Agnostic: Get off the fence?

[DrWurm]

Say What? I don't actually see a fence that I'm on. Make no mistake I AM
agnostic :yes: . I AM NOT undecided :no: like so many people's
interpretation of the term agnostic. To put that in perspective:

1+1=?
A. 2
B. 2.0
C. Not 3

Every one of those answers is correct and equally so.

"But what about C, it's not equal"

Yes it is, it's just less specific. Agnosticism, for me, is my choice, my answer.
Don't tell me to get off the fence and choose, I'm already on the lawn. Now
the only thing left to fight about is whose grass is greener.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Agnosticism for me too Occasionally I get frustrated by people accusing me of sitting on the fence like a confused wuss and being pushy for me to support atheism or theism outright. If it comes to that I usually say something like, "No, no, I'm not sitting on the fence. I think you're (both) deluded and wrong is all."

 

[Willamena]

Say What? I don't actually see a fence that I'm on. Make no mistake I AM
agnostic :yes: . I AM NOT undecided :no: like so many people's
interpretation of the term agnostic.

Well done! Stand up for what you believe.

Agnosticism, for me, is my choice, my answer.
Don't tell me to get off the fence and choose, I'm already on the lawn. Now
the only thing left to fight about is whose grass is greener.

Or you could always kick back and enjoy the patch you're on.

 

[Faint]

Say What? I don't actually see a fence that I'm on. Make no mistake I AM
agnostic :yes: . I AM NOT undecided :no: like so many people's
interpretation of the term agnostic. To put that in perspective:

1+1=?
A. 2
B. 2.0
C. Not 3

Every one of those answers is correct and equally so.

"But what about C, it's not equal"

Yes it is, it's just less specific. Agnosticism, for me, is my choice, my answer.
Don't tell me to get off the fence and choose, I'm already on the lawn. Now
the only thing left to fight about is whose grass is greener.

Agnostics are on the fence. I used to be one due to a misunderstanding of the implications.
The problem with agnosticism is that it tends to grant a more or less equal possibility to the idea that God exists, as to the idea that God does not. The great lie of agnosticism is "nobody can know for certain either way so it's pointless to prefer one of the other." This of course is wrong, and it has to do with probability. The existence of God is improbable, just like an orbiting teapot. It is foolish (or simply naive...as in the case of my past agnosticism) to not deny the existence of something so improbable.

 

[Random]

The problem with agnosticism is that it tends to grant a more or less equal possibility to the idea that God exists, as to the idea that God does not. The great lie of agnosticism is "nobody can know for certain either way so it's pointless to prefer one of the other." This of course is wrong, and it has to do with probability. The existence of God is improbable, just like an orbiting teapot. It is foolish (or simply naive...as in the case of my past agnosticism) to not deny the existence of something so improbable.

I can chirp Richard Dawkins too: I've read The God Delusion. Fortunately, I have my own best judgement which I prefer...

 

[Faint]

I can chirp Richard Dawkins too: I've read The God Delusion. Fortunately, I have my own best judgement which I prefer...

Yeah, that's the source that changed my mind. So while being mildly insulting are you implying that you never form ANY opinions based on the wisdom of others? Are you really that original? Does your particular "best" judgement trump that of Dawkins? Please give me some examples my enlightened friend.

 

[DrWurm]

Don't bother me with your celestial teapots and pink unicorns. I've heard it
all before. Know that I am borderline agnostic leaning towards light atheism.
The idea that there is a robed superbeing with a big beard sitting up in the
heavens is, to me, preposterous. It's simply the overactive imagination of a
few people trying to justify existence before modern science. But the
argument of why there is something instead of nothing makes sense too. The
universe as we know it rarely loses matter or energy. And when matter or
energy IS lost it's always converted into an equal amount of the previous.
So by that logic, who's to say that my "soul" is not transferred, if we take
the meaning of a soul to mean; that which gives this bag of matter which
you call a body life, then it's reasonable to suspect that energy goes
elsewhere.

So yes, in that matter i am unsure. However, being unsure does not put me
"on the fence." The whole embodiment of the word agnostic is unknowable. I
believe that we cannot know. Is it really foolish to consider the possibility of
something beyond ourselves? We know more about the surface of the moon
than of the depths of our own oceans. We as a species have not even
began to fully understand the planet we live on, let alone the universe.

We, who cannot even comprehend the real size and weight of our planet or
the infinite smallness of an electron, would never be able to comprehend the
afterlife or a god. By that logic it is clear that these supernatural questions
are just that, supernatural. They are above nature, above what we can ever
know. Therefore, who are we to make a decision? You have no proof the
teapot doesn't exist either. A celestial teapot is absurd because what we
know about science and history shows that there is no way a teapot could
ever get up there. But if i said there was a small gold nugget orbiting out
there, the frankness of the metaphor is disintegrated. Gold occurs naturally,
and there are a lot of asteroids out there, why not a hunk of gold too? All
I've done is changed the orbiting object and it seems somewhat more reasonable now.

So if this is truly unknowable, then there is no reason to continue
speculation, I'd much rather focus on discovering new, knowable things. My
CHOICE is to not let it bother me. I know that it is unknowable so there are
no choices but only speculations. That leaves only one choice then (i know
sounds contradictory). The choice I make is to leave the matter alone until
said matter can be looked into scientifically.

 

[Random]

So while being mildly insulting are you implying that you never form ANY opinions based on the wisdom of others? Are you really that original? Does your particular "best" judgement trump that of Dawkins? Please give me some examples my enlightened friend.

No insult was intended. As for the rest of it, I can't enlighten you and neither can Richard Dawkins; you can find out for yourself because the answers are all inside you. But if you're not prepared to make the journey, don't wonder why you never get there...

 

[Faint]

Don't bother me with your celestial teapots and pink unicorns. I've heard it
all before.

You've heard it perhaps but you, like my past self, seem to have missed the point. We're talking about probablility. As Godlike in his astonishing auto-enlightenment pointed out, you can read more detail on the matter in Dawkin's book "The God Delusion".

Know that I am borderline agnostic leaning towards light atheism.

That's good...better than leaning toward theism I think.

But the
argument of why there is something instead of nothing makes sense too.

To fill the "gaps" in our knowledge with a god, or a teapot, or a unicorn, etc. is not a reasonable solution, nor is it reasonable to consider the possibility of any one of those as likely.

The
universe as we know it rarely loses matter or energy. And when matter or
energy IS lost it's always converted into an equal amount of the previous.
So by that logic, who's to say that my "soul" is not transferred, if we take
the meaning of a soul to mean; that which gives this bag of matter which
you call a body life, then it's reasonable to suspect that energy goes
elsewhere.

Careful...this might lead you into religion. I've often heard theists bring up similar "evidence" in favor of God.

So yes, in that matter i am unsure. However, being unsure does not put me
"on the fence." The whole embodiment of the word agnostic is unknowable. I
believe that we cannot know.

We can know what is probable. Invisible Pink Unicorns are not probable, though they cannot be proven false. Would you consider yourself agnostic towards those as well?

A celestial teapot is absurd because what we
know about science and history shows that there is no way a teapot could
ever get up there.

Exactly. It's unlikely. Improbable. Would you say otherwise for God? Please explain.

So if this is truly unknowable, then there is no reason to continue
speculation, I'd much rather focus on discovering new, knowable things. My
CHOICE is to not let it bother me. I know that it is unknowable so there are
no choices but only speculations. That leaves only one choice then (i know
sounds contradictory). The choice I make is to leave the matter alone until
said matter can be looked into scientifically.

 

[Faint]

No insult was intended. As for the rest of it, I can't enlighten you and neither can Richard Dawkins; you can find out for yourself because the answers are all inside you. But if you're not prepared to make the journey, don't wonder why you never get there...

Sooo...all the answers were inside you? Is that how you learned the TRUTH whatever you deem that to be? In other words you are entirely self-taught and have no need of books (nor have you ever)...am I reading you right? "The answers are all inside" me? Interesting...I should put myself online as Faintpedia so others can access my omniscience. I mean, I always suspected that I know everything so why not? Or are you refering to answers to specific questions? And if so, which answers specifically should I be able to answer for myself without referencing any outside sources? At what point in one's life should s/he stop reading anything new? What should people do instead for their education? Meditate? Pray? Form their own conclusions based on...nothing at all? Does this also apply to scientists and med students? Also, what do you advocate doing with libraries?

I look forward to your reply.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Agnostics are on the fence. I used to be one due to a misunderstanding of the implications.
The problem with agnosticism is that it tends to grant a more or less equal possibility to the idea that God exists, as to the idea that God does not. The great lie of agnosticism is "nobody can know for certain either way so it's pointless to prefer one of the other." This of course is wrong, and it has to do with probability. The existence of God is improbable, just like an orbiting teapot. It is foolish (or simply naive...as in the case of my past agnosticism) to not deny the existence of something so improbable.

Much depends upon what concept of God is being discussed and whether it could be considered even possible to gain some objective view of such a God. Dawkins addressed so very little that I felt was relevant to me in The God Delusion. Good book though and I admire what he's trying to do.

 

[Random]

Sooo...all the answers were inside you? Is that how you learned the TRUTH whatever you deem that to be? In other words you are entirely self-taught and have no need of books (nor have you ever)...am I reading you right? "The answers are all inside" me? Interesting...I should put myself online as Faintpedia so others can access my omniscience. I mean, I always suspected that I know everything so why not? Or are you refering to answers to specific questions? And if so, which answers specifically should I be able to answer for myself without referencing any outside sources? At what point in one's life should s/he stop reading anything new? What should people do instead for their education? Meditate? Pray? Form their own conclusions based on...nothing at all? Does this also apply to scientists and med students? Also, what do you advocate doing with libraries?

I look forward to your reply.

>Sigh< I draw from many sources, of course. I am not averse to the wisdom of others. Enlightenment has nothing to do with omniscience. Books are fine, knowlege is good. But when you tire of opinions contradicting truth, you may realize that you only have to ask the right question in the right way and the answers will spring forth unbidden, from the very core of who you are.

If your anwers concur with Dawkins or whoever else, fine. Just so long as you've paid the price.

 

[Faint]

If your anwers concur with Dawkins or whoever else, fine. Just so long as you've paid the price.

Indeed. $16 on Amazon.com...a small price for wisdom.

 

[Random]

Indeed. $16 on Amazon.com...a small price for wisdom.

That'd be quite funny if it weren't so sad...

 

[Mike182]

Faint, Godlike, you did notice the Gnostic DIR forum title at the top of this page, didn't you?

 

[DrWurm]

Careful...this might lead you into religion. I've often heard theists bring up similar "evidence" in favor of God.

We can know what is probable. Invisible Pink Unicorns are not probable, though they cannot be proven false. Would you consider yourself agnostic towards those as well?

Exactly. It's unlikely. Improbable. Would you say otherwise for God? Please explain.

What would yo say you are? What makes you, you? There is something besides that body that makes you what you are. Why should this bag of carbon, glucose water, and other compounds function together as a whole? There's no magic element that grants life so the only other option besides matter is energy. And according to conservation of matter and energy, that can't go away. I'm not saying that my "soul" grows wings and flaps away, or throws a sheet over itself and scares kids. I'm saying that according to basic laws of the universe, I can't unexist.

That's my gold nugget. I've filled in the gaps with a gold nugget, something that reasonably could be out there. But I may never know for sure. So I figure i'll cross the whole god bridge when i come to it.

But I think it would be very strange if the answer to "What happens when I die" is "Nothing." In all my years of education, the answer has almost never been, "nothing".

"What happens when a small mass gets near a very large mass?"
"Nothing"
"What happens when you split an atom?"
"Nothing."

No, that doesn't sound right at all. Overwhelmingly, most of the answers in the universe are "something" rather than "nothing"

 

[Random]

Faint, Godlike, you did notice the Gnostic DIR forum title at the top of this page, didn't you?

Sure, sorry, we wandered off topic. Apologies, I think the digression is over now.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Sooo...all the answers were inside you? Is that how you learned the TRUTH whatever you deem that to be? In other words you are entirely self-taught and have no need of books (nor have you ever)...am I reading you right? "The answers are all inside" me? Interesting...I should put myself online as Faintpedia so others can access my omniscience. I mean, I always suspected that I know everything so why not? Or are you refering to answers to specific questions? And if so, which answers specifically should I be able to answer for myself without referencing any outside sources? At what point in one's life should s/he stop reading anything new? What should people do instead for their education? Meditate? Pray? Form their own conclusions based on...nothing at all? Does this also apply to scientists and med students? Also, what do you advocate doing with libraries?

I look forward to your reply.

Our reality is based on far more than the knowledge found in books. Imagination and emotion are just as important as logic and empirical knowledge. "Looking inside ourselves" implies that we must discover what works for us just as much as we must learn from other people the knowledge of the Universe.

I'm agnostic (leaning towards neither, but considering myself more theist) because while I accept the logical arguments against God, I still consider God (a panentheistic sort of fellow) a positive force in my life. Even if that force is more symbolic than objectively real (which I consider still a possibility), it is my perception of existence, and that's all that matters. Does believing that God may be possible make me foolish? Possibly, but I'm human, so foolishness is a part of life.

I have yet to read anything stating that the existence of God is improbable, but I wouldn't consider improbability all that important to someone who is agnostic. Improbability isn't impossibility.

 

[Truls]

God is as possible as he is impossible. Problems do not arise when you believe God exists as atheists seem to believe. No the problems arise when you think you know what God wants. When you think you can speak on God's behalf. When you write down what God wants and make people follow it. These things cause problems and thus orthodoxy religions can do harm. And as an agnostic I avoid this pitfall, however, I am not going to crown my belief as the absolute truth. There could be a God and I have no problem with people believing in him as long as it does not interfere with their decisions and actions. Atheists in my eyes are too extreme.

PS Please refrain from saying things like "past self." It quite annoys me when people think they've reached some great enlightenment and become a new person. If you've changed your beliefs thats great good for you, but you're not a new person. You're still you you just believe something else.

 

[Ciscokid]

Agnostics are on the fence. I used to be one due to a misunderstanding of the implications.
The problem with agnosticism is that it tends to grant a more or less equal possibility to the idea that God exists, as to the idea that God does not. The great lie of agnosticism is "nobody can know for certain either way so it's pointless to prefer one of the other." This of course is wrong, and it has to do with probability. The existence of God is improbable, just like an orbiting teapot. It is foolish (or simply naive...as in the case of my past agnosticism) to not deny the existence of something so improbable.

Well the probability of planet earth being one of the few planets that would eventually be home of millions of life forms was pretty low......until it happened.

You seem to link probability with "knowing for certain", I think that's a mistake.