Ignorance rather than Knowing(ism)

[Daemon Sophic]

Not suggesting that at all... is that required?

Actually, if you profess to have faith of any form (pantheist, gnostic, theist, atheist, whatever.....) then .... Yes. :yes:
----- If not, then all those people are deluding themselves. :cover:

Believe it or not, Anon is actually a very dear friend of mine.

Oh hey! Me too! But (s)he told me not to let anybody know his(her) name, age, race, or sex. So don't tell anyone else. OK? Maybe we can all get together to watch Kung-Fu sometime.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, if you profess to have faith of any form (pantheist, gnostic, theist, atheist, whatever.....) then .... Yes. :yes:
----- If not, then all those people are deluding themselves. :cover:

Okay. That makes no sense to me.

In review: you had said agnosticism comes with a careful examination of faith/beliefs that leads one to believe that they cannot know which philosophy is correct. I had said, isn't that then ignorance of "the correct philosophy". You then asked if I was suggesting that someone out there knows "the correct philosophy," to which I asked if that it was required that someone out there knows "the correct philosophy" in order that the first statement fall under the category of "ignorance".

Can you re-state your reply, please?

 

[themadhair]

Actually, if you profess to have faith of any form (pantheist, gnostic, theist, atheist, whatever.....)

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ostic-doesnt-fall-between-theist-atheist.html

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Okay. That makes no sense to me.

In review: you had said agnosticism comes with a careful examination of faith/beliefs that leads one to believe that they cannot know which philosophy is correct. I had said, isn't that then ignorance of "the correct philosophy". You then asked if I was suggesting that someone out there knows "the correct philosophy," to which I asked if that it was required that someone out there knows "the correct philosophy" in order that the first statement fall under the category of "ignorance".

Can you re-state your reply, please?

No problem.
---- You said "isn't that then ignorance of "the correct philosophy"" - making (to me) the clear indication that you think a correct philosophy actually does exist, and that agnostic people just haven't figured it out yet.
---- I, being stunned by this bold suggestion, replied (a little sarcastically) - "Are you suggesting that you (or anyone throughout human history) HAS figured out "the correct philosophy"? "
---- You replied, "Not suggesting that at all... is that required?" - Now somewhat confused (as I thought you were suggesting this) I point out that all the people of the world, throughout all of the history of people having faith. . . . . . . MUST think/believe/have faith that their own philosophy/religion is "the correct philosophy". Since if they profess a philosophy that they themselves do NOT think is the correct one, :areyoucra thennnnnnnn, that is psychiatrically A-B-normal.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ostic-doesnt-fall-between-theist-atheist.html

Thank you themadhair. I have read the OP and some of the posts therein. But I fundamentally disagree with the OP. :tsk: .... and I have heard the arguement before.
---- ATS states - "....but it's a fundamentally binary position.

I understand how the word agnositicsm is used by some, and I understand the psychological and social motivations for defining agnosticism as some sort of 'in-between' state, but it is logically impossible to neither believe something, nor not believe it. The state of not believing something, necessarily means that you do not believe it." --- ....and this is wrong.
He is trying to say that everyone is either a theist or an atheist. PERIOD. To which I reply thus:
Is there gum on the left corner of my desk?

:areyoucra ---- :sarcastic --- :areyoucra

Seriously.
Is there gum on the left corner of my desk?
Do you BELIEVE that there is gum on the left-hand corner (the closer one, not the far corner) of my desk? Do you have FAITH that it is there?

Or do you have ABSOLUTELY no information on the subject, and the point is moot?
Is it pink gum, or green, or blue?
Is it still in the wrapper, or out, or already been chewed?
Does it have flavor crystals? Does it have a juicy center?

These are the kinds of "intellectual" points that theologians have argued, and killed for.. . . . for centuries.
Atheists DEMAND that there is NO gum on the left corner of my desk. Or ANYWHERE on my desk........even though they don't even know where my desk is.

------
Do I believe that there is gum on the left corner of YOUR desk? I have no way of knowing, and I don't care. I have neither faith that you have gum there, or that your desk is clean. . . . and . . . . I am utterly unconcerned by the issue.

The reason I come here. . . . what I find both amusing, sad, and psychosocially interesting . . . . is that so many people fervently, adamantly, violently BELIEVE so much about a subject that they know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Atheists DEMAND that there is NO gum on the left corner of my desk.

I don't.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I don't.

Oh yeah......except him.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

He is trying to say that everyone is either a theist or an atheist. PERIOD. To which I reply thus:
Is there gum on the left corner of my desk?

I don't know either way; there isn't any evidence to suggest either way; so why would I believe there is? Q: Do I believe there is gum on the left corner of your desk? A: Of course not - why would I?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The reason I come here. . . . what I find both amusing, sad, and psychosocially interesting . . . . is that so many people fervently, adamantly, violently BELIEVE so much about a subject that they know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about.

You mean somewhat like knowing "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about" the distinction between ontology and epistemology?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't know either way; there isn't any evidence to suggest either way; so why would I believe there is? Q: Do I believe there is gum on the left corner of your desk? A: Of course not - why would I?

Precisely ...

 

[Willamena]

No problem.
---- You said "isn't that then ignorance of "the correct philosophy"" - making (to me) the clear indication that you think a correct philosophy actually does exist, and that agnostic people just haven't figured it out yet.

I see, thank you. My question, though, was simply in regard to your line that proposed belief of one person, pondering in their agnosticism that they didn't know "the correct philosophy".

 

[Willamena]

Do I believe that there is gum on the left corner of YOUR desk? I have no way of knowing, and I don't care. I have neither faith that you have gum there, or that your desk is clean. . . . and . . . . I am utterly unconcerned by the issue.

That's the argument for irreligion. If it's held up for agnosticism, isn't it agnosticism founded in ignorance?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

You mean somewhat like knowing "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about" the distinction between ontology and epistemology?

What of them.
P.S. - I know several definintions of, and distinctions between each. If you wish, I could note that the theological epistomology is insufficient, and therefore I need not (and can not) make any form of binary deist ontological committment.

.....assuming that using big words makes you feel good. Personally, I find that they cloud most issues.

I don't know either way; there isn't any evidence to suggest either way; so why would I believe there is? Q: Do I believe there is gum on the left corner of your desk? A: Of course not - why would I?

Exactly. That is the distinction between atheist and agnostic.
There is no evidence. Upon that we both agree. But the agnostic simply acknowledges the fact that he/she has not seen the desk yet.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

[/color]
I see, thank you. My question, though, was simply in regard to your line that proposed belief of one person, pondering in their agnosticism that they didn't know "the correct philosophy".

Ah. Yes. I suppose there are those who call themselves 'agnostic' during a period of time when they are looking for some form of theistic meaning for life.

That's the argument for irreligion. If it's held up for agnosticism, isn't it agnosticism founded in ignorance?

No....because I'm still looking for the desk.
But I suppose you could use the word 'ignorance' in a very loose (and seemingly insulting variant :tsk: ). "Ignorant" vs "Constantly seeking".... the word "ignorance" implies that A. There is something to be known. and usually B. That some people have already figured that something out; thus insinuating a lack of not only knowledge, but also intelligence on the part of the ignorant (which was my poor assumption as to your meaning above. My apologies for receiving your remark as an insult).
..... as Caladan so succinctly put it on page one:

Acknowledging that one does not know, is the opposite of ignorance, it is the beginning of wisdom.

P.S. - I have often heard the line "Agnostic people are too stupid to know what they believe in." over the years. Usually from the religious, but also from the atheists. :banghead3

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What of them.
Exactly. That is the distinction between atheist and agnostic.
There is no evidence. Upon that we both agree. But the agnostic simply acknowledges the fact that he/she has not seen the desk yet.

I acknowledge the fact that I haven't seen the desk. I acknowledge the fact that I haven't seen god. Am I agnostic about the desk? Yes. Am I agnostic about god? Yes. Do I believe there is gum on your desk? No. Do I believe that god(s) exist? No. What's an atheist? Somebody who doesn't believe god(s) exist. Simple.

 

[Willamena]

Ah. Yes. I suppose there are those who call themselves 'agnostic' during a period of time when they are looking for some form of theistic meaning for life.

That's another possibility.

No....because I'm still looking for the desk. But I suppose you could use the word 'ignorance' in a very loose (and seemingly insulting variant :tsk: ).

But while you're looking for desk, you've no desk at which to sit firmly behind. No insult is intended, just an honest appraisal between a person and their desk.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

......
But while you're looking for desk, you've no desk at which to sit firmly behind. No insult is intended, just an honest appraisal between a person and their desk.

Honestly? I'm standing at a drafting table.
More seriously though. There is no evidence of God or gods. There is no evidence that believing in them, or attending human churches has any effect upon any of us.
("Crom! If you do not answer my prayers. . . . Then TO HELL WITH YOU!")
Willamena. Are you sitting at a desk? Are you wandering and looking for a desk? Or are you sitting in a chair, humming to yourself, and tapping your fingers on an imaginary flat surface?

I acknowledge the fact that I haven't seen the desk. I acknowledge the fact that I haven't seen god. Am I agnostic about the desk? Yes. Am I agnostic about god? Yes. Do I believe there is gum on your desk? No. Do I believe that god(s) exist? No. What's an atheist? Somebody who doesn't believe god(s) exist. Simple.

Your playing the odds, not certifying a reality.
Like a theist, an atheist has faith. Both operate sans proof.
An atheist not only believes there is no God. He/she insists that what we know now clearly SHOWS that God DOES NOT exist, and CANNOT exist.
If you affirmatively state "There is no God." Then you must acknowledge that either:
1. - You have searched every atom, and every metaphysical aspect of every atom, in the multiverse (assuming there is such), and found no God.
or 2. - You're extrapolating wildly.

Meanwhile, I'll still wandering the halls looking for a desk. If I find one, then I might be able to see if some form of foodstuff is on the corner.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Your playing the odds, not certifying a reality.
Like a theist, an atheist has faith. Both operate sans proof.
An atheist not only believes there is no God. He/she insists that what we know now clearly SHOWS that God DOES NOT exist, and CANNOT exist.

Oh, I see - you're using a specific, and incomplete definition of the word "atheist". That explains it.

I am agnostic - I do not know whether god(s) exist.
I am an athest - I do not believe that god(s) exist, because there isn't sufficient evidence for me to believe so.
I do not insist anything.

You can obviously continue to base arguments on your own definitions of words, but I've gotten sucked into enough semantical arguments for a lifetime on this board, and am done with those.

 

[Willamena]

Willamena. Are you sitting at a desk? Are you wandering and looking for a desk?

If we're still talking figuratively, I am sitting firmly behind a desk, one that I built myself and behind which no one else could sit, even if they wanted to.

As for the gum, I know not to look for such things.

 

[Willamena]

You can obviously continue to base arguments on your own definitions of words...

Each of us can do no less. To declare otherwise is knowing(ism).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What of them. P.S. - I know several definintions of, and distinctions between each.

You demonstrate no such knowledge - only anger.