A question for agnostics.

Page 9 of 10 [ 146 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

06 Feb 2011, 5:45 pm

Philologos wrote:

ryan93:

"Likewise. The process of discovering morality, meaning and knowledge is far better than reading reams of stale text anyway. I feel sorry that the religious will never experience the feeling."

You actually said that? Please! Get real and open an eye.

I - unlike you - happen to enjoy reading, get a lot out of it. Very little of it scriptural or even religion focussed - in the middle now of a book on architecture which is very excitingly refining a lot of psychological, theological, and cosmological ideas for me, some of which I will likely share.

But I have put a lot of non reading time into varios areas of discovery. Can't say a lot of discovery of morality - those understanding come either from inside or from watching two of the Inner Circle reacting to times I have messed up.

Speaking of which rereading I realized an earlier post COULD be mistaken as calling something you said stupid, when in fact I was agreeing with you in critiquing those who try to demonstrate free will by acting - which, I was trying to say is a dumb thing to do.

If that DID get heard the wrong way, please accept my apologies and assurances that no slight was intended, and forgive my internationally famous tendency to miscommunicate.

No need for the ad hominom, I wouldn't accuse you of being stupid. For your information I've read over 35,000 pages in the past two years, costing me over $2,000.

Perhaps my "knowledge" accusation seems unjust to you, someone who actually thinks, but I don't think it is. 1/3 Americans reject Evolution completely, which leads me do believe that their literal reading of a very old, outdated book is destroying their potential to see the intricate beauty of Biology. So I stand by my statement.

The Bible offers an Objective Morality (sorta, a bit...), but again, it stops people having to think for themselves, to try and discover for themselves what is right and wrong.

[quote]If that DID get heard the wrong way, please accept my apologies and assurances that no slight was intended, and forgive my internationally famous tendency to miscommunicate.
[/quote

I didn't quite understand you, but I didn't take offence. We're on an Asperger's Forum; our thoughts are more collected in our respective craniums than blurted out on the internet.

_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Feb 2011, 6:30 pm

ryan93 wrote:

The Bible offers an Objective Morality (sorta, a bit...), but again, it stops people having to think for themselves, to try and discover for themselves what is right and wrong.

.

There is no Objective Morality. Morality is opinion and convention, not fact. It is doxa, not logos.

ruveyn

Ahaseurus2000
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,546
Location: auckland

06 Feb 2011, 8:52 pm

ruveyn wrote:

ryan93 wrote:

The Bible offers an Objective Morality (sorta, a bit...), but again, it stops people having to think for themselves, to try and discover for themselves what is right and wrong.

.

There is no Objective Morality. Morality is opinion and convention, not fact. It is doxa, not logos.

ruveyn

And opinion and convention is belief. Morality is therefore belief and subjective, never objective.

_________________
Life is Painful. Suffering is Optional. Keep your face to the Sun and never see your Shadow.

Fudo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,696

08 Feb 2011, 2:16 am

ruveyn wrote:

Any question you put to agnostics should elicit the response: "I don't know"

ruveyn

ruveyn, i know i like your mind

otherwise i don't know beyond doubt anything whatsoever.. i think, lol i don't even know that apparently
i have many beliefs, some more rational than others, but regarding God i believe or perhaps logically conclude that i cannot & do not know. IF there is an omnipotent, omniscient & benevolent creator, i believe they will understand and forgive my agnosticism
knowledge seems somewhat eternally subjective, how can we ever truly 'know' , even justified true beliefs seem like assumptions in my humble opinion.
i'm more concerned with seeking 'wisdom' but that's arguably just as confusing.
fudo

Ahaseurus2000
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,546
Location: auckland

08 Feb 2011, 4:30 am

I have now realised I am not agnostic, but not conventional in my belief in God. Thank you to all for answering my queries.

_________________
Life is Painful. Suffering is Optional. Keep your face to the Sun and never see your Shadow.

ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

08 Feb 2011, 4:44 am

ruveyn wrote:

ryan93 wrote:

The Bible offers an Objective Morality (sorta, a bit...), but again, it stops people having to think for themselves, to try and discover for themselves what is right and wrong.

.

There is no Objective Morality. Morality is opinion and convention, not fact. It is doxa, not logos.

ruveyn

Hence the "sorta, a bir...". A book as ambiguous as the Bible can't be read objectively. Kinda defeats the idea that "without the bible telling us what to do we'd be raping and killing", given that interpretation is based on our own whims.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Feb 2011, 7:29 am

Ahaseurus2000 wrote:

And opinion and convention is belief. Morality is therefore belief and subjective, never objective.

Precisely what I said: doxa, not logos.

ruveyn

Deathsin
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 24 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 55

19 Apr 2013, 11:18 pm

you_are_what_you_is wrote:

I'm an atheist, and I'm not agnostic. I know there is no God.

In my experience many theists / deists / whatever, and the vast majority of atheists, will identify as 'agnostic'. Agnosticism is an epistemological claim about the limits of knowledge. When you identify as agnostic about deities, you're saying that you believe you can't know whether or not any deities exist.

The traditional view in philosophy is that knowledge is 'justified true belief', and obviously, if we use that definition, many people would probably drop the agnostic label. Largely due to Gettier problems, most philosophers these days have rather stricter requirements for knowledge. However, even on most of these stricter requirements, many people would still lose their agnosticism.

If you consider yourself agnostic, I'd be interested to see what your conception of knowledge is. What conditions must a belief meet for you to count it as knowledge? Given those conditions, why do you consider yourself agnostic?

.

I say that proof comes from what you experiences and consider what proof is or is not others cannot give you proof because everyone sees there own proof.

blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

20 Apr 2013, 1:19 am

MasterJedi wrote:

Agnostic - just another word for simple-mindedness. "I don't know so I can't say"

They're the people who don't vote.

Pretty much for many people who identify as agnostic.

I have identified myself as an agnostic and that is because I personally "can't say", not necessarily because of defending it as a philosophical position.

Even though the term agnosticism has been considered synonymous to skepticism.

NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

20 Apr 2013, 2:12 am

I think you are all wrong from the very start. As of yet, there is no concrete definition the the word God that is universally agreed upon... thus everyone is talking about either something they don't understand, about something different to others, or simply repeating what others have told them.

See signature.

_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.

Gaby76
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 11 Apr 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Female
Posts: 35

22 Apr 2013, 2:31 pm

If a person believes that God doesn't exist, than He doesn't exist for that person.

Mike1
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jul 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 710

22 Apr 2013, 4:11 pm

NarcissusSavage wrote:

Agreed, agnosticism is an incomplete idea that evolves into ignosticism, transtheism, or theological noncognitivism when given further thought. It's often hard to tell where one of these philosophies ends and the others begin. I'm still confused about which one of these philosophies fits my beliefs the best.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Apr 2013, 4:20 pm

Here is a neutral definition of "agnostic" One who will not or cannot say true/false to a proposition that is not self contradictory yet does not have any positive evidence to support it or negative evidence to refute it.

For example: There is life on a some planet that does not revolve about our sun. It is not logically contradictory yet there is no evidence pro or con. One can only say, I don't know if it is true for false and that is literally the meaning of agnosia. Not known.

Keni
Velociraptor

Joined: 9 Feb 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 408
Location: Australia

22 Apr 2013, 5:20 pm

Hmm. I have always described myself as atheist.
Religious writings contain many descriptions eg. demon possession, which are better explained scientifically.
I can see no proof of a deity, but I see I cannot categorically state one does not exist.

"Agnostic" seems to be a 50-50 proposition.
"Ignostic" appears to describe the reasoning behind arriving at an atheist viewpoint.

Is there a word for agnostic-but-leaning-heavily-to-atheist?
Agnatheist?

CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 766

22 Apr 2013, 5:25 pm

Claiming to know that there is or is not a God is stupid.

It cannot be proven or disproved.

I don't believe in God, fairies, or leprechauns but I can't prove or disprove their existence.

I simply say I don't believe in them because there is no evidence.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

25 Apr 2013, 12:20 am

Agnostic here and exceptionally proud of the fact.

Page 9 of 10 [ 146 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Jump to:

A question for agnostics. Post Reply New Topic

A question for agnostics.