Agnostics: The Answer

[lamplighter]

Theologically an Agnostic knows that at least one's self is currently incapable of determining the existence or lack thereof of some sort of Higher Power but will humanity ever answer the question once and for all or do you think it's answerable already and only knowable by the individual? Though ultimately everyone will find out in death, the only problem is that if your an atheist and your right there is the technical dilemma that knowing your right would require consciousness and since that fades out with death an atheist wouldn't actually have the peace of mind of knowing for sure they were in fact right. So I suppose the real question is whether or not your a Strong or Weak Agnostic and why.

 

[Willamena]

It's the answer that serves until you get the next answer.

So I suppose the real question is whether or not your a Strong or Weak Agnostic and why.

Both, and neither. I'm just me.

 

[Francine]

Though ultimately everyone will find out in death, the only problem is that if your an atheist and your right there is the technical dilemma that knowing your right would require consciousness and since that fades out with death an atheist wouldn't actually have the peace of mind of knowing for sure they were in fact right.

What is more mentally peaceful than no thoughts at all?

 

[sojourner]

Theologically an Agnostic knows that at least one's self is currently incapable of determining the existence or lack thereof of some sort of Higher Power but will humanity ever answer the question once and for all or do you think it's answerable already and only knowable by the individual? Though ultimately everyone will find out in death, the only problem is that if your an atheist and your right there is the technical dilemma that knowing your right would require consciousness and since that fades out with death an atheist wouldn't actually have the peace of mind of knowing for sure they were in fact right. So I suppose the real question is whether or not your a Strong or Weak Agnostic and why.

Unfortunately, Agnosis is based upon knowing (or a lack thereof.) Theism is based upon faith. It's unimortant for us to know. It's of supreme importance for us to believe, and act out that belief.

 

[doppelganger]

The answer's not really the problem. I can't make any sense out what the question is that we are all pretending we can answer. I find many people think they know what the question is, but from my perspective, I've yet to find anyone who has completely thought it through who thinks they know what it means to ask "Does 'God' exist?"

 

[angellous_evangellous]

***MOD ADVISORY***

Please remember that this is a same faith debate for agnostics.

Thanks

 

[sojourner]

OOps! Sorry! Disregard my sectarian ramblings...

 

[lamplighter]

Both, and neither. I'm just me.

So basically the question itself is unimportant and though you think it's improbable anything will be discovered, it's not imposable though anyone who claims to better have some good evidence?

What is more mentally peaceful than no thoughts at all?

I never said it wasn't peaceful. I'm content with just not existing anymore, it's just that you wouldn't ever consciously know the answer.

The answer's not really the problem. I can't make any sense out what the question is that we are all pretending we can answer. I find many people think they know what the question is, but from my perspective, I've yet to find anyone who has completely thought it through who thinks they know what it means to ask "Does 'God' exist?"

I believe I understand your point there, seems no one can even come to an agreement as to what god is exactly.

 

[TrueBlue2]

Just testing my picture to see if it works!

 

[lamplighter]

Just testing my picture to see if it works!

This would've really been more contributional in the Longest Thread Ever! thread.

 

[Willamena]

So basically the question itself is unimportant and though you think it's improbable anything will be discovered, it's not imposable though anyone who claims to better have some good evidence?

Good evidence of what? --that's the important question. What is it people think they have evidence of? What is "God" to each of them? (rhetorical question)

I don't think it's improbable that "anything will be discovered," I think it's impossible that God will be discovered, because no matter what is discovered it will always only ever present to them an image of God.

On the other hand, in that way God is known to them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From Huxley:

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.

["Agnosticism and Christianity," 1889]​

 

[gnostic]

Unfortunately, Agnosis is based upon knowing (or a lack thereof.) Theism is based upon faith. It's unimortant for us to know. It's of supreme importance for us to believe, and act out that belief.

***MOD ADVISORY***

Please remember that this is a same faith debate for agnostics.

Thanks

OOps! Sorry! Disregard my sectarian ramblings...

Ha. Actually, I thought that Sojouner made a quite appropriate point and interesting distinction between knowing and faith, theism and agnosticism.

 

[gnostic]

I required to do some thinking before I answer the OP.

So I suppose the real question is whether or not your a Strong or Weak Agnostic and why.

But in the end, I can decide if I am a "strong agnostic" or "weak agnostic".

I do, however, agree with Jay's quotation on Huxley's statement that evidences are required before I can accept any religious belief with any degree of certainties.

I'd have to experience any miracle for myself. I have to know if what I see or hear is real. So far I see no miracle. I do see nature, but the substance of God's existence so far exist in book and in the belief of people, but not in day-to-day cold reality and naturalism.

So it may be possible for God to exist, but so far I'm finding it less likely without the evidences to support such faith.

Would accepting Huxley's statement make me a "strong agnostic"? Or would I fall under "weak agnostic" category?