Everyone, Whether They Admit it or Not, is an Agnostic.

[Renji]

This reminds me of a phrase from a book that I read about a year ago. It says that the common ground between "believers", "unbelievers" and those that are "unsure" is hope. Hope in the existence of an after life; that "life" does not end through death and a hope that there "could be" someone out there who "designed" every beautiful things that we see.. etc..

 

[Oneatatime]

Everyone has some doubts. No one goes through life 100% convinced there is or is not a god. Therefore, everyone is an agnostic.

Please Note: For the purposes of this thread, "agnostic" means one who has doubts, specifically doubts about the existence of god(s). If that is not the meaning you yourself prefer for "agnostic", and if it confuses you that words can have more than one meaning, then perhaps you can console yourself by contemplating the fact words do not have innate, inviolate, sacred meanings. Instead, their meaning is their usage.

I'm an atheist so you're wrong

 

[Paroxys]

Please Note: Words do not have intrinsic, sacred meanings. They just don't. So, folks, deal with it. Get over your naive belief you know the true meaning of the world "agnostic". Do not insist that you have a meaning superior to the OP when it comes to what an agnostic is. No meanings are superior to others, albeit some are more popular. The meaning you yourself give the word "agnostic" is sacred only to your mother. Not to me.

I find it ironic that you state "no meaning is superior to others" yet you authoritatively decide that one particular definition over the others. This very action of unilaterally stating: "hey guys, we're going with this definition" implies some degree of contextual superiority in terms of meaning.

This really feels a gross misrepresentation of post-modern thought. It may be that words don't have any intrinsic meaning, but that's you essentially stating a tautology. Your inference from this fact, namely, the statement "no meanings are superior to others" is just blatantly incorrect. Consider the following two examples:

1. I define the word "dog" to mean the same as the word "cat." Clearly we can see how this is an inferior meaning to the accepted meaning of cat. Although this example is slightly absurd, it serves to illustrate a point that I will get to later.

2. Lets go with something slightly less ridiculous. Consider the word "stand." If I were to say "stand down" do I mean "a group of trees down" (a secondary definition of the word stand is "a group of trees") or do I mean "to cease hostile activity?" One meaning here makes absolutely no sense, and hence is inferior to the other definition.

So yes, words may not have intrinsic meaning, but clearly they do derive meaning from CONTEXT. And in the context of context (pun intended) some meanings are superior to others.

In fact...

OK. Two points:

1) I am aware there are alternate definitions of agnostic other than the one given in the OP.

2) Nevertheless, I chose the definition used in the OP for a purpose: To illustrate that if you want to define your terms in a broad enough manner, you can make anyone be anything -- whether that be an agnostic, a religious person, or something else. That is the point of the thread. To have defined agnostic as some of you wish it were defined would have undermined the point of the thread.

You pretty much concede the fact that their ARE superior meanings, at least in the sense that they fulfill certain criteria. Hence you original statement, that "no meanings are superior to others" is wrong, or rather incomplete, as clearly, you assert your definition is superior to another in one context.

You've kinda got yourself in a Catch-22 here.
-Either you stick to your "no meaning is superior to another" mantra. Meaning that anyone can substitute in their own meaning in for whatever words they want and its no less legitimate
-Or you concede that, in context (or in contexts), some meanings are superior to others. At which point, it is up to you to justify why your definition of "agnostic" ought to be used over another. Under what sort of criteria makes your definition superior? And why is the criteria you use a good one?

 

[Renji]

I'm an atheist so you're wrong

If I'm not mistaken, Sunstone is an atheist too

 

[BruceDLimber]

Sure he is. Each person's experience is a measurement of what is common to humanity....

And you square this with the prohibition on judging how exactly?

Bruce

 

[Meow Mix]

Paroxys, you get that Sunstone was using this post as a satire to prove a point against another thread where someone declared everyone is religious using equivocation, right?

 

[Paroxys]

Yes, but I'm mostly here again (as in RF) to test and brush up on my critical reasoning skills. Just because someone is being satirical doesn't necessarily mean they're not erroneous.

 

[McBell]

And you square this with the prohibition on judging how exactly?

Bruce

What "prohibition on judging"?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

And if an Atheist is honest, and using critical reasoning skills, then they are willing to admit that Hard-Atheism is an article of faith not rationality.

We lack the necessary scope to have any evidence of whether or not the universe was created (let alone reality), and as such any definitive statements about the presence or absence of anything outside the universe is an article of faith.

MTF

 

[Meow Mix]

And if an Atheist is honest, and using critical reasoning skills, then they are willing to admit that Hard-Atheism is an article of faith not rationality.

We lack the necessary scope to have any evidence of whether or not the universe was created (let alone reality), and as such any definitive statements about the presence or absence of anything outside the universe is an article of faith.

MTF

This is true for generalities, but if a proposed god concept has explicit contradictions then we can say with certainty that it doesn't -- and can't -- exist.

For instance, if someone were to propose that God is a Euclidean square-circle, we'd be totally justified in asserting that such a being can't exist since it's inherently contradictory.

It's a different story when we're just talking about gods in general -- that's not specific enough to spot contradictions, so indeed we must withhold judgement on the general concept of gods. Specific ones, though, are fair game for critical inquiry.

 

[outhouse]

Everyone has some doubts. No one goes through life 100% convinced there is or is not a god. Therefore, everyone is an agnostic.

Please Note: For the purposes of this thread, "agnostic" means one who has doubts, specifically doubts about the existence of god(s). If that is not the meaning you yourself prefer for "agnostic", and if it confuses you that words can have more than one meaning, then perhaps you can console yourself by contemplating the fact words do not have innate, inviolate, sacred meanings. Instead, their meaning is their usage.

horse pucky


reminds me of how engineers overthink and ruin simple tasks

 

[ChristineES]

Is questioning something the same thing as doubting it?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

This is true for generalities, but if a proposed god concept has explicit contradictions then we can say with certainty that it doesn't -- and can't -- exist.

For instance, if someone were to propose that God is a Euclidean square-circle, we'd be totally justified in asserting that such a being can't exist since it's inherently contradictory.

It's a different story when we're just talking about gods in general -- that's not specific enough to spot contradictions, so indeed we must withhold judgement on the general concept of gods. Specific ones, though, are fair game for critical inquiry.

Actually, no we would not, but that is a topic I think for private messages or perhaps another thread.

Suffice it to say: a contradictory feature or capacity for contradiction merely establishes that such a being could not be limited to the bounds of our reality. But it is a well-established feature of logic that the universe of discourse does not need to have the same limitations all of its members have (reality as a totality might not be so limited) nor does something which exists outside of a system need to have its same limitations (if "God" or whatever you want to call this "thing" exists outside reality or is somehow superior to it, then contradiction need not mean anything).

Also part of the problem is just how limited we actually are. Just because we can't conceive of how something could be the case does not mean that it is not in fact possible. That's the reason why it bugs me to no end when people bring up the example of "God creating a rock." That establishes only that humans lack imagination... True violation of the principle of identity is... problematic, but again few people actually want to debate me in that regard.

For sake of personal research you may want to look up Dialetheism (not that I actually support it; but when arguing from such cosmic ignorance as we do it would be remiss for us to dismiss it out of hand).

MTF

 

[Meow Mix]

Actually, no we would not, but that is a topic I think for private messages or perhaps another thread.

Suffice it to say: a contradictory feature or capacity for contradiction merely establishes that such a being could not be limited to the bounds of our reality. But it is a well-established feature of logic that the universe of discourse does not need to have the same limitations all of its members have (reality as a totality might not be so limited) nor does something which exists outside of a system need to have its same limitations (if "God" or whatever you want to call this "thing" exists outside reality or is somehow superior to it, then contradiction need not mean anything).

Also part of the problem is just how limited we actually are. Just because we can't conceive of how something could be the case does not mean that it is not in fact possible. That's the reason why it bugs me to no end when people bring up the example of "God creating a rock." That establishes only that humans lack imagination... True violation of the principle of identity is... problematic, but again few people actually want to debate me in that regard.

For sake of personal research you may want to look up Dialetheism (not that I actually support it; but when arguing from such cosmic ignorance as we do it would be remiss for us to dismiss it out of hand).

MTF

I'm familiar with dialetheism (and other forms of paraconsistent logics). I'd enjoy a good debate on this matter, as I wholly disagree with what you've said here. Logic isn't something that can be "transcended," and a contradiction most assuredly means that a proposition can't be actualized. Would you rather debate this in a one on one or in PMs?

 

[michel]

Everyone has some doubts. No one goes through life 100% convinced there is or is not a god. Therefore, everyone is an agnostic.

Please Note: For the purposes of this thread, "agnostic" means one who has doubts, specifically doubts about the existence of god(s). If that is not the meaning you yourself prefer for "agnostic", and if it confuses you that words can have more than one meaning, then perhaps you can console yourself by contemplating the fact words do not have innate, inviolate, sacred meanings. Instead, their meaning is their usage.

You may have a point; on the other hand, I have asked atheists how they would react if they were faced by Jesus Christ - most have (rather obviously) admitted that they would change their minds...........

 

[Meow Mix]

You may have a point; on the other hand, I have asked atheists how they would react if they were faced by Jesus Christ - most have (rather obviously) admitted that they would change their minds...........

What's strange about that? Normally people revise beliefs in the face of new evidence. At least someone is rational to wait for evidence before forming a belief.

 

[Paroxys]

Actually, no we would not, but that is a topic I think for private messages or perhaps another thread.

Suffice it to say: a contradictory feature or capacity for contradiction merely establishes that such a being could not be limited to the bounds of our reality. But it is a well-established feature of logic that the universe of discourse does not need to have the same limitations all of its members have (reality as a totality might not be so limited) nor does something which exists outside of a system need to have its same limitations (if "God" or whatever you want to call this "thing" exists outside reality or is somehow superior to it, then contradiction need not mean anything).

Also part of the problem is just how limited we actually are. Just because we can't conceive of how something could be the case does not mean that it is not in fact possible. That's the reason why it bugs me to no end when people bring up the example of "God creating a rock." That establishes only that humans lack imagination... True violation of the principle of identity is... problematic, but again few people actually want to debate me in that regard.

For sake of personal research you may want to look up Dialetheism (not that I actually support it; but when arguing from such cosmic ignorance as we do it would be remiss for us to dismiss it out of hand).

MTF

I'm familiar with dialetheism (and other forms of paraconsistent logics). I'd enjoy a good debate on this matter, as I wholly disagree with what you've said here. Logic isn't something that can be "transcended," and a contradiction most assuredly means that a proposition can't be actualized. Would you rather debate this in a one on one or in PMs?

Threadify plz.

 

[Storm]

Yes, but I'm mostly here again (as in RF) to test and brush up on my critical reasoning skills. Just because someone is being satirical doesn't necessarily mean they're not erroneous.

Unless erroneous logic is the target.....

 

[YmirGF]

Please Note: Words do not have intrinsic, sacred meanings. They just don't. So, folks, deal with it. Get over your naive belief you know the true meaning of the world "agnostic". Do not insist that you have a meaning superior to the OP when it comes to what an agnostic is. No meanings are superior to others, albeit some are more popular. The meaning you yourself give the word "agnostic" is sacred only to your mother. Not to me.

This strikes me as being hilarious, Phil. Good one.

Oddly, I've had conversations with some lately that have gone like that.

... following this narrow definition, albeit one agreed to by talking fish, though there is some talk of cat's not being a party to the discussion, I would, necessarily, have to agree that I am agnostic, even though, I'm not really. :run:

Ah, the little things we amuse ourselves with to pass the time...

 

[Katzpur]

Everyone has some doubts. No one goes through life 100% convinced there is or is not a god. Therefore, everyone is an agnostic.

Please Note: For the purposes of this thread, "agnostic" means one who has doubts, specifically doubts about the existence of god(s). If that is not the meaning you yourself prefer for "agnostic", and if it confuses you that words can have more than one meaning, then perhaps you can console yourself by contemplating the fact words do not have innate, inviolate, sacred meanings. Instead, their meaning is their usage.

I think your point is well-taken. I don't personally claim to "know" anything for sure or to even claim it's possible to know for sure. So I'd have to say I'm an agnostic with strong theistic leanings.