It really isn't possible is it?

[DallasApple]

so.... is "I dunno" a real logical stance?

Hmm...I dont know exactly...

Love

Dallas

 

[methylatedghosts]

How could you know? How could you tell a religious experience from smacking your head too hard on a wall?

You can tell because you know.

People who DO know, are not in the "I dunno" group, and therefore agnosticism is probably the least logical stance. And MANY people DO know

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

That makes the most sense are the latest multiverse theories - that matter and energy have existed forever - no creation needed thank you.

Without evidence, such ideas "make sense" only hypothetically at best...if you're concerned with your views having any corroboration with reality, I'd recommend another solution.

 

[rojse]

Agnosticism is the only logical stance with regards to religion. Discuss...

I am agnostic about God in the same way I am agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Certainly, agnosticism is the only logical stance for any subject, unless it is conclusively proven (that's a topic for another thread). However, it is enough for me to say, that on the balance of probability, that it is more likely that God does not exist than God actually existing, and base my atheism on that.

 

[fEtish]

The only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing at all.

 

[Phasmid]

That makes the most sense are the latest multiverse theories - that matter and energy have existed forever - no creation needed thank you.

That seems like a cop out.

 

[Phasmid]

You can tell because you know.

People who DO know, are not in the "I dunno" group, and therefore agnosticism is probably the least logical stance. And MANY people DO know

In other words, "You just can".

 

[crystalonyx]

Without evidence, such ideas "make sense" only hypothetically at best...if you're concerned with your views having any corroboration with reality, I'd recommend another solution.

Uh, usually theories are backed by evidence, and the latest multiverse theories point to an eternal universe.

 

[methylatedghosts]

In other words, "You just can".

Ok, basically the point I was trying to make is that many, many people feel they know "the ultimate truth" (whatever that is to them) already. Many people think that they already KNOW it. So if all these people already know it, Agnosticism is far from the most logical stance. Whether people who DO KNOW, actually know the truth or not, is really besides the point, because - they KNOW *their* truth.

Does that make sense at all? (maybe I need to rephrase it =\ )

 

[Phasmid]

Ok, basically the point I was trying to make is that many, many people feel they know "the ultimate truth" (whatever that is to them) already. Many people think that they already KNOW it. So if all these people already know it, Agnosticism is far from the most logical stance. Whether people who DO KNOW, actually know the truth or not, is really besides the point, because - they KNOW *their* truth.

Does that make sense at all? (maybe I need to rephrase it =\ )

Ah... I hear you. You're saying that agnosticism isn't logical for people who already believe they know the truth? Like me saying to you, "The only logical stance to take towards the existence of the Mona Lisa is agnosticism" (because I've never seen it in person) where as you (who may well have seen it in person) would know that it exists and do to be agnostic about the Mona Lisa, would be illogical?

 

[Heneni]

Can you define yourself without using any concept related to matter?

Are you a body, or are you the 'thing' inside? Cant define ourselves any more than we can define god, but we are real. Or so we think.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Ah... I hear you. You're saying that agnosticism isn't logical for people who already believe they know the truth? Like me saying to you, "The only logical stance to take towards the existence of the Mona Lisa is agnosticism" (because I've never seen it in person) where as you (who may well have seen it in person) would know that it exists and do to be agnostic about the Mona Lisa, would be illogical?

Pretty much, yeah.

(however, I don't need to have seen it to "know" it exists.... many people "know" things without having experienced them )

A Christian may *know* that god became man to save us from ourselves
An athiest may *know* God cannot exist

Once upon a time, people *knew* the earth was flat
People *knew* that disfavour with gods caused plagues (some people STILL know this)
People *knew* that the Y2k bug was going to happen

People will tell you all sorts of things that they KNOW to be true. It is illogical to be agnostic towards those. I therefore say, that it is illogical to be agnostic towards the existence of god if you already "know" that it does or does not exist.

 

[gnomon]

Claiming that not believing in that which is
1)lacking in empirical evidence and
2)is commonly accepted as unprovable
is not an illogical position.

On the contrary............

 

[Phasmid]

Pretty much, yeah.

(however, I don't need to have seen it to "know" it exists.... many people "know" things without having experienced them )

A Christian may *know* that god became man to save us from ourselves
An athiest may *know* God cannot exist

Once upon a time, people *knew* the earth was flat
People *knew* that disfavour with gods caused plagues (some people STILL know this)
People *knew* that the Y2k bug was going to happen

People will tell you all sorts of things that they KNOW to be true. It is illogical to be agnostic towards those. I therefore say, that it is illogical to be agnostic towards the existence of god if you already "know" that it does or does not exist.

It seems you're using the word "know" in place of the word "opinion".

 

[methylatedghosts]

hmm... Not quite.

"believe" possibly - one can believe something to such a degree that it seems like knowledge.

However, ultimately my point is that to know something means it is illogical to "not-know" that thing. (whether that "knowledge" has basis in actual truth has no real significance - it is still knowledge in that respect - for example, I "know" that I am 21 years old, however the truth might be that I was born a year earlier than the birth certificate says, but to me, it is my knowing that I am 21 years old)

 

[Halcyon]

I agree that on a theoretical level agnosticism is the only logical stance. But on a day-to-day basis atheism is quite logical too.

 

[Phasmid]

hmm... Not quite.

"believe" possibly - one can believe something to such a degree that it seems like knowledge.

However, ultimately my point is that to know something means it is illogical to "not-know" that thing. (whether that "knowledge" has basis in actual truth has no real significance - it is still knowledge in that respect - for example, I "know" that I am 21 years old, however the truth might be that I was born a year earlier than the birth certificate says, but to me, it is my knowing that I am 21 years old)

Hmm... so you acknowledge that you could be wrong? Wouldn't the reasonable conlusion therefor be that you're agnostic about your age?

Hmm... I suppose there's reasoned conjecture and simple probability... but there's no way to be 100% certain of anything really, is there? So while agnosticism, in the strict sense, may be logical... it's certainly a headache.

I suppose it's best to be reasonable certain then and to actually have an opinion, rather than be agnostic. To be a hardline agnostic seems akin to being in a foetal position rocking back and forth in a dark room with a cup off coffee in one's hand questioning everything... I'm giving myself a headache...

 

[little_monkey]

I agree that on a theoretical level agnosticism is the only logical stance. But on a day-to-day basis atheism is quite logical too.

I would say that my atheism stems from empirical evidence (or lack of it) and Occam's Razor -- that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Agnosticism is the only logical stance with regards to religion. Discuss...

hehehehe. Riiiiight.

 

[Phasmid]

hehehehe. Riiiiight.

Anything more insightful to add?