Proud Agnostics here?

[Undesired Walrus]

Yes. I am coming out as a proud agnostic.

Refuting any argument for proof of God in the universe, in any shape or form.

But I'm not going to reduce my experience here in life down to a set of amneable and proven truths.

I think that makes an agnostic.

Any others?

[Taffer]

Yes. I am coming out as a proud agnostic.

Refuting any argument for proof of God in the universe, in any shape or form.

But I'm not going to reduce my experience here in life down to a set of amneable and proven truths.

I think that makes an agnostic.

Any others?

Technically speaking, agnosticism deals with the ability to know something. More specifically, one might be agnostic if they feel they do not have knowledge of the existance of a god. Another, more "hard" form of agnosticism, is the stance that it is impossible to know about the existance of a god.

[Puppycow]

But I agree with both statements!
I love me some elephants!

[Jorghnassen]

Sure. Why not. But I resent the lack of a Planet X option.

[Lisa Simpson]

Meh. I'm Apathetic (http://apatheticagnostic.org/).

[Civilized Worm]

I find the term "agnostic" to be meaningless as no one has knowledge of the existence of gods.

It sounds to me like you don't believe in any gods, meaning you are an atheist.

[Undesired Walrus]

I find the term "agnostic" to be meaningless as no one has knowledge of the existence of gods.

It sounds to me like you don't believe in any gods, meaning you are an atheist.

Well, I'd prefer to not be any 'ism' really (The very nature of my post seems to stretch against that).

I don't believe in a Biblical God.

But, I am a person who believes in Satre's;

'There is no meaning in existence, only nothingness'

I do not believe in a world that can be reduced to a set of amenable truths, and nor do I believe in truth, science and reason as the way Humanity should be living its life.

I am an existentialist in more thoughts than most, but it makes me resent rationalism, as I see it, not theism, as the enemy of existentialism.

If you want to know which 'ism' gives me the most comfort, it is Atheism. But, of course, that does not make it true.

[ned flandas]

Well, I'd prefer to not be any 'ism' really (The very nature of my post seems to stretch against that).

I don't believe in a Biblical God.

But, I am a person who believes in Satre's;

'There is no meaning in existence, only nothingness'

I do not believe in a world that can be reduced to a set of amenable truths, and nor do I believe in truth, science and reason as the way Humanity should be living its life.

I am an existentialist in more thoughts than most, but it makes me resent rationalism, as I see it, not theism, as the enemy of existentialism.

If you want to know which 'ism' gives me the most comfort, it is Atheism. But, of course, that does not make it true.

why do you fight to lable yourself?

[Civilized Worm]

If you want to know which 'ism' gives me the most comfort, it is Atheism. But, of course, that does not make it true.


Well if you are ever presented with evidence of a deity you would have every reason to abandon that position. Given that that has yet to happen you are and will most likely remain an atheist and an agnostic (and plenty of other things I'm sure).

[Taffer]

If you want to know which 'ism' gives me the most comfort, it is Atheism. But, of course, that does not make it true.

See my explanation of the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

[fishkr]

Agnostic just means "without knowledge", nothing more. Elephants, on the other hand . . . well to "know" one is to love one.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I might be an agnostic but I just don't know. :D

[drkitten]

I find the term "agnostic" to be meaningless as no one has knowledge of the existence of gods.

I'm perfectly happy self-identifying as a hard-line agnostic.

That is to say, not only do I deny personal knowledge of God; I deny that anyone has knowledge of God, or even that such knowledge can be obtained.

The term simply isn't well-enough defined; the Deist's Great Watchmaker, for example, cannot be personally known by definition, and similarly is completely unfalsifiable, so He can't be inferred, either.

I find the God Hypothesis unnecessary and unparsimonious, but that's not enough to raise me to the level of atheism....

[wuschel]

Meh. I'm Apathetic (http://apatheticagnostic.org/).Apathetic you are? As a practicing Ignosticist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)I blame you for people not being able to make any sense of the concept of people making any sense as far as people making sense when they talk about "God". You simply don't care, do you?

If hell, as a concept, would make any sense at all, you'd definitely be on your way there! For not caring at all.

[wuschel]

Agnostic just means "without knowledge", nothing more. Elephants, on the other hand . . . well to "know" one is to love one.I'm only interested in the details. Got photos?

[Jimbo07]

I voted yes.

I love whoever's sig about Militant Agnosticism:

I don't know, and neither do you.

:D

[Slimething]

I've never met a god I didn't like. Voted agnostic.

[SynapticDancer]

I've called myself agnostic, mostly because I have witnessed some really hard-nosed, dogmatic atheism and I find it to be just as silly as any other militant thought.

And I do love elephants :D

[Undesired Walrus]

I've called myself agnostic, mostly because I have witnessed some really hard-nosed, dogmatic atheism and I find it to be just as silly as any other militant thought.


YES.

People tend to get too tied down with the complicated definition of agnosticism.

Quite simply, I'm not suire if there is something going on or not. Sometimes I question if there could be, and sometimes I think there may be. I am, 'without knowledge'. That seems to be what Agnosticism is these days, at least it is for Woody Allen.

Plus, agnostics are smarter and more trendy then Atheists. OH behave!

[Puppycow]

YES.

People tend to get too tied down with the complicated definition of agnosticism.

Quite simply, I'm not suire if there is something going on or not. Sometimes I question if there could be, and sometimes I think there may be. I am, 'without knowledge'. That seems to be what Agnosticism is these days, at least it is for Woody Allen.

Plus, agnostics are smarter and more trendy then Atheists. OH behave!

Oh behave!
I mentioned this in another thread, but it really depends on how you define God. If God means that the Bible or the Koran or the Book of Mormon is the literal inerrant truth, I am an atheist. If it is a nonspecific deist God who created the universe and then left it alone to see what weird things might develop, I am an agnostic.

[bignickel]

Do you believe in God/s, Undesired Walrus?

If you don't, then guess what: you're an atheist. An atheist is simply someone who is not a theist.

Now, you can also be an agnostic too, since that is a description of a position on evidence, not a position on existence. At that point, you're an agnostic atheist, like Shermer (and many others).

To an agnostic, no evidence can ever prove the existence of god/s. But there's always the possibility that a non-agnostic atheist can convert over, since he thinks such evidence might possibly exist. Therefore, preachers can still go after plain atheists with gusto, but going after agnostics are a complete waste of time.

Has "The Atheist" chimed in with his .02 yet?

[Jimbo07]

To an agnostic, no evidence can ever prove the existence of god/s. But there's always the possibility that a non-agnostic atheist can convert over, since he thinks such evidence might possibly exist.

So... black is white then?

:boggled:

[bignickel]

So... black is white then?

:boggled:
Uuuuuuu! I want to make some faces too!

:) ;) :P

I could do this all day. (if you'd like to discuss the topic, I can do that too. Let me know)

[Jimbo07]

It's just that I think


To an agnostic, no evidence can ever prove the existence of god/s.

is a strange way to define an agnostic. At least, I've never heard it used in that manner except, perhaps, in some really bizarre philosophical context. How could anyone make a definitive statement that no evidence for something could ever prove it?

[Lisa Simpson]

I voted yes.

I love whoever's sig about Militant Agnosticism:

I don't know, and neither do you.

:D


I have that saying on a t-shirt (http://www.cafepress.com/antireligion/639031).

I actually consider myself an Agnostic Atheist. I have no evidence* as to whether or not "God" exists, but I live my life as if there isn't one. I would bet there are Agnostic Theists, who question the existence of God, but choose to live as if he/she/it exists.

*and I think the question is unanswerable as "god" may be something far beyond our ability to understand.

[drkitten]

It's just that I think



is a strange way to define an agnostic. At least, I've never heard it used in that manner except, perhaps, in some really bizarre philosophical context. How could anyone make a definitive statement that no evidence for something could ever prove it?

Easily. Because the sort of evidence that would prove something can be proven not to exist.

For example, no amount of evidence could prove that there are no extrasolar teapots; you'd have to look everywhere in the universe that any possible teapot could hide -- and your travel budget isn't that large.

No amount of evidence could prove that we're not in a Matrix-like brain-in-a-vat situation; any evidence you get could be simulated by a sufficiently comprehensive computer.

No amount of evidence can ever prove the null hypothesis to be true -- nor can it prove the null hypothesis to be false unless you can drive the p-value all the way down to zero (which in most experimental setups is provably impossible). Even if I can correctly call the next twenty-five thousand spins of a roulette wheel, that doesn't prove ESP -- I might just have gotten unbelievably lucky. (The odds are something like 1 in 38 to the 25,000.... but that's not zero.)

[bignickel]

a strange way to define an agnostic. At least, I've never heard it used in that manner except, perhaps, in some really bizarre philosophical context. How could anyone make a definitive statement that no evidence for something could ever prove it?
Simple. An agnostic recognizes that he doesn't have the ability to distinguish between gods, aliens, or hallucinations. In other words, he knows that, as a being contained completely inside the universe, he doesn't have the ability to recognize something that is outside the universe (even if part of this other being enters the universe from time to time).

Perhaps other beings outside the universe have this ability; perhaps not. Maybe that's the reason that God supposedly said "there are no other gods besides me": he's an agnostic too.

Zeus: "That Jehovah is so stuck up; why doesn't he ever return my calls?"

[Undesired Walrus]

Perhaps Dawkins and co have been manipulating my comprehension of Atheism these days, but all I tend to see it as is a marriage of the need for evidence and disbelief.

I simply do not believe Humanity and the Universe can be reduced to a set of proven truths. And when I look at the staggering beauty of the provable heavens, I find it hard to keep up with this conclusion. But I will.

[bignickel]

Undesired, your avatar wouldn't happen to be Brion Gysin, would it?

[SynapticDancer]

Oh behave!
I mentioned this in another thread, but it really depends on how you define God. If God means that the Bible or the Koran or the Book of Mormon is the literal inerrant truth, I am an atheist. If it is a nonspecific deist God who created the universe and then left it alone to see what weird things might develop, I am an agnostic.

I don't necessarily need to be talking about a biblical deity in order to doubt it. The idea that you can be certain of the non-existence of any of those, but doubtful as to the non-existence of some other more ambiguous deity (like the one you describe) isn't really founded. How can you have certainty that Yahweh is false, but some as of yet undefined prime mover might exist? Isn't that just picking one of many religious views, and isn't that exactly what a believer does?

I doubt the existence of any such things, from the rigidly defined to the more vague notions. I have no proof, but neither does anyone else. It just doesn't sit right with me to believe, it never really did.

I actually remember being in church preparing for my first holy confession (silly Catholics) and suddenly realized that everyone was being completely serious. I thought they were kidding, and it was just fun stories and fancy clothes.

At any rate, agnostic, I'm okay with that title :D

[Undesired Walrus]

Undesired, your avatar wouldn't happen to be Brion Gysin, would it?

nizar qabbani

[CapelDodger]

But I'm not going to reduce my experience here in life down to a set of amneable and proven truths.

There are plenty of fascinating unknowns and intriguing mysteries to be getting on with without superstition. I'm an atheist. Always have been. It hasn't reduced my life one iota.

Individual people can be a fascinating (and not always amenable) unknown, but we can know enough about people in general to recognise that all superstition is the product of human imagination. It's always about us . Even Buddhism is about us becoming not what we naturally are so that we can be something better.

I take an interest in superstition and belief because they reveal a lot about HomSap and its history. And about people. They reveal squat about the wider world.

Agnosticism is for people who haven't yet recognised that Philosophy has no clothes. It's enough to observe that superstition emerges from and serves the human mind to dismiss it observationally. There's no need to wait for results to turn in from everywhere that nothing else has yet been observed. Superstition emerges and has influence strictly between one human ear and its partner.

[DanishDynamite]

Agnosticism is for people who haven't yet recognised that Philosophy has no clothes.
Just wanted to quote this very quotable quote.

[Slimething]

Agnosticism is for people who haven't yet recognised that Philosophy has no clothes.

Just the way I like it! :eye-poppi

[articulett]

Just wanted to quote this very quotable quote.

Yes... pithy... I nominated it. I like naked pith.

We have lots of evidence that humans event invisible immeasurable entites to explain things we don't yet understand and to manipulate others. Yet despite eons of such belief, we haven't any evidence that any kind of consciousness can live outside a brain or any kind of god exists outside the human mind.

[Puppycow]

I don't necessarily need to be talking about a biblical deity in order to doubt it. The idea that you can be certain of the non-existence of any of those, but doubtful as to the non-existence of some other more ambiguous deity (like the one you describe) isn't really founded. How can you have certainty that Yahweh is false, but some as of yet undefined prime mover might exist? Isn't that just picking one of many religious views, and isn't that exactly what a believer does?

Let me make an analogy:
Take two propositions:
1) Unicorns exist.
2) Some undiscovered species of animal exists.
I can have a much higher degree of certainty that the first proposition is false than that the second one is.

[bignickel]

Gnosticism is for those who are certain they can't be fooled.

ah well, guess they all can't be catchy.

[Puppycow]

Simple. An agnostic recognizes that he doesn't have the ability to distinguish between gods, aliens, or hallucinations. In other words, he knows that, as a being contained completely inside the universe, he doesn't have the ability to recognize something that is outside the universe (even if part of this other being enters the universe from time to time).

This is fine for a philosopher and I accept that on a philisophical level, but as a practical matter I see no reason to spend an inordinate amount of time considering the possibility that things are not really as they appear or that we might be living in a Matrix. If we ever discover real aliens, I'm not going to spend a lot of time worrying that they might just be hallucinations. I also think I can tell the difference between a hoax and the real thing. However, I always remain open to evidence. Science would progress if we threw up our hands and said we can never know anything, so let's just accept ignorance and leave it at that.

[IMST]

I'm perfectly happy self-identifying as a hard-line agnostic.

That is to say, not only do I deny personal knowledge of God; I deny that anyone has knowledge of God, or even that such knowledge can be obtained.

The term simply isn't well-enough defined; the Deist's Great Watchmaker, for example, cannot be personally known by definition, and similarly is completely unfalsifiable, so He can't be inferred, either.

I find the God Hypothesis unnecessary and unparsimonious, but that's not enough to raise me to the level of atheism....

Thank you, drkitten. You've summarized my view on agnosticism better than I ever have here, especially the last sentence. May I save this and quote it when asked to explain my views to friends/family/enemies?

[bignickel]

This is fine for a philosopher and I accept that on a philisophical level, but as a practical matter I see no reason to spend an inordinate amount of time considering the possibility that things are not really as they appear or that we might be living in a Matrix. If we ever discover real aliens, I'm not going to spend a lot of time worrying that they might just be hallucinations. I also think I can tell the difference between a hoax and the real thing. However, I always remain open to evidence. Science would progress if we threw up our hands and said we can never know anything, so let's just accept ignorance and leave it at that.
That's great, but we're talking about god/s, not about aliens.

An agnostic doesn't consider anything, he only recognizes his own limitations.

And if you think you tell the difference between god and Loki, or god and a super-advanced alien race, then more power to you. Care to share your secret in distinguishing between them?

[Damien Evans]

I'm an apathetic agnostic.

I don't know and I don't care.

[Big Les]

I admit to not really understanding the agnostic position. The idea that we can't know whether there is a god or not surely applies to just about everything. "Nothing is real" and similar gange-induced claptrap. Insofar as we can know anything, or be sure of anything, there is no god. For learned peers such as I encounter here, isn't it just a philosophical position as Capeldodger has said?

Having drawn that distinction, I most often come across the term in real life used as prevaricatively; by people who don't believe in a god but either haven't really thought much about it, or are on some level scared that if they die and there was one all along, they might not have to go to hell. Or because they're afraid of using the word atheist, out of fear of offence. Atheism is well-tolerated here in the UK, but it still will raise eyebrows if you up-front tell people that you are one. Whereas "agnostic" has connotations (to the religious/pseudo-religious) of "lost lamb" who might one day return to the fold, or at least of some deeper spirituality than the empty existence that atheism is still perceived by many to be.

In other words, self-styled agnostics get more chicks.

[Jimbo07]

Easily. Because the sort of evidence that would prove something can be proven not to exist.

For example, no amount of evidence could prove that there are no extrasolar teapots; you'd have to look everywhere in the universe that any possible teapot could hide -- and your travel budget isn't that large.

Oh, I see where this was going. It's related to the whole unable to prove a universal negative thing.

I thought it had something to do with denying that there could ever be consistent and compelling physical evidence that something sufficiently "God-like," was directly acting in the universe. My interest would be at least piqued if every day for a year, say, a new message (visible to everyone) was written in the stars.

I don't consider my practice of agnosticism to waste valuable time considering whether-or-not an objective physical universe even exists! :eye-poppi



Agnosticism is for people who haven't yet recognised that Philosophy has no clothes. It's enough to observe that superstition emerges from and serves the human mind to dismiss it observationally. There's no need to wait for results to turn in from everywhere that nothing else has yet been observed. Superstition emerges and has influence strictly between one human ear and its partner.

This was the sort of strong atheism for which I admired Piggy. He at least had the courage of his convictions. There are a lot of atheists here who are spending a lot of time posting that atheism is really all about holding beliefs provisionally, and are upset that I've seemed to imply that they are mistaken/self-deceptive or lazy (I didn't meant to be insulting).

Maybe I'm the who's been badly wrong, not about atheism, but about agnosticism. Maybe agnosticism is a philosophical humbug. I've just used it as a practical working label for, "I don't know, and I don't know what standard of evidence would be necessary for a proof of a first cause, but I do accept that there is some sufficient evidence to reject specific claims about certain Gods."

ETA: Actually keeping my labels straight in my own head seems to be a day-to-day problem. Previously, I would have said that philosophically I'm an agnostic, but practically, I'm an atheist. I guess that still stands, with the admission that any "philosophy" involved is only appropriate when drunk at 2 a.m...

[bignickel]

I must say I'm completely puzzled by some of these posts. I'm beginning to think this is what people's brains see when they read my posts:
Bignickel said "Agnosticism is
<SNIP>Definition I don't agree with</SNIP>
and because of that,
<SNIP>idea I don't understand because I snipped out the earlier definition</SNIP>

Followup posters: What's with all those agnostics? Why are they so wimpy they can't just come out and say they're atheists?!

[SynapticDancer]

Let me make an analogy:
Take two propositions:
1) Unicorns exist.
2) Some undiscovered species of animal exists.
I can have a much higher degree of certainty that the first proposition is false than that the second one is.

I see the point you are making, the problem is a distinction in evidence gathering, specifically when that collection takes place. If a being (such as the unicorn) is hypothesized to exist and yet no evidence or evidence that is later discovered to not support the unicorn hypothesis is found, you cannot determine say for certain that unicorns exist. However, the collection of evidence occurred after the hypothesis of the unicorns existence. Actually, many unicorns myths might be based on discoveries of fossils that have since been found to be other animals (such as the narwhal).

The second example, that some as of yet undiscovered species might exist is certainly true but ambiguous, and vague enough that it is not a hypothesis. New species are discovered all the time whether they are sought or not. When you say "undiscoverd species of animals" you are not giving it enough definitional characteristics to every truly verify or dismiss your claim, therefore it is not truly a hypothesis that can be tested.

The idea of god has some specific definitional characteristics even when it is not defined in biblical terms. People who are "spiritual" or believe there is, or is a possibility of, a higher power are still evidence gathering after the fact, or hypothesis testing. God in that sense fits the analogy of a unicorn in that it is a mythological being of certain characteristics hypothesized to exist.

[Slimething]

I admit to not really understanding the agnostic position. The idea that we can't know whether there is a god or not surely applies to just about everything. "Nothing is real" and similar gange-induced claptrap.

Yeah, I hate that rot, too, but that's not what I mean when I call myself an agnostic. I haven't met every god so I can't believe or disbelieve in something I haven't met yet. Call it Fair Play for Deities, if you want. Prejudice is a terrible thing.

I've never met one but I have heard there are people who believe they are god. If so, they've defined god as themselves and I can prove they exist. More power to them. God is a word with an amazingly malleable definition. Do I believe in the supernatural kind? No. But, a person who thinks they're god would be something completely different.

[Undesired Walrus]

Followup posters: What's with all those agnostics? Why are they so wimpy they can't just come out and say they're atheists?!

In the words of John Ronson to Daid Shayler, "Oh **** off".

[bignickel]

In the words of John Ronson to Daid Shayler, "Oh **** off".
Umm, I thought my post made it clear that I typed up a post, and the 'followup posters' are a bunch of posters who posted after me. Ignoring my post.

And since my own posts make it clear I'm an agnostic...

I dunno. Maybe I should have typed "Followup posters said" or something else.