Aren't we all agnostic?

[Revoltingest]

That's true in so far as we can't test all the circumstances, but the limitations of a theory does not necessarily make it false. We still use Newtonian Mechanics as it works for understanding the Orbits of most of the planet of the solar system. the exception is Mercury which doesn't orbit in quite the way Newtonian mechanics would suggest, but that was later explianed when Einstein theorised was affected by the sun's gravity bending space-time. Even thought it does hold for the one example, doesn't mean it loses its validity in all the contexts where it does accurately reflect what happens. So, if materialism was "true" it would be true in a sense relative to our ability to discover and reproduce phenemeona in accordance with our ideas rather than being absolutely true.

As the statistician George Box famously said of theories (aka "models")....
"...all models are wrong, but some are useful."

 

[Laika]

As the statistician George Box famously said of theories (aka "models")....
"...all models are wrong, but some are useful."

lol. it sums up the problem well. so long as we are looking for absolute standards of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, we won't find them. instead we have to go with what is useful and what works based on the understanding that if something works it corresponds to the objective world enough for us to treat it as truth. the truth is incomplete and partial because it is made by human beings with physical limitations to our knowledge. we are not omniscient as we thought our gods may have been.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

I have clear proof that there is Creator.

The evidence for that is Creation. Look around u that is clear evidence.


Wouldnt we be assuming someone to be crazy who says Piramides came without anyone building?


The Creator ask us:
Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators?


Mankind are so selfish and arrogant. They call inventors of planes " creators" but when they are asked who created u, they say Nothing it all happened because of bigbang theory! Big bang theory made this beautiful complexed life! So humans love to call themselves Inventors, Creators(Creative thinking) but are arrogant and selfish when its about their own soul and body...


Another example is a woman before having baby does not produce milk. When baby is born she is able to nourish him with milk... All this because of "big bang theory".

 

[leibowde84]

I consider my 'beliefs' to be atheistic, in terms of believing in the existence of a deity/deities, because there is no proof. But, I'm open to the possibilities that could lurk beyond the surface. My question is, aren't we all agnostic, for none of us has knowledge if a god exists or not? None of us can prove or disprove the existence of a deity, yes?

What do you think? I wrestle with this from time to time.

I agree. Although some claim to have knowledge of God, that "knowledge" is, in actuality, a deeply held belief. Subjective experience has been shown time and time again to be flawed when it comes to reliability. Thus, there is a certain amount of "doubt" inherent in everything.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

lol. it sums up the problem well. so long as we are looking for absolute standards of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, we won't find them. instead we have to go with what is useful and what works based on the understanding that if something works it corresponds to the objective world enough for us to treat it as truth. the truth is incomplete and partial because it is made by human beings with physical limitations to our knowledge. we are not omniscient as we thought our gods may have been.

absolutely! I much prefer a pragmatic "because it works, because it fits the facts as we have them now" to the Western obsession with Truth. Personally, I am highly skeptical of humans ever knowing "Truth."

 

[viole]

I consider my 'beliefs' to be atheistic, in terms of believing in the existence of a deity/deities, because there is no proof. But, I'm open to the possibilities that could lurk beyond the surface. My question is, aren't we all agnostic, for none of us has knowledge if a god exists or not? None of us can prove or disprove the existence of a deity, yes?

What do you think? I wrestle with this from time to time.

Ehm. I have knowledge that there is no God.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

I consider my 'beliefs' to be atheistic, in terms of believing in the existence of a deity/deities, because there is no proof. But, I'm open to the possibilities that could lurk beyond the surface. My question is, aren't we all agnostic, for none of us has knowledge if a god exists or not? None of us can prove or disprove the existence of a deity, yes?

What do you think? I wrestle with this from time to time.

Things we have no knowledge of we are ignorant of. Agnostic and ignorant are not the same thing.

Agnostic is not about you or me and what we know or don't; rather, it's about the nature of knowing, or more specifically, a statement about truth values (where knowledge is taken to be justified belief).

Thomas Huxley expressed agnosticism as a method: "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." This method has reason supporting it, which can be seen if we turn the sentences around: things that are beyond our reason are not worth consideration because they have no truth value, and if they have no truth value they cannot be demonstrated or demonstrable.

 

[Adramelek]

My question is, aren't we all agnostic, for none of us has knowledge if a god exists or not? None of us can prove or disprove the existence of a deity, yes?

This is a delicate subject for me to discuss on an open forum. I have experienced once or twice in my life what I believe and am convinced was the direct manifestation of the presence of That which is Set, whom I identify as the god or divine spirit of the Universe. The thing is I can only relay my experiences to others but cannot prove that my experiences are authentic and I never try too. I never try to convince or convert. So I cannot say that I am agnostic because I am personally convinced that the Set-entity does exist as a reality.

 

[Willamena]

Agnostics admit the 'possibility' of a god, despite the lack of evidence.

Ordinarily, they do not.

That's realism (the allowance for truth values that are not known), not agnosticism.

 

[leibowde84]

Most people aren't agnostic, actually. It's a very difficult path to consistently follow. Naturally we tend to believe something one way or another, and once we lean even slightly one way we are no longer agnostics.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief. Agnosticism is the notion that knowledge of God is unattainable. There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists, which illustrates this point.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

 

[Nakosis]

I consider my 'beliefs' to be atheistic, in terms of believing in the existence of a deity/deities, because there is no proof. But, I'm open to the possibilities that could lurk beyond the surface. My question is, aren't we all agnostic, for none of us has knowledge if a god exists or not? None of us can prove or disprove the existence of a deity, yes?

What do you think? I wrestle with this from time to time.

I think the subconscious mind is capable of creating the experience of meeting or having an experience of God. So for some/many God really exists if only as a being created by the subconscious. A person could certainly have knowledge of this God created by their subconscious through an actual experience also created by their subconscious.

So because of that, they wouldn't consider themselves agnostic.

Knowledge is based on experience whether that experience is an actuality or not.

 

[1137]

Agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief. Agnosticism is the notion that knowledge of God is unattainable. There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists, which illustrates this point.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

Exactly, so when we lean one way or another we become intellectually dishonest, believing on blind faith alone. However, I'm currently in debate with myself whether this is bad or not.

 

[Jumi]

Proof of any type of god would certainly change things for me, in that sense I'm agnostic. The universe... it all seems too complex to have been created by the gods, much less by one. Rather the universe and the natural laws are the closest to god concepts that I see meaningful, in that sense I'm a-theistic.

 

[Deidre]

Nope, I'm an Irreligious Gnostic, fulfilling Biblical prophecy; just don't really care to prove the basics of if God exists, when there are more complicated matters to explain.

Interesting! I've never heard that before...''irreligious Gnostic.'' Do you believe that there are gospels 'missing' from the Bible?

You're welcome, and correct. But more significant than that IMO is that it is often possible to also determine whether how much, if at all, a given deity's existence is important and/or ambiguous - and to me at least the evidence suggests that often if not always the answers depend on the believer, not on the deity.

So, in short, a deity's existence seems to be exactly as important as people want to believe it to be, and possibly no more than that.

On the contrary. Agnosticism is very much necessary - and one of the logical pillars of political secularism, which I greatly value. It just isn't very significant from a personal perspective for most people, to the point that many atheists tend to disregard it as "uncommited atheism".

I suspect that most people are literally incapable of sustaining a consistent agnostic perspective. Our brains and mental processes are not well suited to confortably maintain doubt.

But beyond that, I also think that while impossible to prove wrong, a true agnostic stance is not particularly crucial in any practical sense. There is considerable anthropological evidence that beliefs about deities existence are actually fairly malleable and maintained to a large measure by social reinforcement (Christian anthropologists often find themselves effectively suspending their disbeliefs of local myths for the duration of their missions).

I am personally convinced that, perhaps counter-intuitively, it is in fact not at all important to know whether any literal gods exist. All practical aspects of the matter seem to be connected not to the matter of their existence proper but rather to what the beliefs regarding them are.

I like how you articulate things, Luis. This was not at all where I thought you were heading, but I lean in agreement with you on most of it. Perhaps where we differ, is how you define knowledge as it relates to agnosticism, and how I define it.

 

[Deidre]

I'm pure atheist.

Agnostics admit the 'possibility' of a god, despite the lack of evidence.

However, it is my determination that there is no divine being in the universe. I am certain that the god of any of the religions of man does not exist, that is pretty self-evident. And I am also certain that if something like god were ever discovered, then it would merely be an alien who was better at maths than we are. It may appear divine, and appear to conduct magic, but it would merely be an alien using alien science.

I am, therefore, Atheist.

I like your reasoning, Mycroft. To me as well, I'm rather certain that the gods of religions do not exist. There are too many variables and variances and too many excuses made to make a plausible case for god. At least the ''god of the gaps''. lol

 

[Deidre]

I disagree, but it is a peculair feature of materialism. Atheism can be demonstrated to be true if someone can prove materialism is actually true. it logically follows on from it. If someone can demonstrate that consciousness cannot exist in seperation from matter and is the result of natural phenemeona, and that the brain and the mind are the same- it would mean it is impossible for god to exist as a form of disembodied consciousness and eliminate the dualism of spiritual and material worlds. Atheism could therefore be demonstrated to be objectively true and religion would be an illusion irrespective of whether a person believes it or not.

That would be a "sufficient" level of proof but because it involves so many physical questions about the nature of reality and what can be proven, it is a scientific heresy though was much more popular in the 19th century but has fallen out of fashion for large number of reasons.You often here theists refer to "scientific materialism" or "scientific atheism" and equating science/atheism/materialism but this applies only to a rather limited case and is not part of mainstream scientific thinking as it stands today.

I happen to think though that many religious people feel that the spiritual and material worlds are synonymous. Meaning that to many religious people, ''god'' is quantifiable. When I think of agnosticism, I think of not being able to quantify in some way that a deity exists or does not. Perhaps because of the strength of the Abrahamic faiths, many religious people believe that a god cannot be seen. Not being able to prove that a god exists in a traditional scientific sense, people must rely on faith. It becomes acceptable to believe that faith can never be proven, but in the same token, faith is very real. It is all very confusing after a while, when you try to have discussions about the Bible for example with theists, and they cling to the idea that the Bible stories are proof of a deity. Looking at Mycroft's and Luis' responses, I may have to reflect further on what it means to be agnostic, and what it means to call one's self an atheist. I'm comfortable with atheism (finally) but I can't help but wonder now if my desire to hang onto agnosticism comes from years of being a Christian, and it is hard to let go of the idea that something...somewhere...may exist. (and how dare I suggest that I can know either way) lol

Does that make sense?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm comfortable with atheism (finally) but I can't help but wonder now if my desire to hang onto agnosticism comes from years of being a Christian, and it is hard to let go of the idea that something...somewhere...may exist. (and how dare I suggest that I can know either way) lol

Does that make sense?

It sure does.

When you put it that way, it sounds a lot like a nonproblem. If you feel confortable as an agnostic atheist, then that is that.

 

[Laika]

I happen to think though that many religious people feel that the spiritual and material worlds are synonymous. Meaning that to many religious people, ''god'' is quantifiable. When I think of agnosticism, I think of not being able to quantify in some way that a deity exists or does not. Perhaps because of the strength of the Abrahamic faiths, many religious people believe that a god cannot be seen. Not being able to prove that a god exists in a traditional scientific sense, people must rely on faith. It becomes acceptable to believe that faith can never be proven, but in the same token, faith is very real. It is all very confusing after a while, when you try to have discussions about the Bible for example with theists, and they cling to the idea that the Bible stories are proof of a deity. Looking at Mycroft's and Luis' responses, I may have to reflect further on what it means to be agnostic, and what it means to call one's self an atheist. I'm comfortable with atheism (finally) but I can't help but wonder now if my desire to hang onto agnosticism comes from years of being a Christian, and it is hard to let go of the idea that something...somewhere...may exist. (and how dare I suggest that I can know either way) lol

Does that make sense?

I don't think you should feel too bad about it D. it makes perfect sense as I go through the same thing, as I am not yet able to prove to myself that I am right and there are emotional reasons why I may not want to (the threat of nihilism and the fear of being wrong). the sense that there is "something" still lurks at the back of my mind and as I've questioned the extent to which I can support my atheism, the more I've found that I still have beliefs derived from christianity even through I was only a 'theist' for two years (age 4-6). In many respects, part of the problem is letting go of the absolute standards of truth that come from religion because as human beings we have a limited understanding of how the world is. the issue for an agnostic is whether those limitations to our knowledge mean that we cannot know the answer to these question and god fills the gap. so your not alone of this, but the issue as to whether atheism can be scientific or not depends on re-defining the philosophy of science rather than relying on faith. I keep looking over my shoulder thinking "am I sure this is true?" and each time, the answer is yes, but it comes with letting go of the idea of a perfect knowledge of the universe. that seems to be the trade-off for strong atheism.

 

[wizanda]

Do you believe that there are gospels 'missing' from the Bible?

Don't like to do beliefs, prefer things based on evidence.... There are lots of books referenced, clealrly missing from the Bible.

 

[Jumi]

The evidence for that is Creation. Look around u that is clear evidence.

Only if you are preconditioned to think it must have a creator.

Wouldnt we be assuming someone to be crazy who says Piramides came without anyone building?

Yes, and we have evidence for them being built both writing and we can see from the structures that is manmade.

Mankind are so selfish and arrogant.

We are small and not special. How is that selfish and arrogant?

They call inventors of planes " creators" but when they are asked who created u, they say Nothing it all happened because of bigbang theory! Big bang theory made this beautiful complexed life! So humans love to call themselves Inventors, Creators(Creative thinking) but are arrogant and selfish when its about their own soul and body...

I've never seen anyone explain it like this. Maybe you should ask people to explain these things better, if that's the way you've taken it.

Another example is a woman before having baby does not produce milk. When baby is born she is able to nourish him with milk... All this because of "big bang theory".

Nope, that's not it.