Agnostic.com

25 11

From Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/agnosticism/v-1/sections/justifications-for-agnosticism):

In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational. In the modern period, agnostics have appealed largely to the philosophies of Hume and Kant as providing the justification for agnosticism as a philosophical position.

RobertLudwick 4 May 31
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

25 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

10

Robert...may I take this opportunity to welcome you to the site, I hope you find us welcoming, and that you get as much enjoyment out of being here as I have over the past two years.

I’m not actually going to get involved in this discussion regarding the exact definitions or nomenclatures of atheist/agnostic, because those of us who have been here some time find it being regurgitated constantly. That is fine of course, because there are new members joining all the time, and to them this perennial discussion of definition is more novel. I find that it usually generates a lot of heat and tends to divide us into two camps...them and us...atheist v agnostic, and quite often it becomes vitriolic and nasty. We may be all be sceptics and believe we are critical thinkers, but sadly we do not seem to be able to accommodate each other’s views on this divisive subject. I actually think we need to concentrate more on what we have in common, which is - without evidence we cannot say we believe god exists, and stop accentuating our degrees of disbelief.

Yes . How can anyone accept any beliefs without any logical proof?

7

Bloody Hell, not another debate over Atheists versus Agnostics.
Hasn't this poor old Dead Horse been whipped enough already?

Bloody hell indeed! It's almost become an article of faith, for some!

Probably a newbie who thinks he's come up with an interesting new topic for discussion.

@p-nullifidian Yup, he's level 4.

@Triphid Please tell us your reason for whipping it again.

@BD66 Perhaps this Agnostic.com system of levels will engender a self-correction? Does a level 4 self correct in order to achieve a level 7, for example? Or, is the entire 'game afoot' involving the aspiration to higher levels / numbers?

Answer me this: Should 'newbies' be embraced immediately for their 'fresh' ideas and 'unconventional' thinking? Or, should they be forced to undergo a pedantic and oppressive point system that was created by those who control and oversee Agnostic.com?

@p-nullifidian Newbies with "fresh" ideas and "unconvential" thinking should be readily embraced. Newbies bringing up "stale" discussions, should be pointed to previous instances where the discussions have been had over and over again. I have no strong opinion on the oppressive point system other than that it takes a long, long, long time to get from level 7 to level 8.

@yvilletom My god Sir, It was not I who was 'whipping' this poor old Dead Horse yet again and IF you had read the original posting you may realised that.

@BD66 Yeah that may be so, but simply, imo, re-hashing old debate topics is getting a wee bit passe so to speak.

@Triphid
Provide a link to your original posting. DON’T MAKE ME SEARCH FOR IT.
Better, check your impulses before you hit the REPLY button. Delete your impulsive remarks and show us your reasoned remarks.

@yvilletom READ, if you can, the name of the member who made ORIGINAL posting at the bottom of that self same posting ( bottom left hand corner btw)
Then do the following,

  1. scroll down tho where it says " 27 comments,"
  2. the next line says, 'Newest, etc, etc,
  3. DIRECTLY below that is the FIRST comment made, btw, that IS my comment/reply/response FYI.

@BD66 I remember a time when I was between two worlds, groping for answers. Thus, many of the arguments we 'old timers' have engaged in are new to many others. I recommend patience with those who are unaware of the prior interactions we have had, and who put themselves out there with an argument that may be 'old' to us but is 'fresh' to them.

@p-nullifidian That's why someone should create an "archive of past discussions" and this topic should be one of the first ones in that archive.

@yvilletom Hey, what's up, no witty responses, etc?
Did you ACTUALY read and follow my instructions and discover you made a big mistake?

@Triphid I saw nothing in your above “instruction” post that merited either an action or a response.

@yvilletom Well then, imo, the old adage of " you can lead a horse to water BUT you can't make it drink, you can lead a fool to reason BUT can't make him/her think," runs true in this case as does also, imo, the other adage of "Wise person knows when they have been in error and openly admits to it, a Fool, young, old or even arrogant, merely inserts the other foot as well in an effort to remain silent and NOT admit to a mistake."
So, please do have a nice day but try to remember to wash your feet before you jump to conclusions next time.

5

The encyclopedia entry is from William Rowe. In case there is interest, Rowe was chairman of the Philosophy Department at Purdue University for years. He was graduated from seminary and became a young Baptist minister before following his doubts all the way through. He then got his Ph.D in philosophy and no doubt became the leading voice for atheism in the American Philosophical Association in the last decades of the 20th Century. His close personal friend, Alvin Plantinga, was no doubt the leading voice for theism in the profession during the time--and unto this day, I think. Rowe defined and popularized the term “friendly atheism,” which was the label for his own stance. It is ATHEISM all the way, but FRIENDLY by acknowledging that it may be rational for others (with different experiences, different evidence, different backgrounds, different abilities to evaluate arguments, etc.) to be theists. As I said, in case there is interest….

This is the first I've heard of Rowe but I respect his position. I've never understood why so many atheists so revile religion and those who choose to believe in spite of the lack of rational certainty. Of course I have far more respect for the believers who do acknowledge that lack of certainty and the subsequent necessity of faith. To my mind god belief and religious experience is a fascinating aspect of humanity. Far from holding us back, I suspect it may have helped shape who/what we are. Of course that doesn't mean I'm looking for a church. I am well past looking for institutional answers to such questions, or any other authoritative sources for that matter.

3

The term disbelieve struck a nerve.

[quora.com]

Disbelief is the refusal to accept the FACT that something is REAL. For example, if you refuse to accept 2+2 = 4 (which is true and established), then you're disbelieving. Lack of belief is just that - a LACK of belief.[quora.com]
[quora.com]
FACE AND PALM

Then the article summary moves the burden of proof for theist vs atheist to assert that to believe (insert unsupported argument) has an equal burden of proof to not believe in (insert unsupported argument). LAME.

3

Well, as an agnostic, I don't accept the arguments/proofs of the existence or not of a deity. I don't believe in the existence of a deity but I don't dare to say for sure if there is or not. I don't know if any who consider themselves agnostic as well will see it this way, it's only my point of view. I don't know if there's a deity or not. Simple as that.

3

Using that set of criteria and applying it to gods outside of the three Abrahamic religions are there Olympian agnostics? If not why not, there is equal evidence for the existence of Zeus as there is (or is not) for Yahweh, therefore human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that Zeus exists or the belief that Zeus does not exist?
Are there Agnostic santa-clausists? We know a large proportion of the population of the western world do believe completely in Santa Clause is it therefore logical to assume that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that Santa exists or the belief that Santa does not exist.
Of course not, we all know there is not Zeus, no Santa Clause because we know people made them up, they are fictional as is the God of the Christians, the only difference is that Christianity has Billions of $ behind it, and the threat of ever lasting Hell to keep the plebs in line.
For that for which there is no proof of existence the default position is to assume non existence until evidence proves other wise.
The whole argument for the existence of Agnosticism is a simply get out clause, a hedge betting exercise for those to cowardly to have the courage of their own conviction.

I was with you, right up til you hit us with: "Agnosticism is a simply get out clause, a hedge betting exercise for those to[o] cowardly to have the courage of their own conviction."
My Agnosticism comes from my acceptance of the vast amount of knowledge that humanity does not have YET.
At one time we didn't know the earth was a sphere hurtling through space around a sun, and the next day we did know. Imagine what we might know tomorrow!!
While i utterly reject the preposterous claims of the Abrahamic religions, and scoff at their concept of an omnipotent entity, i will not assume that the sciences of physics and mathematics won't some day provide us with something that seems incomprehensible to us now.
So, i am simply not arrogant enough to claim anything other than Agnosticism overall.

@johan17 But you are arrogant enough to ignore the scientific method?
If there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of something the default position is to accept that he unproven thing does not exist until such time as there is reason to think it might, NOT o dither and assume it does just incase.
Do you hold that some day fairies might be proven to exist and so you are agnostic about them?
Do you hold that ALL god "might" exist so are agnostic about all of them?
Does your agnostisism hold universal for all purported mythical creatures being and things?
Of course not, you are obviously not stupid, so why the special pleading for A God? Perhaps you should examine what it is that puts you in such a frame of mind?
Fear, peer pressure, caution?

3

I am sad to see that this is becoming an old timer vs. Newbee thing. People are at different stages in their life, learning new things. To scoff at people that are working these things out is counterproductive. If you "old timers" are tired of seeing this debate then simply do not respond. Let those who need help get help and stay out of it.

Dear Robert, thank you for the post, I am sorry that there are rude, discompassionate people responding.

@JohnnyQB It was in response to some of the comments in the post. Unfortinately not a response directly to the post or its content. Evidently, judgeing from the comments after mine it had no impact on its intended audience. You were not included in that group of people. The author had a good post which did not deserve the criticism it recieved by others. Nor did the poster deserve to be belittled either.

2

I consider myself open minded enough to know that it's normal for people to have different viewpoints on any number of subjects. I consider myself agnostic unless/until I'm convinced otherwise. My opinions on many subjects have changed over the years as I've become more knowledgeable of unknown facts and the opinions of others, but I remain skeptical of organized religion being anything more than a fellowship for those who need it.

Spock Level 3 June 2, 2020

It seems to me that the main thing every religion has done, is a lot of damage - to our world and our species - it has gotten more tolerant of the peoples wishes in modern times butt, still -
For me, I see it as a means to make people, compliant to a few old human guys ideas of the way things should be -
Listen to the actual words of the lords prayer, it's just weird - take the christian bible, "written" in what is now Saudi Arabia, different stories that were gathered over hundreds of years, were picked through and chosen by a few men to create the Old Testament, Thousands of years ago - then, same area of the world, about 2,000 years ago, Jesus and the new testament -
As if anyone has ever followed the 10 commandments or Jesus's teachings. Most people don't even know what they are, much less how to follow - they just do what they want & go to church to pay up for "forgiveness" then rinse and repeat and they honestly think they will go to some obscure kind of heaven when they die -
That bible has been translated over and over and over and over again - there are currently 50+ different english translations alone! In that religious rule book it is against the law to wear materials of combined fiber, - if your wife was not a virgin you must slay her - Oh, and you should be kind to your slaves -
The idea that we were born of sin is a terrible thing to profess - and it is a cruel lie to make us feel less then from birth.

2

You realize of course, you have to take that same position with regard to Santa Claus, elves, fairies, all the other 3000 gods, including FSM, IPU, and Quetzalcoatl as well as Leprechauns, Ghosts and most alien encounters .... because they also can not be proved nor disproved. It gets pretty damned silly pretty damned fast.

With aliens and ghosts humans presume that a truth exists concerning them. The attention then focuses on finding a definitive proof. They might, in fact, exist. Alien fans believe that proof exists and is being kept from us but that's a detail of existence being possible. The others mentioned have no possibility of existing and should, IMO, be discarded from public consumption.

@rainmanjr Prove they have no possibility of existing .... I'll wait ....

2

As others have indicated here, this is a topic that keeps recurring here.

For what it is worth, I see the article that you have posted as being very poorly thought out. I see it having a false dichotomy, and an ignorance of the Scientific Method, and the logical fallacy of special pleading. Whoever wrote it probably failed Philosophy 101.

For what it was worth, you added a long scold.

2

There is no evidence for a belief in gods. None at all, and i really do not care what Hume and Kant thought about the matter. If you also do not believe in gods of any kind you are most likely atheist, but the terminology is yours to make.

2

Not this again. Yawn.

@TheMiddleWay

Don't tell me to shut up. I am entitled to my opinion.

@LiterateHiker I blocked this idiot ( @TheMiddleWay )a week ago, I finally realised he is just a troll, you might consider doing the same or not 😊

@LenHazell53

Thank you. Will do.

Agreed.

I am rather sure (that which is not worthy of being named or recognized) (made lots of comments on this thread) will continue to soil the pages with nonsense so when it continues to ooze nonsense, I found it best to just ignore it.

2

And this is relevant in my life because....? What a waste of time!

2

I am curious if the definition of agnostic excludes those who believe that certain Gods do not exist. I identify myself as an agnostic but I disbelieve in certain Gods such as the God of the Bible. This God is contradictary and far to much like a projection of humans. At the same time, I don't rule out the existence of some kind of diety but doubt that it might be adequately described and defined through human means. To do so runs the risk of defining an imposter as God. The imposter may have miraculous abilities and knowledge far beyond our own, but this fact does not prove Godhood any more the greater knowledge and abilities of modern man make us Gods to those a millenia or two ago. So, if one is atheist to certain Gods, can we still claim to be agnostic on some God concept not defined or not definable?

That seems a reasonable position to me, for sure!

Personally, I'm comfortable with the atheist label for myself, but if others want to call me an agnostic for agreeing with you (though with perhaps more skepticism?), that's fine by me.

BINGO!!!
YOU WIN A CUPIE DOLL!!!
E=MC√ might be 'god' for all we know!

@AmyTheBruce - We can certainly get too wrapped up in labels. Atheist, agnostic? I've heard definitions that could apply to either.

@Storm1752 - A Cupie Doll! Those have gone up in value! Some are now worth 6 or 7 hundred dollars. I'll take it! 😉😊

2

So what else is new?

1

For me, being Agnostic means; I know I don't know - I don't know what happened before I was born, on this earth, to my parents, just like every other creature, including bugs, was - I don't know what happens when I die either, for me death is the price we pay for life, just like every other living creature, including bugs, will -
What I do know, is that right now, we are alive -
I also know it's not just me, butt WE that makes our lives what they are - I know that when you succeed, we all succeed - when you fail, we all fail - I know we Could be great, We Should be Great - yet our species might not even survive itself -
We all, especially the religious believers - need to forget the about lies about being born of sin and all that other religious nonsense - & learn to love and appreciate ourselves & all the wonderful things the earth provides, stop destroying ourselves and our planet and know we have the entire universe to look forward too.

1

@TheMiddleWay ... we covered this already ...? @yvilletom To those who don't ... please don't take part.

It appears to me we may have new comers that are, well new. As people are new to things, even as in life in general, they must learn. As there is constantly new people entering existence as we know it, there are those going thru the learning process. Revolving door of sorts with the new comers looking to learn and gain understanding.

Then there are teachers, true teachers that can pass knowledge and information in a great way with or with out a teaching or college certification.

There are those that have learned a lot and have a wealth of knowledge, but they may not be teachers.

It can be frustrating or annoying, perhaps, for those that are not interested in the learning/teaching revolving process of new comers. Maybe waves rather than revolving? Constant flow that could be irregular in it's volume of new people?

Word Level 8 June 1, 2020
1

To those who don’t want to take part in this discussion, please don’t take part.

I quit Catholicism because its god had been so cruel. (Years later I learned my father was enslaved to it.)
I briefly studied other xianties and knew I would not accept any xianity.
I briefly studied other world religions, origin myths, and quit religion.
Lacking knowledge of XYZ, and wanting to do graduate study in math and physics, I chose agnosticism
Half a century later, happier than ever with life, I chose atheism because I’d seen no evidence of XYZ and knew I would refuse to consider claims that evidence exists.

IMO, lacking belief is a sorry substitute for lacking evidence. Having belief is a sorry substitute for having evidence.

1

Of course there is SOME evidence of SOME kind of 'god,' but it is not conclusive or definitive. So as an agnostic I cannot state FOR MYSELF there is definitely a 'god.'
I'm atheist of a PERSONAL ENTITY, but agnostic about 'god' as an impersonal force, so the general proposition is still pending concrete proof.

What evidence is there for any kind of god?

@redbai In the eye of the beholder. Depends on your point of view, biases, open-minded or close-mindedness, what you consider "evidence," what you consider 'god,' (ie., your definition), and so on.
At times, I consider myself an Ignostic, an Agnostic, an Agnostic Neo-Deist, at still other times an Agnostic Pantheist, so my definition changes, OR I think the whole subject is so beyond human comprehension it's futile and pointless to even talk about it.
I'm 100% Atheist when it comes to a personal 'god' with whom I can have a relationship, however; that's logically, deductively impossible.
Equally impossible is being an "agnostic atheist," in my view, but I've long since lost any hope of convincing others of that

@Storm1752 In the eye of the beholder is BS. If it's only in the eye of the beholder, then it is totally subjective and not credible in the least. Thanks for putting together a bunch of word salad BS in order to avoid answering my question.

@redbai What was your question again?

@redbai Oh there is quite a lot of evidence. The christians for example consider that a book called by them, The Bible, is evidence. It is just that a book with no known authors, editors, compilers, dates of publication, or orginal copies. Which was made up over time by several committees from a large number of previous books, each with none of the same, made by many different authors, many of whom were probably using old hearsay. Is just about the worst evidence you could possibly have.

It is better however when debating with theists to conceed that there is evidence, and then attack its quality, than to claim there is none. Because they are expecting you to claim that, and are ready to ask you to prove there is none, when they know that proving a negative is near impossible. Conceeding that small point throws them.

@TheMiddleWay "Love" does not exist any more than "God" does. It is a label that is used to describe an emotional state.

@TheMiddleWay, Which is why I asked what evidence there was. I see no reason to pretend something is evidence when it quite obviously is not. Why would I start by conceding something that I don't believe has any merit whatsoever?

The response to their request that I prove that there is no evidence is pointing out the logical fallacy of the argument. So what if I can't prove there's no evidence, that doesn't demonstrate in the least that there is evidence, so we're right back to no evidence at all, either way. Which means there is no logical reason to have a belief at all.

I don't agree that conceding the bible is "evidence" is a "small point" and I have no interest in attempting to deconstruct all their fallacious evidence presented from it to disprove them. It's much more interesting to me to make them demonstrate the veracity of their claims where ever they originate.

@TheMiddleWay I see no reason to debate whether or not things that obviously aren't evidence of a god is evidence of a god. The Bible is obviously not evidence of a god. At most it is evidence that people can write about a god, but there is nothing in it that is in the least bit verifiable, so using it as evidence is a fallacy.

The "Demonstrative, Documentary, and.Testimonial" evidence would be worthless without real world aspects that demonstrate their relevance. Can a god be demonstrated in a model or simulation? Is there credible documentary or testimonial evidence of a god that can be verified as a math equation or eye witnesses to the creation of the universe? To say I am only focusing on the real without anything that demonstrates the other aspects of your evidence types are any more demonstrable is sophistry.

@TheMiddleWay Where did I say there was only one kind of evidence? I never said that. You claimed that I as defining evidence to narrowly and defined others, then you claimed that I only depend on one. I never agreed that either of your claims were correct.

My statement that the Bible obviously isn't evidence of god was based on an assumption that you agreed there was no god and that the Bible isn't evidence that supports the claim, not that everyone agreed that the Bible isn't evidence of a god. If you don't agree, that's an entirely different conversation and I'll change my dialog to accommodate the assumption on your part that the Bible is evidence. I didn't mean that I would not challenge someone using the Bible (if that's what they offered as evidence), I meant I would not simply accept it as a given in a conversation about evidence.

If the claim is Bible is their evidence, then I would not say, "Okay" and let them drone on about how it was evidence in itself and continue a dialog with that assumption. I would say something more like, "No it's not", and inform them that they have to define their claim a bit more specifically like what in the Bible proves the point. Then I would focus their specific reference as opposed to the Bible as some holy tome deserved of respect.

@TheMiddleWay But my goal is not the theist anymore but a critical analysis of varying aspects of the evidence. If someone wants to believe in a fairy in the sky, I couldn't care less. My goal is to go against the fallacy of their arguments related specifically to what they claim is proof. It forces them to actually point out specifics in the book which can be broken down as opposed to me randomly selecting parts of the tome that I feel comfortable attacking on a regular bases. IMO, that makes my arguments stale and repetitive for me. Allowing them to speak on specifics, regardless of the source, that are relevant to them and their specific journey forces me to address something that I may or may not be prepared to address, expanding my intellectual muscles and forces them to explain why it's relevant beyond their personal beliefs.

@redbai Yes, it IS subjective. What YOU consider evidence, I may not, and vice versa. That😕 the nature of circumstantial evidence. It depends on your personal bias whether you want to accept it. If there is ENOUGH circumstantial evidence, if it piles up, then it becomes harder and harder to dismiss it "beyond a reasonable doubt."
If one is absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt there is no 'god,' personal or impersonal, no amount of circumstantial and/or anecdotal evidence would convince one to reconsider. That's might be a 'hard' atheist. An AGNOSTIC, however, might at least be swayed to amend his or her opinion, though understanding short of conclusive, definitive proof (which would in all likelihood be hard or impossible to obtain at this stage in mankind's development), a final conviction is ultimately impossible. So the agnostic, unlike the 'hard' atheist, will never be able to be absolutely sure.

@redbai So if it is YOUR eye beholding it ...oh, never mind. I already answered you and my sense of humour is failing me. Besides, you sound annoyed and, like me, not in the mood for lighthearted banter.

@Storm1752 You didn't answer my question. What's the evidence? Saying that there is piles of circumstantial evidence is not evidence.

The idea that an atheist would not believe in a god if presented with real evidence is simply self serving BS to avoid supporting the claim.

@redbai Look up, if you wish, University of Virginia, Dr. Tucker -- or Dr. Stevenson -- reincarnation.
I'm not saying reincarnation is "proof" of god, but it's circumstantial evidence of SOMETHING beyond the five senses.

@Storm1752 So if I say that there's nothing beyond the 5 senses, I'll do that. But since I didn't, I won't. The end result is that you have no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that there is a god.

@redbai Very true; I have only inclinations there's SOMETHING which might be defined as 'god' by someone who had a very loose and liberal definition of the word.
Atheists insist on a strict definition; that is, a personal god in the Abrahamic sense. In THAT sense I'M an atheist...in the more liberal sense I'm agnostic, or in some ways IGnostic.
Hey, whatever butters your bread, man.
Peace out.

1

Shit happens to those who repeat the same shit over and over!!!

Be careful or middleofthetrack will come for you 😄😄

@Cyklone

Yes, a Centrist know she/he is basically fucked either way!!!

It all boils down to the end of the line, a line that has many filaments which come together but really never match or line the way they should!!!

Like life who knows???

Or should they!!!

LMAO on this shit, it does not smell, just stinks to high heaven!!! LOL!!!

1

Okay.

0

When I understand the people here who are scolding us for raising the agnostic vs. atheist issue, I will understand how people become tradition-bound conservatives.

0

Disbelief implies the rejection of a belief. I infer rejection to mean that there is evidence and regardless of said evidence, I still don't believe and so I disagree with their definition. There is no evidence to give credibility to the belief in the first place.

I don't reject the belief, I reject the evidence that is claimed supports the belief. If the evidence was credible, I'd believe. It's like saying that I reject the belief that the Utah Jazz could win an NBA Championship simply because they never have. But if all of a sudden, Lebron James and Stephen Curry joined the team and Kobe Bryant and Wilt Chamberlin came back from the dead and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar suddenly was in his prime again and they too joined the team; that would be miraculous and evidence to support the belief that Utah could win an NBA Championship. But until that happens or something similar, there simply isn't any evidence to support the claim that they can (although a lot more than whether there's a god).

0
0

Never was much of a philosopher

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:501517
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.