None of my post, and also none of my personal reflection as an agnostic, was in any way focused on or limited to Christianity.

Oh, yes, it was. The heart of your post, the core of your reasoning, the entire reason for this thread, was entirely dependent on Christianity and has no relevance whatsoever to any other religion or any other conception of God.

You reject agnosticism because, you say, the question of whether there is a God is of huge importance and we cannot be agnostic about it except as a transitional phase.

The reason you say that the question of God is so hugely important is because, if there is one, He might condemn you to Hell for unbelief.

There is only ONE religion and only ONE conception of God that involves a claim that He will condemn unbelievers to Hell, and that is Christianity and the Christian God. Even Muslims don’t believe that infidels will automatically be condemned to Hell.

So, outside of the context of Christianity and the question of whether the Christian God exists, your argument has no validity.

[Twiffy]

Sagesound:

I never said that you specifically were limiting yourself to Christianity. If you look back, you will find that I came to the assumption, as in, I assumed you did based on the limited information you supplied. If you choose not to inform people exactly what your beliefs are and how they came about, you leave them to draw potential conclusions. I hope that in the future you will rectify this mistake. Certainly you can appreciate the position of the reader as opposed to the writer, yes?

Whatever. It’s true that you used an occasional “if”, but what you explicitly did was attack my position for being focused exclusively on Christianity. I pointed out that you were wrong to so assume. Again, I used examples common to christianity as examples of WHY theism vs. atheism was an important question. I never implied that I thought this was the only worthwhile question. I’m not really interested in pointing out a whole lot of blame in this - maybe I should have put in a little qualifier saying “just because I used an example you might take to be Christian doesn’t mean I think Christianity was the only possible religion”, although honestly that seems like putting “warning: hot beverage” on a McDonalds’ cup of coffee. Certainly you jumped the gun more than you should have, but it doesn’t freakin’ matter. We both seem to know our positions - let’s move on.

Honestly Twiffy, if you wanted us to not assume otherwise, you should have explained so. Furthermore, when you chose to use concepts of a deity, it is best to keep it simple rather than complex. By using an example that led the reader to assume a Christian or Islamic influence, you set yourself up in a closed box. You could have gone simple, using an example of the Spinozan god. Regardless, even if you never implied that Christianity or Islam were the only relevant considerations, you still never implied that they were not.

If you honestly think this is a good response to my point, you really haven’t understood it. My POINT was that deciding between theism and atheism can be very important. ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of this is, if you’re talking about the Christian god and the fact that he’ll send you to hell if you don’t believe in him, then by being atheist you’re risking an eternity of torment. I COULD HAVE used an example where “if you don’t make a sacrifice to Posideon, he’ll send you a poor fishing season”, but that’s much less scary than “an eternity of suffering”, and so less illustrates my point. This is why your objection is ill-founded - it was an example, not a categorical description.

You have yet to show any proof whatsoever that shows that being Agnostic leads to a irrational or self-destructive life. I asked before and you didn’t answer, so I’ll ask again: Since when did the universe have to be so black and white?

First, I never once said that being agnostic meant that you would lead an irrational or self-destructive life. What I DID say was this: “if you accept the possibility that there might be a god who would sentence you to eternal damnation for not believing in him, you’re taking an awfully big risk - a risk so big as to be irrational and self-destructive - by not thinking actively about the issue and trying to make up your mind.”

Words like “hell” do not apply as they are conditionary to belief… one must first believe in the deity (or deities) of a belief system before the ideas of that system may apply.

Don’t be obtuse. If there might be a god, there might be a hell - if there might be a hell, the longer you spend not believing, the more danger you’re in. It’s a straight-forward part of a cost-benefit analysis.

Have you noticed yet how no one has sided with your argument; that everyone is making points against your reasoning?

Yes, and it’s very saddening that so many people blatantly misunderstand what I’m saying so significantly. Thank god (hah!) for people like DorkyDood, who, I can say without reservation, is the clearest thinker I’ve seen on here so far.

[Twiffy]

Navigator:

Any less practical than saying something does not exist when it is very possible you are wrong.

Yes, much less practical than that. After all, we state that “we don’t believe” in things all the time. We don’t believe in Santa, we don’t believe in the Easter Bunny. We don’t believe in the Greek Gods. Every Single One of these entities COULD still exist, but we don’t profess agnosticism with respect to them.

Same with god. Of course a god COULD exist, but that’s still no reason to hesitate to say “I don’t believe in god.” I also don’t believe in the Easter Bunny, but I have to admit that he could, theoretically, exist.

Oh, yes, and in terms of Twiffy: you are falsely dismissing the agnostic argument (which you obviously don’t understand).

i-spake:

The agnostic argument, eh? Please enlighten me!

matthatter:

Every definition of Santa Clause states that he gives gifts to all the good children, and there is one proof that he does not… the parents don’t find any gifts under the tree that they didn’t put there themselves.

Oh please. You can think better than that. Sure, Santa stopped giving us presents. It’s because all the parents stopped believing and started doing his job themselves. Now he’s still at his hidden lair in the North Pole, having sex with some elves. Obviously not true - something we don’t believe - but still something THAT IS POSSIBLE. It is clearly POSSIBLE, however unlikely. Just like god. And just like we SHOULD with god, we don’t hesitate to say “I don’t believe it”.

Navigator:

So, outside of the context of Christianity and the question of whether the Christian God exists, your argument has no validity.

Ridiculous. You and others have (incorrectly) accused me of being Christian-centric in my arguments. Just because there is no other pre-established religion where god sends you to hell because you don’t believe, doesn’t mean that such other gods couldn’t exist. I’m talking about the god who is an enormous pink poodle living in the great poodle farm in the sky. If you accept that he exists, you get to join him after you die - but if you reject him, you get sent to the horrible kennel under the ground for all eternity.

There are an infinite number of possible gods who would send you to hell for not believing in them. Just because the christian god is the most well known example of it (although historically not the first), doesn’t mean that my argument is limited.

Now you can say, “your argument is worthless if such a god doesn’t exist”. Well, again, you can talk about gods who would send you to a hell for some other equivalently trivial reason. The god BarfBag sends you to hell if you’ve ever jaywalked.

The only way my argument doesn’t apply is if you can be confident that there is no god who would punish you significantly in the afterlife. Maybe you don’t know whether or not god exists, but you’re SOMEHOW absolutely sure that, if there is an afterlife, it’s a wonderful place and everyone goes there. That sounds like many people I know who have absolutely no good rationale for what they believe, and just believe what they want to be true, so I’m very skeptical that a rational, precise thinker could ever arrive at that conclusion.

[Rrados]

The sheer idiocy of someone with the nerve to call agnostics pussies, compelled me to post one thing: you’re a moron for saying that.

[Twiffy]

The sheer idiocy of someone with the nerve to call agnostics pussies, compelled me to post one thing: you’re a moron for saying that.

Awesome - you didn’t quite match me for being insulting, but given my very extensive justification of and elaboration upon my position, you have me solidly beat in making a (as best as any of us can tell) worthless, unjustified assertion.

Unless, of course, you’d care to try to back it up? But I’m guessing you haven’t even read any of the posts, so it probably isn’t worth your time.

[matthatter]

matthatter:
Quote:
Every definition of Santa Clause states that he gives gifts to all the good children, and there is one proof that he does not… the parents don’t find any gifts under the tree that they didn’t put there themselves.

Oh please. You can think better than that. Sure, Santa stopped giving us presents. It’s because all the parents stopped believing and started doing his job themselves. Now he’s still at his hidden lair in the North Pole, having sex with some elves. Obviously not true - something we don’t believe - but still something THAT IS POSSIBLE. It is clearly POSSIBLE, however unlikely. Just like god. And just like we SHOULD with god, we don’t hesitate to say “I don’t believe it”.

Then where’s the coal? Are you suggesting all the parents get rid of it and take part in a secret pact to not disclose the information to any non-parents?

I’d say nice try if your motivation behind it wasn’t to boost your silly self-concept.

You’re going to ridiculous measures to try to prove your claim that believing in Santa and believing in God are equal.

According to the definitions of Santa that everyone accepts, Santa cannot exist.

Comparing a possiblity in God to a possiblity in Santa are not the same.

Accept it.

And try using reason to put your beliefs to the test, instead of finding ways to try to prove the validity of the things you’ve already said.

But then again, if you were motivated to develop a deeper understanding of something, rather than trying to flaunt a superior intelligence (that I’m sorry inform you, in this setting, does not exist) you wouldn’t really need that suggestion, as you wouldn’t be b) I described in my last post.

[Twiffy]

Ok, seriously, are you intentionally misunderstanding the point? It DOESN’T MATTER if there’s some silly overly-specific argument you can use to differentiate Santa from God. The point is, it’s a bad definition of “believe” to insist that when one says “I believe X”, one is 100% certain that X is true. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but it’s possible that it won’t. I believe my mother is alive right now, but I could be wrong. I believe Santa doesn’t exist, but I could be wrong. I believe God doesn’t exist, but I could be wrong.

Seriously, you’re pulling a total straw man here. Try to see that nitpicking a tiny, literally irrelevant detail is what is destroying your ability to focus on the point in general.

[matthatter]

Seriously, you’re pulling a total straw man here. Try to see that nitpicking a tiny, literally irrelevant detail is what is destroying your ability to focus on the point in general.

If it’s irrelevant why did you use it as an example?

So you’ve decided to not challenge any of the other things I wrote, instead solely focusing on one example I called attention to–that you chose to write, so I guess that would make (at least some) of what you have to say irrelevant (in your words), wouldn’t it?– as if that were some rebuttal to my entire point.

(which is that you are generalizing your own experience on becoming an agnostic (and then an atheist) onto everyone else, and that all of your other arguments aren’t actually well thought out, they’re invalid; you merely chose them to support your idea of being the type of person who knows things).

A “general” point consists of several little points. If your little points don’t hold what makes you think the general point does?

Anyways, just to show you I am not being nitpicky, I’ll actually invest time into pointing out the general flaws that make your argument so pointless.

I think this is a topic that can unite atheists and theists. What is up with agnostics?

When you come down to it, there is almost nothing more important in life than the question of “is there a god”, and “if there is a god, what is it like”? After all, if there’s a god there might be a heaven and hell - and ANY measure of utility says that an infinitely long infinitely good life rules, and an infinitely long infinitely bad life sucks. If there is a god, he might send you to hell because you don’t believe in him, and so you need to understand god in order to have an eternity of bliss.

So who in their right mind would say “hmm, I don’t know if god exists or not. I’ll just go on about my life until I figure it out later.” HELL no! You say “holy crap, this is a really important question, and I need to sit down and think about it NOW!”

You assume from the very beginning that all people believe in the possibility of a God who will punish them to eternity for not believing in them.
This is why everyone accused you of speaking about the Christian God.

And then you admitted that no other established religion believes that God will send nonbelievers to hell, but that you are referring to the possibility of a God that would do this… outside the God of Christianity.

People said the Christian God because you are focusing on ONE single aspect of a definition of God… whether or not God would send nonbelievers to hell, in determining how someone forms their beliefs… and that ONE single aspect is a major difference between the Christian God and other Gods.

You don’t mention any other characteristics of God that would lead someone to believe or disbelieve, you only mention the one thing that makes the Christian view of God unique from the rest.

And you think everyone is wrong to jump to conclusions?

That’s why navigator said your argument has no validity outside the context of Christianity.

You don’t like that? Fine. Your argument has no validity outside the context of a God that sends nonbelievers to hell.

Your argument is only valid if everyone believed that IF God existed, God WOULD send nonbelievers to hell.

Some Christians might believe in God solely because they accept this idea of God.

Most agnostics can remain agnostics because they don’t accept that this kind of God could exist.

Just about all atheists become atheists because their definitions of God include the unreasonable facets that the ignorant theist uses to define their God.

Now you can say, “your argument is worthless if such a god doesn’t exist”. Well, again, you can talk about gods who would send you to a hell for some other equivalently trivial reason. The god BarfBag sends you to hell if you’ve ever jaywalked.

This was the reason I called attention to the Santa example.

You, Dorky, and Dawkins keep repeating a kind of circle logic.

God doesn’t exist → The concept of God is too ridiculous to accept, even if it is possible → God doesn’t exist

“A ridiculous definition of God may be possible, but it is SO unlikely because, come on, it is so ridiculous!”…You’re the one stuck at only considering a ridiculous definition.

The point navigator made is that your argument has no validity when it is taken outside of (the view of God of) Christianity.

If nobody accepts a particular definition of God, then you can say they are atheist in terms of THAT definition of God.

Many agnostics are agnostic because they can’t make up their mind concerning the existence of any “thing” which shares a certain combination of possibilities associated with the idea of God.

The only way my argument doesn’t apply is if you can be confident that there is no god who would punish you significantly in the afterlife. Maybe you don’t know whether or not god exists, but you’re SOMEHOW absolutely sure that, if there is an afterlife, it’s a wonderful place and everyone goes there. That sounds like many people I know who have absolutely no good rationale for what they believe, and just believe what they want to be true, so I’m very skeptical that a rational, precise thinker could ever arrive at that conclusion.

OR your argument doesn’t apply if people reason that they can never be sure whether or not there is a God that will punish them, but they feel guilty themselves when acting in ways that are hurtful towards others. Instead of trying to decide whether or not a particular concept (that they cannot even settle on, as they know the definitions are man-made) of God exists, they do their best to understand the situations of others, and not cause them harm.

Okay, that’s enough. You’ve been given more than enough information from others to help you understand why your post was irrelevant (and very reflective of your own insecurities… but I can’t expect you to understand how).

You can’t understand what some of us are saying because you aren’t at a pluralistic/relativistic stage of development yet, not becuase we don’t understand your point.

Your point is nothing more than an intellectual novice’s take on something which isn’t nearly as simple as he perceives it. I doubt anyone would have even responded if it weren’t so insulting.

You have enough reason to not believe in a childish notion of God, but you don’t seem reasonable enough to get past the childish notions.

You know you’d make a good clown if you weren’t so offensive.

[meddler]

“Pussy” wrote (2 posts back):

“I believe God doesn’t exist, but I could be wrong.”

THIS IS YOUR ADMISSION OF ACTUALLY NOT KNOWING THE DEAL, WHICH ONLY AN AGNOSTIC WOULD SUBMIT.

No one, however, is judging you for being a pussy

[Twiffy]

“I believe god doesn’t exist, but I could be wrong” is the perfect rational position, and is technically atheism. Not strong atheism, but atheism.

“I have no idea whether or not a god exists” would be agnosticism.

[matthatter]

You’re confusing a belief with an assumption.

[Twiffy]

What??? No. I’m STATING the definitions that a) I use, and b) are consistent with normal usage of the word “believe”. I give these definitions in contrast to the definition “atheist = someone who is 100% that god doesn’t exist”, which, as I have argued, is a almost useless definition.

[matthatter]

Fair enough.

But you realize that most self proclaimed agnostics are athiests, by your definition… right?

I wouldn’t word that they BELIEVE there is no God… yet admit they could be wrong

[i]because that is saying someone has a belief, that they think might not be true. That isn’t what a belief is.

“I think a lack of God is more likely than a God, but I can’t be sure” is a belief. And it is that belief that makes the rational person call themself “Athiest-agnostic”[/i]

You defined an agnostic as someone who has “no idea” whether or not God exists. You realize that is an unfair statement right? They don’t have ideas on the matter? Maybe some don’t… maybe really are as passive as you believe them to be, but many have MANY ideas, and it’s those ideas that make them incapable of believing whether or not there is a God.

[Sabrina]

I just read the Wiki definitions of atheism and agnosticism, and are there sure a ton of them!

But Twiffy’s recent contrast of the two is pretty good, though I personally would have left off the pussyistic “but I could be wrong” part from atheism.

So what do you call someone without any religious beliefs, no tenets of souls or afterlife, no religious tenets of any kind, no religious texts, no dying and going to heaven or hell, no reincarnation, no dying and rising Jesus, no Moses, no Mohammed, no Buddha, no nothing of that kind … but who experiences God to be real?

It’s not atheism, and its not agnosticism, yet it also isn’t religious theism.

What’s it called?

(Note: I sure hope that whatever this position is that it isn’t going to get me labeled a “pussy” – I do hate the term, and for obvious reasons, I would think.)

[Twiffy]

Matthatter,

A lot of your posts are, frankly, a little ridiculous - often entirely and severely misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m going to respond to your last post, but I won’t be responding to your posts afterwards unless they ask well-formed questions or make good points.

But you realize that most self proclaimed agnostics are athiests, by your definition… right?

Of course I do. Not only have I made that point more than once this thread, but that was the point of me emphasizing my definitions in the first place.

because that is saying someone has a belief, that they think might not be true. That isn’t what a belief is.

I’m not saying that. I agree that if someone says “I believe X, but I think X might not be true”, it’s doubtful that it’s a true belief. But almost no belief is 100% certain. Almost every belief can be qualified by saying “but I might be wrong.”

I think the sun will rise tomorrow… but I might be wrong.

Most of what we call “beliefs”, we are so certain about that we never really would qualify them. I, personally, am so sure that I’ll see the sun tomorrow that I would never normally bother to say “but I could be wrong.” But the POINT is that, being a rational person, I have to admit the possibility that the sun might not rise tomorrow.

Just because it’s POSSIBLE that the sun doesn’t rise tomorrow doesn’t mean that I now have to call myself agnostic. It’s easily possible, and in fact common, to believe something while at the same time knowing it’s possible you are wrong. The issue of god is no different.

You defined an agnostic as someone who has “no idea” whether or not God exists. You realize that is an unfair statement right? They don’t have ideas on the matter? Maybe some don’t… maybe really are as passive as you believe them to be, but many have MANY ideas, and it’s those ideas that make them incapable of believing whether or not there is a God.

Sigh. This is very ridiculous. This sort of comment is the exact reason why I opened this post the way I did. What I’m trying to convey, and what I am sure most people accurately perceived in the paragraph you cited, is that the best definition for an agnostic is someone who is too uncertain about the issue to have any strong preference.

[Twiffy]

Sabrina,

I would simply call such a person a “theist” - someone who believes in a god(s), but might not fall into any other easy categorizations.