Should Agnostics shut up, since they don't know?

[Atheologian]

Yup, Atheist, Agnostic, and Theist are all positions of opinion, and these particular kind of arguments are primarily of that over the meaning of terminology and what it entails. Kinda useless and pointless for the most part if the termonology itself becomes the focus.

This is where your "terminology" is useful. Identifying the merit in each point of view.

 

[Atheologian]

i have something interesting to say....... your tiresome.

so this has turned into a agnostic intervention? am i to spill my guts about why i wont take a hardline position without evidence for either argument? if i pretended to know id be some sort of (a)theist, but im not, because i dont.

this conversation (or debate?) is about as useful as debating whether god's hair is black or blond. yet another person trying to force agnostics in one group or the other. tiresome

Once again, you havent even read the posts, your just flaming.

You don't know that I'm not agnostic. In fact you don't even apparently understand the topic.

What's tiresome is trying to avoid having to justify a position I never even took.
I hate to say you're an idiot, but I actually did post MY position on the subject.
You just didn't bother to read it.

 

[Atheologian]

Here's the same question, posed in a way as to not offend the oversensitive:

Are agnostics helpful in a discussion of God?

MY position, not that I was including it in the topic, is that agnostic is not just a neutral position that holds no merit, but a distinct way of saying, "We weigh the evidence either way with common sense."
I think atheists are more likely to say, "We refuse to believe in anything that can not be proved."
And theists say, "It doesn't matter what we can prove, It's what we can't that holds the secrets."

this is MY position, and, as I said, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion.

 

[Atheologian]

SO, like I said, What kind of things could someone not taking either position add to a discussion of God's existance/nonexistance? We have the fact that either side can be represented with more clarity by a third party that can handle both assumptions equally. We also have the fact that someone who has not resigned themselves to a position of existance/non-existance, may be at an advantage when two conflicting arguments require a seperate and unique aproach to a medium.

 

[laffy_taffy]

Yup, cause life is that simple.

Fence-sitter and proud of it!

You stated your stance regarding knowledge of god (agnosticism), but do you currently have a belief in any god?

(fyi: "I don't know" or "I'm agnostic" is not an answer to this yes or no question about belief.)

 

[Atheologian]

Really? Atheists do it all the time.

careful quoting half statements out of context. That's what propogandists do.
People will accuse me of being a closet theist :run:

 

[Atheologian]

You stated your stance regarding knowledge of god (agnosticism), but do you currently have a belief in any god?

(fyi: "I don't know" or "I'm agnostic" is not an answer to this yes or no question about belief.)

I'm glad you brought that up, because I also make a distinction here. In a discussion of whether god exists, I am agnostic. As far as my belief in God, I am atheist.
This means that while I do not "believe" god exists, I can accept that I can not prove it, and therefore the possibility can not be ruled out in turn.

This is to say, that my "gut feeling tells me no", but at the same time, a "gut feeling" is not "proof", and can't be treated as such.
also, by gut feeling, I mean the culmination of data and scientific fact, history, philosophy, etc. that helped me come the conlusion I did. Perhaps "gut feeling" is a bad way to put it, but I do use my own intuition in the process.

I think hardline atheists lose sight of the issue of "proof". They rely heavily on the idea that the existance of God is improbable.
The problem with this, is that some of the greatest known events of the universe are improbable as well. Accepting that you should, at all times, consider the "improbable" possible, God is possible.

 

[laffy_taffy]

I'm glad you brought that up, because I also make a distinction here. In a discussion of whether god exists, I am agnostic. As far as my belief in God, I am atheist.
This means that while I do not "believe" god exists, I can accept that I can not prove it, and therefore the possibility can not be ruled out in turn.

This is to say, that my "gut feeling tells me no", but at the same time, a "gut feeling" is not "proof", and can't be treated as such.
also, by gut feeling, I mean the culmination of data and scientific fact, history, philosophy, etc. that helped me come the conlusion I did. Perhaps "gut feeling" is a bad way to put it, but I do use my own intuition in the process.

I think hardline atheists lose sight of the issue of "proof". They rely heavily on the idea that the existance of God is improbable.

I'm an agnostic atheist as well. I was just wanting to know whether or not Guitar held a belief in any particular god, or not (atheist).

 

[Atheologian]

I'm an agnostic atheist as well. I was just wanting to know whether or not Guitar held a belief in any particular god, or not (atheist).

I think his opinion, if I remember right, was much like our own.

 

[laffy_taffy]

I think his opinion, if I remember right, was much like our own.

Well, he mentioned that he was a "fence-sitter" which is a term many people use when they don't want to admit that they are atheists or they are not even aware that they are. Sure, an agnostic could instead be a theist rather than an atheist, but the way he was talking, it didn't sound like he currently held a belief in any god. That is why I was asking, to see whether or not he believed in any god. Saying one is an agnostic is not very insightful when debating on a religion board. Many atheists and theists are agnostic, so what does that tell us about their belief? Not much....

 

[Willamena]

I'm an agnostic atheist as well. I was just wanting to know whether or not Guitar held a belief in any particular god, or not (atheist).

From what I know of him, I believe it is the latter: he holds a belief in the "no particular" god (not atheist).

 

[Atheologian]

Well, he mentioned that he was a "fence-sitter" which is a term many people use when they don't want to admit that they are atheists or they are not even aware that they are. Sure, an agnostic could instead be a theist rather than an atheist, but the way he was talking, it didn't sound like he currently held a belief in any god. That is why I was asking, to see whether or not he believed in any god. Saying one is an agnostic is not very insightful when debating on a religion board. Many atheists and theists are agnostic, so what does that tell us about their belief? Not much....

That's why I want to get agnostic atheists to think more creatively. I guess you could say spark some emotion. I think we've got alot to say, but it's stifled by the attitude that a position of non-absolution is the same as no opinion. And, as you said, agnostics are often reluctant to voice their opinion in fear of being labeled a theist, or atheist, or deist, or whatever. I think we shouldn't worry as much about what group of ideas our own belong in, and more on voicing our opinions in matters that concern fundemetal issues. The existance/non-existance of god is one of those scenarios, because sentiment either way can lead to dramatic changes in society and civilization as a whole.

 

[Atheologian]

For example, I would have to agree that removing christianity from the southern states of the US would be beneficial, I live in the bible belt, but NOT necessary or even preferrable at this point in time. I say this, because this is in the identity of most Southerners. Without the church to slowly hand down moderate ideas to the congregation, they'd skip the "God" argument and forget all about tolerance and we'd have a radical movement of gay-bashing and abortion bombing. What I am suggesting, is that the people of "faith", more accurately, the silent majortiy in America, still harbor fear and mistrust toward modern values concerning controversial subjects, most of which misunderstood and in need of address. They apply their own moral positions, through the church, to God. A good example of this, is that abortion, in the Bible, is not punishable by death, or even that serious of a crime before the eyes of Yahweh. The punishment is a fine, levied by the appropriate minucipal judges. Yet fundementalist Christians wish death and destruction of abortion doctors, while citing scripture as their motivation. That said, I'll restate that they apply their own morals to their ideal "will of God". The church very well may be the only thing passifying them in the face of changing standards, and encouraging tolerance, despite the positions taken by the clergy in protest to what they deem "immoral" by their own standards.
I use a personal anecdote to form this OPINION, as one of my good friends is a hardline christian. Once, he said to me, as a few Christian friends nodded in agreement, "If I weren't a god fearing man, I'd kill those doctors myself."
A man like Paul Hill is not proof that religion causes the bombing of abortion clinics, but that people do evil or misguided things and use religion as an excuse.
You are free to disagree, of course, this is only my assessment of the community in which I live.

 

[Willamena]

I use a personal anecdote to form this OPINION, as one of my good friends is a hardline christian. Once, he said to me, as a few Christian friends nodded in agreement, "If I weren't a god fearing man, I'd kill those doctors myself."
A man like Paul Hill is not proof that religion causes the bombing of abortion clinics, but that people do evil or misguided things and use religion as an excuse.
You are free to disagree, of course, this is only my assessment of the community in which I live.

Any relation to Tim Hill?

 

[Atheologian]

Any relation to Tim Hill?

lol, dont know. He was that guy that was shooting abortion doctors a few years back. Stop killing embryos, or I'll kill you... how reasonable, eh?