Agnostic: Get off the fence?

[Naturalist_Atheist]

I was speaking in particular about your last sentence telling agnostics that "the water is fine." and explaining why we don't "jump in". I understand the distinction between knowledge and belief. It is because of this distinction that I am able to call myself both a theist and an agnostic without contradicting myself. You seem to be under the impression that because there is a distinction between the two we can only have either one or the other and the way you called us "little agnostics" implies that you think we are too "frightened" and "childish" to "jump in" the "water". But there is no water or shore or fence on a field, it's just everyone with their own opinion derived from their own experiences.

I have no problem with you believing in a god but claiming that knowledge is out of your reach. That's prefectly acceptable. I don't believe in God and I think it's not possible to KNOW that there isn't one. So in that sense you can call me agnostic atheist. (Just not to my face) I have a problem with the agnostics that sidestep the issue of belief.

And the other dude.. Sorry I've never heard the word Ontology before. Does that make me stupid? Should I have no opinion in this matter because of it? Explain yourself so I can understand you and I would be happy to reconsider my opinions. I've been wrong before.

 

[Willamena]

I've never heard the word Ontology before. Should I have no opinion in this matter because of it?

Perhaps. "Ontology" addresses the-world-as-it-is full of things-as-they-are. It stands in contrast to "epistemology" which addresses the-world-as-I-know-it full of things-as-I-know-them-to-be (from which stance says that I cannot know it to be anything else). Agnosticism is an epistemological issue ('gnosis' meaning 'knowledge').

 

[Naturalist_Atheist]

Perhaps. "Ontology" addresses the-world-as-it-is full of things-as-they-are. It stands in contrast to "epistemology" which addresses the-world-as-I-know-it full of things-as-I-know-them-to-be (from which stance says that I cannot know it to be anything else). Agnosticism is an epistemological issue ('gnosis' meaning 'knowledge').

Ok... How does this apply to atheism/theism? Thanks for working with me btw. Are atheism/theism ontological conepts?

 

[MoonWater]

I have no problem with you believing in a god but claiming that knowledge is out of your reach. That's prefectly acceptable. I don't believe in God and I think it's not possible to KNOW that there isn't one. So in that sense you can call me agnostic atheist. (Just not to my face) I have a problem with the agnostics that sidestep the issue of belief.

why? what's wrong with "sidestepping the issue of belief"?

 

[Naturalist_Atheist]

why? what's wrong with "sidestepping the issue of belief"?

Because you either have a belief in something or you do not.

 

[Willamena]

Ok... How does this apply to atheism/theism? Thanks for working with me btw. Are atheism/theism ontological conepts?

Both issues can and are addressed by various people from either an ontological or an epistemological standpoint; hence one reason for a variety of religious beliefs.

It is more common, I think, for the atheist on first glimpse of such a topic to look at a God-as-it-is and try to justify arguments for or against "Him". Atheists often butt heads with theists both using the ontological stance --butting heads because when you're looking at "what is" you draw in absolutes (after all, a thing can only be what it is, nothing else). I've found, on the other hand, that rational and more interesting discussions can be had (and even agreements reached) between atheists and theists looking at the God-as-I-know-it-to-be fellow. Here you get the arguments that recognize the mythologies of religions to be stories full of meaningful symbolism --ideas that can be compared, constrasted, and even 'enlightened' by other's words.

 

[doppelganger]

Because you either have a belief in something or you do not.

Or you don't think there's any meaning to the question. Or you understand that slight, but reasonable, changes in the way you think about things could lead you either way. So "both" and "neither" are also options.

 

[MoonWater]

Because you either have a belief in something or you do not.

Dopp said it better than I could

 

[Luminous]

No insult was intended. As for the rest of it, I can't enlighten you and neither can Richard Dawkins; you can find out for yourself because the answers are all inside you. But if you're not prepared to make the journey, don't wonder why you never get there...

If you don't know where you are going, then it doesn't matter what path you take. You'll still get somewhere that you don't know about.

 

[Willamena]

If you don't know where you are going, then it doesn't matter what path you take. You'll still get somewhere that you don't know about.

It matters to you.

 

[Luminous]

Because you either have a belief in something or you do not.

Why be an atheist? Believing there is no god, is like possibly dooming yourself or definately getting doomed allong with everyone. If you are agnostic at least there is a chance that god can love you( you are either doomed with everyone, doomed with some or not doomed at all). Atheism does not have a silver lining.

 

[Sententia]

Why be an atheist? Believing there is no god, is like possibly dooming yourself or definately getting doomed allong with everyone. If you are agnostic at least there is a chance that god can love you( you are either doomed with everyone, doomed with some or not doomed at all). Atheism does not have a silver lining.

Yep no god can love me for being rational and logical... Or using the abilities given to me by such a god should one exist... I believe your argument is a veiled form of pascals wager.

I would also say that someone declaring themselves atheist does not automatically mean they are not agnostic... Instead of asuming you know by their label and your self prescribed meaning it is normally polite to ask.

Cheers.

 

[Naturalist_Atheist]

Or you don't think there's any meaning to the question. Or you understand that slight, but reasonable, changes in the way you think about things could lead you either way. So "both" and "neither" are also options.

Why do you believe there is no meaning to the question of belief in God(s)? Could you list one or two examples of some of these "changes in the way you think" that may lead you one way or the other?

 

[Naturalist_Atheist]

Why be an atheist? Believing there is no god, is like possibly dooming yourself or definately getting doomed allong with everyone. If you are agnostic at least there is a chance that god can love you( you are either doomed with everyone, doomed with some or not doomed at all). Atheism does not have a silver lining.

Mostly what BlancedFx said. I'm willing to take that bet Pascal!

 

[Imagist]

Why do you believe there is no meaning to the question of belief in God(s)? Could you list one or two examples of some of these "changes in the way you think" that may lead you one way or the other?

Think about the concept of god. What does "supernatural" even mean? By something's very existence, it becomes part of the natural world.

Or what about the concept of a god who is omnipresent and yet punishes people by separating them from himself?

It is meaningless to ask whether such a god exists: such a god is internally inconsistent. The question "Does such a god exist?" is no more meaningful than "Do colorless green ideas sleep furiously?"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Think about the concept of god. What does "supernatural" even mean? By something's very existence, it becomes part of the natural world.

This is little more than adolescent word-play.

 

[doppelganger]

Why do you believe there is no meaning to the question of belief in God(s)?

When you ask yourself the question "does God exist?" what do you think you are looking for? And how will you go about looking for it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

When you ask yourself the question "does God exist?" what do you think you are looking for? And how will you go about looking for it?

I think your first question is important. I'm not so sure about the second.

 

[doppelganger]

I think your first question is important. I'm not so sure about the second.

The first one is about the metaphysics. The second is about epistemology. I think the second one might be more important, depending one how one thinks about the question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think the second one might be more important, depending one how one thinks about the question.

I agree, but I remain unclear as to its relevance in the context above. One can believe that God exists and remain radically agnostic, much as one can believe in a multiverse and yet be clear that there is no way to "go about looking for it."