Agnostics: Get Off the Fence

[Heyo]

Personally, I find that claim to be fantastically arrogant and presumptious.

Is it still arrogant when I have strong evidence?

 

[Secret Chief]

Is it still arrogant when I have strong evidence?

It's the principle, not this particular topic. It is essentially saying that an opinion that is different is not permissable; "everyone should have the same opinion as me. Everyone should be an agnostic - if you are not, then you are wrong." That is of course the same attitude that some people have regarding their religious beliefs: "The evidence for the existence of {{{}}} is all around so I am right and I declare that you must think the same as me."

 

[Revoltingest]

It's the principle, not this particular topic. It is essentially saying that an opinion that is different is not permissable; "everyone should have the same opinion as me. Everyone should be an agnostic - if you are not, then you are wrong." That is of course the same attitude that some people have regarding their religious beliefs: "The evidence for the existence of {{{}}} is all around so I am right and I declare that you must think the same as me."

When I see believers around the globe with tremendous variation
in their religious "truth", this is evidence that they don't have it.
Further, I see in many the evolution of their "truth" as they age.
Absolute truth can change with time & location, from person to person?
This is indeed evidence that they know not whereof they speak.

It's perfectly acceptable if they disagree with me.
Many fine people do.
I observe things, & this is just my opinion about reality.
It isn't "the truth".

 

[Secret Chief]

When I see believers around the globe with tremendous variation
in their religious "truth", this is evidence that they don't have it.
Further, I see in many the evolution of their "truth" as they age.
Absolute truth can change with time & location, from person to person?
This is indeed evidence that they know not whereof they speak.

It's perfectly acceptable if they disagree with me.
Many fine people do.
I observe things, & this is just my opinion about reality.
It isn't "the truth".

I agree (except perhaps nitpicking I would say your opinion about reality is the truth for you).

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree (except perhaps nitpicking I would say your opinion about reality is the truth for you).

That's what you'd call it.
(I sense a metaphor, but one I avoid.)
I could be wrong, so it's not "true".
Thus, it's mere opinion.

 

[Secret Chief]

That's what you'd call it.
But since I could be wrong, it's not "true".
Thus, it's mere opinion.

I permit you to have that opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

I permit you to have that opinion.

I appreciate your magnanimity.

 

[Heyo]

It's the principle, not this particular topic. It is essentially saying that an opinion that is different is not permissable;

That is not my intention. To be clear, I think everyone has a right to her/his own opinion - just not to her/his own facts.

"everyone should have the same opinion as me. Everyone should be an agnostic - if you are not, then you are wrong."

Yep. And you have a right to be wrong.

That is of course the same attitude that some people have regarding their religious beliefs: "The evidence for the existence of {{{}}} is all around so I am right and I declare that you must think the same as me."

That is the nature of having a strong position. Agnosticism is a strong position, atheism is not. Atheists calling Agnostics "fence sitters" is just ridiculous.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally, I find that claim to be fantastically arrogant and presumptious.

Arrogant or not, it sure seems to be true the vast majority of the time.

 

[Secret Chief]

That is not my intention. To be clear, I think everyone has a right to her/his own opinion - just not to her/his own facts.

Ah, in that case I agree. (Of course some apparent "facts" change over a period of time).

Yep. And you have a right to be wrong.

Of course; we all have a right to be wrong, including agnostics.

That is the nature of having a strong position. Agnosticism is a strong position, atheism is not. Atheists calling Agnostics "fence sitters" is just ridiculous.

I feel I've said all I want to on that relationship.

 

[Secret Chief]

Arrogant or not, it sure seems to be true the vast majority of the time.

True for....agnostics? People who identify with a particular faith? People in general?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True for....agnostics? People who identify with a particular faith? People in general?

People in general, IMO.

 

[columbus]

True for....agnostics? People who identify with a particular faith? People in general?

People in general.

That's why I'm a hard agnostic. People are pretty stupid and ignorant and prone to illusions and delusions. Just look around you for evidence of that.

Tom

 

[Secret Chief]

People in general.

That's why I'm a hard agnostic. People are pretty stupid and ignorant and prone to illusions and delusions. Just look around you for evidence of that.

Tom

Hey, I could be one of those people in your eyes! But yeah...voting for Trump...

 

[columbus]

Hey, I could be one of those people in your eyes!

You definitely are!
I didn't qualify the term because it applies to everyone. Including myself...

I try to do better, by not accepting unevidenced claims about the unknowable. But I'm still a human. Limited. Ignorant. Self centered. A product of my genes and cultural background and instincts and schooling and...

I Am What I Am

But yeah...voting for Trump...

Too bad Jesus isn't God enough to reach Trump supporters, but .
Tom

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is like saying everyone must fall into the "tastes great" or "less filling" camp among drinkers of Miller Lite.

There is ONLY the true followers of beer, who denounce Miller Lite as blasphemy. All else is heresy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Pity, I was hoping for a dissertation on US craft beers.

Me! Me! I can!!!

 

[ppp]

True for....agnostics? People who identify with a particular faith? People in general?

If only someone would demonstrate a god.
Not the words that they claim came from a god.
Not the people who they claim are messengers of god.
Not the the people who claim that their feelings are the result of a god.

Just demonstrate a god.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some here appear to have concluded that one is either a theist or an atheist; that there is no other option. If this is, indeed, the case, in which camp do you fall if you're agnostic?

Agnostics:

Do you consider yourself to be a theist? Why?
Do you consider yourself to be an atheist? Why?

I reject the notion that "agnosticism" is some kind of 3rd option between atheism and theism and thus mutually exclusive with it. It's not. It deals with a different subject alltogether.

(a)theism deals with belief
(a)gnosticism deasl with knowledge.

One does not rule out the other. In fact, one is a qualifier of the other.
They are different answers to different questions.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I'm not on some fense.

I don't believe the claims that gods exist. That makes me an atheist.
I don't claim to know that gods exist/don't exist. That makes me agnostic.

I don't know and I don't find the claims believable => agnostic atheist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Theistic agnostic because I believe in the possibility of a God that is unprovable and I believe atheism excludes that possibility.

It doesn't, by the way.
Atheism merely means that the claims are deemed unbelievable. That's it.

The claims could be made believable by justifying them with proper evidence.