Plain Agnostics - Do you believe in God or not?

[Orias]

That is how I feel about it too. Usually, my only exception to my "100% certainty, aka knowledge, doesn't exist" stance is the knowledge that I exist.

I try and keep it more simple, like being certain that I am uncertain.

But, I do find it hard to argue how 2 + 2 couldn't equal 4. So math is in my "maybe that really is 100% certain" category.

I think 2+2 couldn't equal four because when you put them together you get 22.

A guitar and a human are separate in a room, but once the humans plays the guitar, he is now a guitarist. This is addition, four exists because 22 is only fathomable after 21.

The numbers just keep going.

 

[Falvlun]

It's nice to be absolutely certain about the way in which you exist, as long as you're also certain about the way in which you don't.

Well, I don't think I am certain about which way I exist. I could be a brain in a vat or I could be some cosmic consciousness or I could just be a plain old human (which I find to be the most probable.)

I try and keep it more simple, like being certain that I am uncertain.

Simplicity does have an appeal, but if you are always certain that you are uncertain wouldn't that mean you'd be blind to certainty if it ever did come along?

I think 2+2 couldn't equal four because when you put them together you get 22.

A guitar and a human are separate in a room, but once the humans plays the guitar, he is now a guitarist. This is addition, four exists because 22 is only fathomable after 21.

The numbers just keep going.

No, that's just redefining what "adding" means. If you take addition to mean "finding the numerical sum of two or more amounts", then simply pushing 2 and 2 together to make 22 wouldn't count as addition.

I didn't really get what you were saying about the guitarist and why 4 would exist because of 22 which only exists because of 21, but I imagine it suffers from the same problem above.

 

[Orias]

Simplicity does have an appeal, but if you are always certain that you are uncertain wouldn't that mean you'd be blind to certainty if it ever did come along?

No, it just makes certainty subject to what I am uncertain about.

Most of the time, I am in control of this. But there are always occasions where my own influence cannot sway such judgements of certainty.

No, that's just redefining what "adding" means. If you take addition to mean "finding the numerical sum of two or more amounts", then simply pushing 2 and 2 together to make 22 wouldn't count as addition.

Its not really redefining it, just using a different part of the definition to entail the totality of it.

I didn't really get what you were saying about the guitarist and why 4 would exist because of 22 which only exists because of 21, but I imagine it suffers from the same problem above.

If you can visualize a room being added onto a building then it should be fairly easy to picture a two that is added onto another as being 22.

Every added room makes a house, so eventually 2+2 will equal 22.

You said that you couldn't think of a way that 2+2 wouldn't equal 4, I offered the view that when you put two next to two you get 22.

If this statement can't be certain than neither could the conclusion that the house received a new addition, because variably in order for a house to be added onto it must be added onto by another similar house.

I know its a bit fuzzy, but it may take some time before it clears up.

 

[Falvlun]

Its not really redefining it, just using a different part of the definition to entail the totality of it.

Which part of the definition are you using?

Besides, something is defined by the totality of its definition, not just a part of it. If I described a bird as an animal with feathers that lays eggs, I can't point to a snake and say that because it lays eggs, it's a bird too.

 

[Orias]

Which part of the definition are you using?

Besides, something is defined by the totality of its definition, not just a part of it. If I described a bird as an animal with feathers that lays eggs, I can't point to a snake and say that because it lays eggs, it's a bird too.

Alright I see your point.

And yes, things are totally defined by their entire definition, though the individual definitions that make up a word are just as important in deciphering meaning and expression.

Some words have less definitions than others, which makes examples a thing you kind of have to study, yours is a good one at rebuking my point as your understand it.

But a bird can also be a "shuttle-****" or the objective ball behind bad mitten.

Words and definitions are only separate by common usage, if I say "I have one of those too", then the word too is used to emphasize empathy.

On the other hand, if I say "I'm going to the store", then the emphasize is more on objective motive rather than trying to relate to another person who uses "two/too/to" as the same way. "I'm going to the store", the objective motive being that I (myself) am going (to go) to the store.

Bah, I know there was some other type of point behind this but it seems to have slipped my mind

I hope I'm not confusing you too much

 

[Orias]

Oh yes I think I remember it now.

Its that addition is most often recognized by the usage of the "+" symbol, if you put two 2's next to each other you don't literally get or see "4" you see "22".

Dang, now the follow up point ran out of my head...

 

[Fraleyight]

Maybe I can try to explain it this way... What is "the grey area" between agnostic and gnostic?

 

[bobhikes]

Each agnostic would be different. We don't share a belief of whether there is or is not a god, we share a belief that it can not be determined.

Perhaps this is why you have problems understanding agnostics.

 

[Willamena]

Maybe I can try to explain it this way... What is "the grey area" between agnostic and gnostic?

Where what is valued by the agnostic and the gnostic are essentially the same.

 

[Fraleyight]

Where what is valued by the agnostic and the gnostic are essentially the same.

So if agnostic/gnostic is a black and white issue why is it so hard for some to apply that to atheist/theist.

 

[Fraleyight]

Saying a god exists is a claim... Anyone who chooses to believe that claim is a theist anyone who does not believe that claim is an atheist.

 

[Willamena]

So if agnostic/gnostic is a black and white issue why is it so hard for some to apply that to atheist/theist.

Is it hard?

 

[Willamena]

Saying a god exists is a claim... Anyone who chooses to believe that claim is a theist anyone who does not believe that claim is an atheist.

I don't think theism is a choice, nor atheism. I think those words describe what you already believe.

The agnostic is the one who doesn't know, either because he hasn't enough information to conclude a belief, or because he has too much information.

 

[Jacksnyte]

Belief doesn't require "fact" or "knowing". This question doesn't ask if you know God exists or not, just if you believe he does or not.

This is why I don't understand Agnosticism too well. "I don't know" works if someone asks "Does God exist" to you, but "Do you believe God exists" is a whole different question, they're not asking if you know he does or not.

Which god are we talking about here (there are quite a few to choose from, y'know)?

 

[Fraleyight]

I don't think theism is a choice, nor atheism. I think those words describe what you already believe.

The agnostic is the one who doesn't know, either because he hasn't enough information to conclude a belief, or because he has too much information.

If you do not know then you are by definition an Atheist. That is the default position.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are no gods.
I feel certain of that.
But this feeling is groundless, since it's unprovable.
So I am certain that I'm uncertain.

 

[Willamena]

If you do not know then you are by definition an Atheist. That is the default position.

In my book, the atheist is the person who doesn't believe in g-d.

Whether or not you know isn't significant, because there is nothing to know except the world.

 

[Fraleyight]

In my book, the atheist is the person who doesn't believe in g-d.

Whether or not you know isn't significant, because there is nothing to know except the world.

I guess I don't understand how that wouldn't apply to someone who says I don't know.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Forgive the intrusion, but why would someone start a thread titled "Plain Agnostics - Do you believe in God or not?" in the Agnostic DIR? Isn't that a bit like polling vegans on their favorite cheeseburger? Bye ...

 

[Fraleyight]

Forgive the intrusion, but why would someone start a thread titled "Plain Agnostics - Do you believe in God or not?" in the Agnostic DIR? Isn't that a bit like polling vegans on their favorite cheeseburger? Bye ...

No... Someone claiming to be an agnostic does not tell us anything about their belief in a GOD.