Two Years of Sagesound: On Agnosticism

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

11.30.06.1721

Two years ago today, I was browsing around the net looking for a new message board forum. Little did I know I would find myself joining up with a group of people whom I have come to see as a part of my life on the net. Taking from Bilbo Baggins: “I don’t know half of you half as well as I’d like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”

So two years from that day, and what have I got to show for it? What have I gained from ILP? Well, considering how this thread might seem to belong in the Mundane Babble Forum, I’m going to make it worthy enough to hold its own in the Philosophy Forum.

A BRIEF MUSE INTO THE PAST!!!
While I did make some posts between the 30th of November and December 1st in 2004, they have long disapeared, leaving a mark on 12.01.04 as my first post (although not the true first post) on ILP where I discussed the Evolution of Religion (which I had transposed from a small book of ideas that I was writing at the time: The Book of Gnosis), in a now long dead thread. It was at this time in my life where I was starting my recovery from a severely depressing fallout from Christianity and a brief interlude with Islam. I had lost faith in the idea of a personal god, but still believed in the idea of one. I was intrigued in the ideas of Spinoza and of Deism… organized religion was out of the question from that point on. I’m sure today it would shock some people (like Club) to know that I was once a Theist after a crash from religion. Of course, I had Nietzsche to thank for my liberation, just as he once was by Schopenhauer; and just as so, a great deal of my early posts reflect an intense influence by Nietzsche. After all, Christianity was and still is no more than Organized Paganism… and there’s so much evidence to support that claim.
The more I let my ideas escape from my head to others than myself, I found myself begining to lean towards Agnosticism; paving my road out as I had a first encounter with Pinnacle of Reason. And could you believe it, Scythekain complimented me too!

Okay, enough musing of the past…

The point being that while I started out here as a fledgling Agnostic, I find myself today an Agnostic ever so wrestling with the ideas between Theism and Atheism. So why have I still stuck with Agnosticism after all this time?

Well…

In short; Agnosticism is the Buddhist Middle Way, the Balance of Libra and Justice, the Equitorial Line Between Order and Chaos. It mainly applies to metaphysics and the existence of a deity (or deities), but it can apply to just about anything.
One cannot know… One cannot prove or disprove… One cannot deny or affirm…
It is the ultimate equalizer in any argument, and some have argued how it’s pointless being agnostic since you neither agree nor disagree. You’re left with the option of going to great lengths to hide the true meaning of your words that you end up saying nothing.
Buth then, you have different kinds of Agnosticism.
To this day, I’d like to think that I am a Spiritual Agnostic due to the fact that I’ve read so much about different beliefs and philosophical ideas that it’s almost become academic.

So… I am Agnostic because there’s so much emperical evidence to disprove the case for religious belief but at the same time, there’s the human intuition lingering on a suggestive possibility. The balance between Theism and Atheism is one that I have treasured as I cannot be found in a dead-locked cornered position where my opinion must be fixated on a single idea. If I did that, then I wouldn’t be able to continue being inquisitive about certain things; and it’s that inquisition that drives me to search for the answer that we as human beings may never ultimately find. The quest for the answer itself is the adventure of life!

My question to you, the reader, is: If you are not Agnostic, what are you and why? Have you ever questioned the validity of that position?

…by the way… just for kicks:
[size=150]NIETZSCHE SAVES.[/size]

2

Nietzsche saves, lol, golden.

Anyways, in response to the Agnostic perspective, it dawned on me while reading your post that whatever the exterior label you want to throw on yourself to be categorized by (for those who need to do this) is irrelevant once you pass a certain point.

Once you fall far enough into yourself I think spirituality is inevitable and filling, even if Religion seems simply absurd – even if God seems absurd.

The ultimate solipsist grinch, I think, is not a natural state.

3

Two years, and so many colours of posts! :slight_smile: It’s been good sharing your company, Sage. :sunglasses:

4

I’m Taoist because it makes the most logical sense of the order of the Universe, and cynically accepts that the ineffable stupidity of humanity and its ego, are a foregone conclusion.

I’m also a cynical skeptic, so I question the validity of everything, especially that which comes from other humans.

You’ve not been known for even one full revolution of earth round sun, but your qualities are apparent, and your eclecticness is interesting.

[size=200]Viva la Sagacity[/size][size=200]!!![/size]

5

My “position” is that religious/philosophical labels are one of the eight curses of humanity. We can’t embrace each other while embracing a label; and “divided we lose”.

6

If X does not exist, then “not X” does not exist either.

Agnosticism is bullshit. Recall Tristan’s point: “take away brocoli and there wouldn’t be anyone who didn’t believe in brocoli.”

In this case, one doesn’t need to take it away because one cannot even define it in the first place.

7

It rather depends on your definitions. Huxley owns the term “agnostic”. His definition was that an agnostic considers the two options before him to be equiprobable. As I do not consider the probability of their being a personal god equal to the probability that there is not one, I may not call myself an agnostic.

8

The existence of a god is not a matter of tossing a coin and it landing on heads or tails, Obw. Either “it” is or is not. Is has nothing to do with probabilities.

9

So, you believe in absolutes?

10

You do not understand probability.

11

…k.

12

I really wonder sometimes who knows what at ILP, and how many people are just full of shit.

Mathematical Probability

13

11.30.06.1722

Wow, I didn’t really expect such replies. Thank you all for your comments and kind words, especially détrop for shaking it up.

Indeed… I don’t think anyone knew this more than Fritz himself… The Legacy of the Dionysian Man lives on; and though we know better than to call his name holy, his influence has equated an elation almost as high.

Thanks Phaedrus… you’ve always been one of the people I’ve wanted to know better.

Viva la escéptico!! I hope your days on ILP continue to bring fruit to your philosophical life.

Well you’re certainly entitled to your opinion… lol… I will however agree with you on this much. There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. Impartiality is bullshit. After all, if I truly was absolutely Agnostic, I would be questioning everything all the time, never agreeing with anyone and never denying anyone’s opinions. I am not one to accept the totality of an argument for a teapot circling the sun, in fact, I think it’s extremely unlikely and just about impossible; meaning that while I may hold that I am Agnostic, I am still leaning towards one side of two extremes.

There are Agnostics who are in fact Theists, that believe that there is a deity, but in fact simply cannot know that divine enity as it is beyond human comprehension.

So is Agnosticism bullshit… probably… but unto that, everything else must equally be bullshit, which would then make Nihilism the truth of the universe. LOL! [size=150]Nietzsche saves again![/size]

14

Are you refering to me?

15

Oddly enough, in this instance, no, I’m not but, why would it matter if I were refering to your person?

Would you be offended? Saddened? Tearful? Reeking of the odeous stench of fear? Falling into incomprehensible frightened murmurs? Taking to huddling in corners in the fetal position, whimpering for your mother?

Strange how one such as the venerable and sagacious decibel stands out amoungst the crowd.

16

By you? That’s funny. Not at all. I would show you how Pascal’s rendition of Anselm’s ontological proofs for God’s existence in his “wager” is complete bullshit, which is the foundation for the classical “probability argument” for God’s existence. Then I would point you toward Carnap and Ayers.

17

True story. When probability enters the picture, one cannot remain agnostic about God, unless they are also “agnostic” about everything else that is unfalsifiable, i.e. unicorns, mermaids, etc.

18

As obw points out, true agnosticism assumes equiprobability of events. If you lean 51%/49%, this would violate the original defintion of agnosticism, as I understand it. But perhaps I’m misinformed.

19

Baseless assumption is ever the fools best friend. I never claimed knowledge for or against divinity, but continue to stroke your ego.

Those who piddle away their energies arguing for/against divinity, make for mild entertainment, little else.

20

Mastriani, of course there is probability involved in the rolling of dice and the flipping of coins. I am not about to try and prove to you that I know what I am talking about. While detrop misunderstands probability, YOU misunderstand detrop. And do not come back with some nonsense about “why not teach rather than naysay” because I do not do people favours after they insinuate I am “full of shit”.

Doryd00d- well done for being among the 1% of the membership who understand what agnosticism means. Your next step is to understand that if it meant anything else whatsoever, it would be a redundant term.