Agnosticism

[IndigoChild5559]

So an agnostic THINKS God could exist and that you define as a "theist"

Like I have said twice already, an agnostic is someone who believes we cannot KNOW whether God exists or not. It doesn't mean they don't make a choice how to live their lives, either as though God does not exist, or as though he does. Some agnostics are agnostic theists like me, but I would say that most agnostic are agnostic atheists.

Did you bother to watch the video I offered you on the different types of atheists?

I also uploaded an entire thread on agnostic theism that you might want to visit:

Agnostic Theism

Are there any other Agnostic Theists around? I'd like to meet you. And for those of you that are not, what do you think of Agnostic Theism? I originally wrote the following in another post to reply to an individual's question. I would like to paste it here because it really does a good job...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

And here Dawkins is wrong. The question isn't scientifically decidable, as the proposition "isn't even wrong". Without a definition, the proposition can't be examined. With a definition, the majority of believers will say: "the god you have just disproved isn't my god - so you haven't disproved god.".

I think it is impossible to disprove a god but if a god exists and does interact with this world it is possible that using science could detect that god.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think it is impossible to disprove a god but if a god exists and does interact with this world it is possible that using science could detect that god.

It all depends on the nature of the god. In the case of my God, he is not part of the natural world. He has no body nor form. He is not made of either matter or energy. He exists outside of space and time. Thus, there is zero chance science could ever provide proof either that he exists or doesn't exist.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It all depends on the nature of the god. In the case of my God, he is not part of the natural world. He has no body nor form. He is not made of either matter or energy. He exists outside of space and time. Thus, there is zero chance science could ever provide proof either that he exists or doesn't exist.

Then what makes you think such a god is real aside from the reality within the cerebellum?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Then what makes you think such a god is real aside from the reality within the cerebellum?

That would be a totally different topic. If you wish, you can read the thread I began about agnostic theism.

 

[Secret Chief]

Is there such a thing as an Agnostic way of life?

I don't know.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That would be a totally different topic. If you wish, you can read the thread I began about agnostic theism.

Such things should be scientifically open to to those who can provide adequate proof of such things. That's what agnosticism is about.

Not believing or disbelieving itself, but the willingness to allow new information to surface that supports or negates ones views if one can do so.

It's why I like the category of temporary agnosticism as defined in Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It all depends on the nature of the god. In the case of my God, he is not part of the natural world. He has no body nor form. He is not made of either matter or energy. He exists outside of space and time. Thus, there is zero chance science could ever provide proof either that he exists or doesn't exist.

Sounds like there's also zero chance that belief in such a god could ever be rationally justified.

It's one thing for an agnostic to be a theist out of abstract, mostly-irrelevant curiosity ("there's no way to know, but I guess I come down more on the 'theist' side"), but it's another for them to take the leap to being a full-fledged member of a theistic religion ("there's no reason to believe that any gods exist, but I'll put my money on this particular god as opposed to all the others, and build my life around the idea that a bunch of claims about that god - which can't be justified at all if we can't even say that the god exists - are true").

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It all depends on the nature of the god. In the case of my God, he is not part of the natural world. He has no body nor form. He is not made of either matter or energy. He exists outside of space and time. Thus, there is zero chance science could ever provide proof either that he exists or doesn't exist.

Does he interact with the world?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like I have said twice already, an agnostic is someone who believes we cannot KNOW whether God exists or not. It doesn't mean they don't make a choice how to live their lives, either as though God does not exist, or as though he does. Some agnostics are agnostic theists like me, but I would say that most agnostic are agnostic atheists.

Did you bother to watch the video I offered you on the different types of atheists?

I also uploaded an entire thread on agnostic theism that you might want to visit:

Agnostic Theism

Are there any other Agnostic Theists around? I'd like to meet you. And for those of you that are not, what do you think of Agnostic Theism? I originally wrote the following in another post to reply to an individual's question. I would like to paste it here because it really does a good job...

www.religiousforums.com

"Living as if God exists" isn't theism; it's atheism cosplaying as theism.

At any given point in time, for any given person, there's one answer to the question "how many gods do you believe in?" This person's answer might change from time to time, and a person can occupy their answer with higher or lower levels of certainty, but theists are people who believe in at least one god, not people who "live as if" at least one god exists.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

"Living as if God exists" isn't theism;

Yes it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes it is.

Is this what you feel like you need to tell yourself?

Theism is belief in a god or gods. There's a difference between feigning belief and actual belief.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is this what you feel like you need to tell yourself?

Theism is belief in a god or gods. There's a difference between feigning belief and actual belief.

You don't know what you are saying. I think you should read my thread on agnostic theism. There is more than one reason people believe things. The fact that I don't fit into your preconceived boxes shouldn't deter you from learning something new.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't know what you are saying.

Oh, I do.

I think you should read my thread on agnostic theism. There is more than one reason people believe things.

But here's the thing: whatever the reason a person has behind their belief, it is their belief.

The fact that I don't fit into your preconceived boxes shouldn't deter you from learning something new.

If you don't actually believe in your God but you've decided to act like you do, then you do fit into a box: atheist. Maybe a confused atheist, but still an atheist.

OTOH, if you do actually believe in your God despite proclaiming that there's no justification to conclude that it exists, then you fit into another box: theist. Maybe a confused theist, but still a theist.

You know best which case applies.

 

[Heyo]

Is this what you feel like you need to tell yourself?

Theism is belief in a god or gods. There's a difference between feigning belief and actual belief.

And there is a difference between zealously believing in god and believing in god but knowing that that belief isn't rationally justified.

My debates with theists are usually about epistemology. Once the theist has accepted that his belief is just a belief and not knowledge, the debate is over.
This has mostly practical reasons. Without the claim of knowledge, the theist has no basis to demand any privileges, and that's all I care about. Where I live (and I like it that way), people have a right to believe what they want.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OTOH, if you do actually believe in your God

I don't KNOW. i do BELIEVE. There is a difference.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't KNOW. i do BELIEVE. There is a difference.

Okay then. Why all the stuff about living "as if" you believe, then?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Okay then. Why all the stuff about living "as if" you believe, then?

Just read what I write without preconceived notions. Every agnostic, while they may not know, has to make a choice in how they live their life. They can either choose to live as though there is a God, or they can choose to live as though there is no God. In my case, because I intuit agency, I choose to live as though God exists. I may not KNOW, but I BELIEVE. And that, sir, is what agnostic theism is.

It is customary for open and honest people, when they encounter something or someone that doesn't fit into their boxes, to form a new box.

 

[Ignatius A]

I think you've seriously misjudged the situation here. I'm trying to coax a coherent thought out of you, giving you some pretty serious benefit of the doubt that you even have a coherent thought to be coaxed out. You aren't in a position to give anyone else snark... not if you want to be taken seriously, anyhow.



No. Agnosticism isn't a response to the question of whether God exists.

Atheism is about a person's answer to one question ("how many gods do you believe in?") and agnosticism is about a related but separate question ("what's your approach for figuring out which gods should be believed in?").

Agnostic atheists are more common, but agnostics can be theists or atheists. Theists can be agnostic or not. Atheists can be agnostic or not.

Right and a vaccine no longer needs to prevent a disease in order to be called a vaccine because the actual definition was inconvenient. BTW I have no need of your "benefit of the doubt" no matter how serious it is.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Right and a vaccine no longer needs to prevent a disease in order to be called a vaccine because the actual definition was inconvenient. BTW I have no need of your "benefit of the doubt" no matter how serious it is.

Vaccines do reduce the incidence of infection. Now some work better than others. For example, two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles but only 88% effective against mumps.