It takes more faith to be Agnostic

[Luminous]

does it take more faith to think one can be wrong?

YouTube - Dawkins vs. O'Reilly, Analyzed

 

[lamplighter]

Dawkins should of just told O'Reilly to shut up, but O'Reilly still did a pretty good job of making himself look ignorant, I don't think Dawkins presence was needed for that.

 

[Naturalist_Atheist]

I don't understand. Can't we all be wrong? I've been wrong before. Not sure if it takes faith to know that. I think it just takes a rational mind.

And uh... Agnostics are fence sitters. Peace!

 

[Luminous]

'fence sitters'? I think anyone who is not Agnostic is wrong, and there cannot be wrong in this world.

 

[UnityNow101]

I believe that the Agnostics are the most honest observers of the world around them. They, on one hand, understand that there could be a creator which began the cycle of life, yet on the other question the noticeable absence of this same creator within this material world. It is a beautiful and humble observation to admit that you do not know the complete reality of the Universe and are able to listen to all sides of the debate, without needing to jump to either extreme end of the spectrum. We need a little more "I am not sure" in society today and a little less "I know the truth of the matter."

 

[ifndef]

I believe that the Agnostics are the most honest observers of the world around them. They, on one hand, understand that there could be a creator which began the cycle of life, yet on the other question the noticeable absence of this same creator within this material world. It is a beautiful and humble observation to admit that you do not know the complete reality of the Universe and are able to listen to all sides of the debate, without needing to jump to either extreme end of the spectrum. We need a little more "I am not sure" in society today and a little less "I know the truth of the matter."

Weak atheism shares all these traits. Weak atheists do not claim to know anything about the existence of God. They simply reject the claims made by all theists. Too many people think that atheism is an extreme end of the spectrum, and it isn't. It is a very rational and reasonable position.

I am open to the idea that there COULD be a creator, but because of the lack of evidence of such an existence at this time... it does not warrant my belief.

 

[TheColourBlue]

I actually think it maybe takes more 'faith' to be completely an atheist -- to say that God does not exist for SURE (hard atheism) is a position I can't personally hold, even though I am a non-theist (agnostic, more or less) and a secular humanist. I truly, honestly "don't know" whether a creator exists or not..... but if one does, he/she/it has a good bit of explaining to do.... Really, because I don't think we CAN know 'for sure', I've found it best to just focus on those who are here and around us now, and help out as best we can. Even if there is something supernatural out there, it's human effort that seems to make the biggest difference here.

 

[jrbogie]

does it take more faith to think one can be wrong?

YouTube - Dawkins vs. O'Reilly, Analyzed

as an agnostic i cannot be wrong as agnostics think that the human mind is not capable of knowing of gods, the afterlife or other supernatural phenomena. since i can never know, i can never know wrongly. simple really.

 

[rageoftyrael]

an agnostic does not believe that other people are wrong, as far as i know.
We merely believe that we don't know, some of us believe it is unknowable, some(like myself) believe it is knowable, but unlikely to be known. I am willing to admit the possible validity of any religion, so how can i be wrong?

Basically, an agnostic says, i don't know, and usually leaves it at that. We may have a belief to add to that, like, i don't know, but im inclined to disbelieve. So, how can you be wrong if you are on the few that say you don't know? And yes, i know weak athiests have the same general belief, so dont bother popping up with that one.

I will say this again, athiests and agnostics have a lot in common with each other, the definitions tend to tie into each other as well. It simply comes to what you define yourself as. The only time you could be wrong is if you say your an agnostic, but say you definitely dont believe in any god. That is hard atheism, not much else you can choose other than that.

 

[jrbogie]

an agnostic does not believe that other people are wrong, as far as i know.
We merely believe that we don't know, some of us believe it is unknowable, some(like myself) believe it is knowable, but unlikely to be known. I am willing to admit the possible validity of any religion, so how can i be wrong?

Basically, an agnostic says, i don't know, and usually leaves it at that. We may have a belief to add to that, like, i don't know, but im inclined to disbelieve. So, how can you be wrong if you are on the few that say you don't know? And yes, i know weak athiests have the same general belief, so dont bother popping up with that one.

I will say this again, athiests and agnostics have a lot in common with each other, the definitions tend to tie into each other as well. It simply comes to what you define yourself as. The only time you could be wrong is if you say your an agnostic, but say you definitely dont believe in any god. That is hard atheism, not much else you can choose other than that.

not so. an agnostic does not say, "I don't know", and agnostic says "the human mind cannot know". i have nothing in common with an atheist if you define an atheist as "one who BELIEVES there is no god as does webster. i will submit that neither the agnostic nor atheist believes in god but that's where it ends. agnostics believe in nothing by definition.

 

[rageoftyrael]

God forbid that an agnostic would know how they think. You conveniently ignored the part i said where athiests and agnostics beliefs tend to tie in to each other.

Why are you here if you think so black and white? There are many different definitions of what an agnostic or athiest is. So don't tell me a single definition and expect me to grovel before you for giving me the "obviously" correct version.

So, what are you? Not only that, feel free to tell me what you believe in. Then i will feel free to point out why you are wrong, like you just did to me. And believe me, no matter how carefully you word your response, i will find you to be wrong, and have factual proof to support my claim of your wrongness.

Of course, you will only be wrong if i choose to take one person's definition and assume it as fact, but seeing as you do that, i don't see how you can fault me for it.

And just so you don't think this is a rant only, i'll educate you, the purpose of this forum. If you look up agnostic, if they give you a complete definition, they will give you several types of agnostics to choose from. Thus, you saying that what i said does not define some agnostics would obviously be wrong, wouldn't it?

Heck, if you look it up in other places, you'll find differing definition. hmm... much like you would find different definitions of religion, you think you know what religion means, but many would disagree.

I just reread your post, and dang i almost forgot your mention of agnostics believe in nothing be definiton. Wow.... maybe some are like that, but i believe i know my name, i know my parents, and i know that i am male. I also KNOW that i am agnostic! And since i don't agree with your assessment, that really messes things up, doesn't it?

Of course, if it makes you feel better, i will make a concession. I could be defined as athiest, probably weak athiest. But i choose to call myself agnostic because i feel that my beliefs are more aligned in that direction.

I'll say this one last time, athiest and agnostics have similar beliefs! Similar, not the same. Honestly, there are people out there who call themselves athiests who i would define agnostic, but im not gonna tell them that, cause that is pointless. Don't label me. I can label myself well enough.

 

[jrbogie]

God forbid that an agnostic would know how they think. You conveniently ignored the part i said where athiests and agnostics beliefs tend to tie in to each other.

i ignored nothing. damn near the entire post addressed your statement that atheists and agnostics tend to tie into each other. are you being ignored when someon disagrees with you? hmmmmm?

Why are you here if you think so black and white? There are many different definitions of what an agnostic or athiest is. So don't tell me a single definition and expect me to grovel before you for giving me the "obviously" correct version.

is that your argument? is it really? as to why i'm here, i'm here solely for my entertainment and amuzement. why are you here? surely not to learn something is it? is it really?

So, what are you? Not only that, feel free to tell me what you believe in. Then i will feel free to point out why you are wrong, like you just did to me. And believe me, no matter how carefully you word your response, i will find you to be wrong, and have factual proof to support my claim of your wrongness.

i simply disagreed with your definition of agnostic. never said you were wrong. is nobody allowed to disagree with you? to use your expression, am i to "grovel" before your "obvious" correct definition of the word agnostic? this an open forum. i come to an open forum to exchange views and ideas on specific issues. to "exchange" ideas means to listen to what others have to say and then comment on those statements. when you post in open forum, you risk that somebody may not see things precisely as you do. that's what happened here. you defined what you thought an agnostic is and i countered with what i think an agnostic is.

Of course, you will only be wrong if i choose to take one person's definition and assume it as fact, but seeing as you do that, i don't see how you can fault me for it.

i fault you for nothing. you have only yourself to find fault. i never made a statement in any open forum and claimed it was fact. everything said here is OPINION. what i say, what you say, IT'S ALL OPINION. jeez man.

And just so you don't think this is a rant only, i'll educate you, the purpose of this forum. If you look up agnostic, if they give you a complete definition, they will give you several types of agnostics to choose from. Thus, you saying that what i said does not define some agnostics would obviously be wrong, wouldn't it?

nope. there are several "wrong" definitions of agnostics, atheists and others in these forums. in my OPINION.

Heck, if you look it up in other places, you'll find differing definition. hmm... much like you would find different definitions of religion, you think you know what religion means, but many would disagree.

ah ha, you finally get it. many here disagree.

I just reread your post, and dang i almost forgot your mention of agnostics believe in nothing be definiton. Wow.... maybe some are like that, but i believe i know my name, i know my parents, and i know that i am male. I also KNOW that i am agnostic! And since i don't agree with your assessment, that really messes things up, doesn't it?

messes nothing up. i read and understand your argument. you believe some things and know other things. great. now we both had our say huh? can we get back to the topic of the thread now? or shall we just keep talking about me?

Of course, if it makes you feel better, i will make a concession. I could be defined as athiest, probably weak athiest. But i choose to call myself agnostic because i feel that my beliefs are more aligned in that direction.

hey good for you. but i feel no better or worse.

I'll say this one last time, athiest and agnostics have similar beliefs! Similar, not the same. Honestly, there are people out there who call themselves athiests who i would define agnostic, but im not gonna tell them that, cause that is pointless. Don't label me. I can label myself well enough.

but i never labled you did i? i merely disagreed with how you define one simple word. now can you keep your promise that you'll "say this one last time"? i heard you the first, second and third time for crying out loud.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Wow, took a lot of work to pull that off, right? Making me look stupid, i love you spaced that in such a way to make me look wrong. I'm not afraid to be wrong, i just don't like someone telling me that i'm wrong, oh so glibly, when im right on line. I can fricking look it up! I came on a little strong there with my response, but i HATE it when people tell me that im not an agnostic, cause their own specific definition doesn't fit with what my beliefs are. Also, be intelligent, don't INTENTIONALLY misread what i wrote, several of those that you answered to, you didn't even try to actually adress what i actually said, you just went out of your way to make me look like an idiot.

 

[Tristesse]

Dawkins is an atheist.