Agnosticism

[dogsgod]

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. wiki





An agnostic is not a fence sitter. The agnostic cannot know and neither can you.




Got it?





.

 

[Willamena]

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. wiki

An agnostic is not a fence sitter. The agnostic cannot know and neither can you.

Got it?

Is that true?

 

[KarlVonMox]

Is that true?

Nope. Its not. See my thread for details

 

[dogsgod]

Is that true?

Would I lie to you?


Agnostic (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge) was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1860 to describe his philosophy which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge. Early Christianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge." Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the ancient religious movement of Gnosticism in particular; Huxley used the term in a broader, more abstract sense. Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry. wiki

 

[KarlVonMox]

I apologize dogsgod, it seems you agree with me on what atheism is as you say on my other thread.

I know that that this is what agnosticism is. But its indistinguishable from atheism.

 

[Willamena]

Agnostic (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge) was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1860 to describe his philosophy which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge. Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge." Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the ancient religious movement of Gnosticism in particular; Huxley used the term in a broader, more abstract sense. Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry. wiki

None of this supports your claim that "the truth value of certain claims—especially religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable", or that, truthfully, "the agnostic cannot know and neither can you" (a metaphysical claim).

 

[Willamena]

Would I lie to you?

Not necessarily: but as soon as someone declares truthfully that there is no truth, you can be assured that they are either lying or mistaken.

 

[dogsgod]

Not necessarily: but as soon as someone declares truthfully that there is no truth, you can be assured that they are either lying or mistaken.

Who said there was no truth?

 

[dogsgod]

I apologize dogsgod, it seems you agree with me on what atheism is as you say on my other thread.

I know that that this is what agnosticism is. But its indistinguishable from atheism.

Yes, agnosticism is indistinguishable from atheism except that one can be agnostic in regards to many subjects whereas atheism is restricted to the subject of God or gods.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, agnosticism is indistinguishable from atheism except that one can be agnostic in regards to many subjects whereas atheism is restricted to the subject of God or gods.

Absolute rubbish. Learn the difference between epistemology and ontology.

 

[dogsgod]

Lemons for breakfast, again?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Not necessarily: but as soon as someone declares truthfully that there is no truth, you can be assured that they are either lying or mistaken.

It is not a claim that there is no truth; but rather a claim that full, all-encompassing Truth, cannot be known or verified by finite beings.

In fact, anyone convinced that they know the Truth is, as you say, 'either lying or mistaken.'


"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." -- Andre Gide

 

[MissAlice]

It is not a claim that there is no truth; but rather a claim that full, all-encompassing Truth, cannot be known or verified by finite beings.

In fact, anyone convinced that they know the Truth is, as you say, 'either lying or mistaken.'


"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." -- Andre Gide

I couldn't agree more....:yes:

 

[Oberon]

Yes, agnosticism is indistinguishable from atheism except ...

...for all the things which distinguish them. Atheism is a positive epistemic stance: I believe no gods exist (also occasionally "I believe religions are all wrong"). Theism is likewise a positive epistemic stance: I believe god or gods exist. Agnosticism is a negative epistemic stance: I don't know whether god or gods exist.

To equate the two is to say there is no difference between the statments "I believe there is no god" and "I don't know if there is a god or not." Unfortunately for you, there is a substantial difference between these two stances.

 

[Willamena]

It is not a claim that there is no truth; but rather a claim that full, all-encompassing Truth, cannot be known or verified by finite beings.

And since, presumably, we are "finite beings" is there a distinction to be made between no truth and truth we cannot know?

 

[Mr Cheese]

I apologize dogsgod, it seems you agree with me on what atheism is as you say on my other thread.

I know that that this is what agnosticism is. But its indistinguishable from atheism.

:sarcastic how atheism is a position

agnosticism is "undecided"

 

[MissAlice]

I think people often define these labels on an individual basis even though they share commonalities.

I'm not a believer in god but I rather keep myself neutral than to assume too much in the matters of something which I have trouble comprehending. There seems to be so many ideas and individual beliefs in what is defined as god/s.

 

[Mr Cheese]

.
To equate the two is to say there is no difference between the statments "I believe there is no god" and "I don't know if there is a god or not." Unfortunately for you, there is a substantial difference between these two stances.

as mucha s it pains me...

I'd have to agree with Oberon...

well said sir

 

[Oberon]

And since, presumably, we are "finite beings" is there a distinction to be made between no truth and truth we cannot know?

Absolutely, although practical applications of such a distinction may not exist. Philosophically, however, an acknowledgement of an "absolute truth," even if it is unknowable, is different from a belief in "no truth." A belief in "no truth" is fundamentally different shaping of one's cosmology/philosophy compared to an unknowable truth. In the former, this truth simply does not exist. In the latter, it simply cannot be known, but it does exist.

It is a bit like the "tree falls in the forest" question. The tree falling does indeed produce a sound, even if no one is around to hear it.

 

[Willamena]

Absolutely, although practical applications of such a distinction may not exist. Philosophically, however, an acknowledgement of an "absolute truth," even if it is unknowable, is different from a belief in "no truth."

That's true. One is fantasy. My point, though, was that there is no truth in fantasy, so no "practical" (real) distinction to be made.

It is a bit like the "tree falls in the forest" question. The tree falling does indeed produce a sound, even if no one is around to hear it.

In the answer to the question, it also doesn't, though. It "does" only because we have firmly fixed in place a fantasy world beyond what we know to be true.