Slightly Perfect
oxymoronic paradox
Sitting on razor-thin fences is an excellent way to cut your genitalia.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Agnostic: Get off the fence?
- Thread starter DrWurm
- Start date
Sitting on razor-thin fences is an excellent way to cut your genitalia.
The people on the fences,
Always have a better veiw,
Than people fighting in the trenches,
(And yes, one and one makes two)
For if you want to get perspective,
Elevation never hurts,
(besides, it's hard to be objective,
In a hole made out of dirt).
Always have a better veiw,
Than people fighting in the trenches,
(And yes, one and one makes two)
For if you want to get perspective,
Elevation never hurts,
(besides, it's hard to be objective,
In a hole made out of dirt).
lamplighter
Almighty Tallest
I fail to see the fence on which I'm supposedly perched upon. I want concrete evidence not wild speculation because billy bob's third cousin's casual aquantance's sister said she saw the son of god at a party make a speach, nevermind that she's been fasting for a week and delerious from starvation . Nor will I accept "Well don't really see where a god has been here so there must not be any!"
gnostic
The Lost One
Of course. It definitely provide a better view.Quagmire said:
Quagmire said:
That's true as well.
Well, the downside to fence-sitting is that provides a far better targets for theists and atheists in their trenches to shoot us down.
So it is best to move around a bit, so not to provide so easy a target.*BANG* :thud:
:sad4:
gmelrod
Resident Heritic
D. 10 (Its binary dog!)
and lets not even get into non-rational math or imaginary numbers
Agnosticism is not about an inability to decide which to play for. It is han honest commitment to holding true knowledge. God can be neith proven nor disproven beyond a doubt. This is clear because so many people on both sides doubt the other. So to claim that you know 100% that God does/does not exist is a false statement. You cannot know. You believe. Agnostics are simply those people who admit they cannot know and have found insuficient cause to believe. I am an agnostic Roman Catholic if that makes any sense. I believe but I also wear my doubts on my sleve. I am the first to admit that I do not hold a posistion based on rational evidence but one of faith (and kinda weak tea faith at that with all the doubts but it is the best that I have.) But in the end I have to admit that I do not know and cannot claim to. In my worst moments I have even been known to deny that true knowledge exists. But that for another thread.
elwedriddsche
New Member
And this is the atheist vs. agnostic debate in a nutshell.
To "have found insufficient cause to believe" conflates statements about knowledge with statements about belief and would put you by definition into the "weak" atheist camp, not that there is necessarily a contradiction between a lack of knowledge and a lack of belief. It is really a silly debate; you are either a theist or you are not (which makes you an atheist) and with regards to the latter case, arguing the finer points of non-theistic taxonomy is almost an exercise in futility.
As others have said, a profound problem with many agnostics is that they neglect to address the aspect of probability. They come down on the non-theist side, yet somehow claim there's a fence for them to sit on.
By the way, to "admit you cannot know" is a statement of faith. It is neither the "weak" agnostic position of a simple lack of knowledge, nor is it the "strong" agnostic position of supporting the claim that this knowledge is impossible to come by.
gnostic
The Lost One
My definition of agnosticism that defines "me" or "my perspective" on the theistic issue, is that I am an agnostic who believe that we not can know for certain one about the existence or non-existence of God.
However, because we live in the natural world, and I see no supernatural, ie. divine, being, then I find it is highly unlikely of this divine existence can really exist, thus leaning towards atheistic side. Unless real conclusive proof of a deity, I will remain in this position. If conclusive proof do exist, then I might lean towards the theistic side, but this doesn't mean that I would worship this deity.
Proof doesn't mean I would fall down on my knees in devotion. I want to know its plan and the reason why he would claim to have created us. If the deity is tyrannical and cruel, there's no way in hell that I would worship such being.
However, because we live in the natural world, and I see no supernatural, ie. divine, being, then I find it is highly unlikely of this divine existence can really exist, thus leaning towards atheistic side. Unless real conclusive proof of a deity, I will remain in this position. If conclusive proof do exist, then I might lean towards the theistic side, but this doesn't mean that I would worship this deity.
Proof doesn't mean I would fall down on my knees in devotion. I want to know its plan and the reason why he would claim to have created us. If the deity is tyrannical and cruel, there's no way in hell that I would worship such being.
Imagist
Worshipper of Athe.
I consider myself an atheist in the probabilistic sense, meaning that I believe that the chances of a god existing are so low as to not be worth acting upon.
In my mind, it's the "not worth acting upon" part that is important, not the numerical percentage you assign the the probability of a god's existence.
To put it another way, I only take issue with religion when it does damage; when warmongers are elected, intelligent design is taught in schools, jihad is declared, and billions of charity dollars are spent printing religious propaganda that could be spent on educational materials or food for the underprivileged. If you don't do those things, you and I have no quarrel, be you agnostic or even full-blown theist. I may not agree with you, but our differences are unimportant to me.
Agnosticism is not a bad place to be. I spent many years there myself, and while I do believe that I am more correct now, I don't think I'm a better person now, at least not due to my change to atheism. So fence-sit all you want.
In my mind, it's the "not worth acting upon" part that is important, not the numerical percentage you assign the the probability of a god's existence.
To put it another way, I only take issue with religion when it does damage; when warmongers are elected, intelligent design is taught in schools, jihad is declared, and billions of charity dollars are spent printing religious propaganda that could be spent on educational materials or food for the underprivileged. If you don't do those things, you and I have no quarrel, be you agnostic or even full-blown theist. I may not agree with you, but our differences are unimportant to me.
Agnosticism is not a bad place to be. I spent many years there myself, and while I do believe that I am more correct now, I don't think I'm a better person now, at least not due to my change to atheism. So fence-sit all you want.
Heneni
Miss Independent
From a christian perspective....it is required that we believe that god exists before god will make himself known to us. The ability to believe that god exists is not our own doing either....it requires faith, and god says he is the author and the finisher of that faith.
So my conviction that god exists is entirely due to him making himself real to me. I have evidence...evidence enough for me.
Now what if...a person wont believe in god unless they had proof? No such proof will ever arrive and the fact that one looks for proof is a good way to know that you will probably never find it one way or another. However what i'm trying to get at is this...
christians serve a god which they have no 'proof' of, no 'proof' that will satisfy the sceptics. And in the same way...sceptics serve a master without him giving them any 'proof' that they are.
Hence...a person that says that they will not beleive in god until they have proof, must not be surprised when they discover that they have been serving the 'other side' with no proof of the fact either.
So some of us are serving the god in the 'sky' and others of us are being used by the 'other god' called satan, and you dont even know it.
Cant be unhappy about it either...a person that would need absolute proof that god exists before they will consider believing in him, can not have an issue with a god using their services without them knowing either. As long as there is no proof...there's no argument.
Why? If someone feels that neither belief or non-belief does not have sufficient evidence; then why should they pick a side?
They already have. To pretend that there is a 3rd option is not ignosticism - it's adolescent posturing.
Then please, enlighten me.
Even the attitude of indifference constitutes no more than a reason to not believe, but the result is no less one of non-belief (i.e., a-theism). The options are A or NOT-A, not 'other.'
Where on Earth did you pull "indifference" from? I choose not to take a leap of faith nor do I try to make a claim from insufficient evidence. As of right now, I have found no evidence to sufficiently support the idea of God. So I'm neither.
Rubbish. You hold no belief in preternatural agency.