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

[Atheologian]

I'll admit, we are all, in truth, agnostic, as NONE of us know if God exists or not. Sure, there are opinions either way, and most people either believe in God or they don't, but the firm agnostic simply has the attitude, "I don't know, and you don't either." While this is a pretty honest approach, it's the equivelent of not jumping in the pool because it could be hot, or it could be cold. Well, if you aren't going to swim, don't tell us how the water feels, because you don't know. If your position is simply, "I don't know, and neither do you," what business do you have offering any input in a discussion? Do we really need someone standing off to the side, saying, "I don't know, we'll never know," and limiting conversation? I understand you view it as a logical approach to the issue, and it is, but if our attitude, as thinkers and explorers, was always "I don't know, I'll never know", we wouldn't be very clever as a species, now would we? It's not the lack of opinion or idea that advances us as human beings, it's the pursuit of the mysterious and unknown. So, what would your opinion be, if we were searching for God? What kind of things could you offer to a theistic debate?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yup, cause life is that simple.

Fence-sitter and proud of it!

 

[Atheologian]

Yup, cause life is that simple.

Fence-sitter and proud of it!

Kudos for an honest answer

But, would you say you have anything useful to say in a discussion of God? Whether he does or does not exist?

 

[Quagmire]

Yeah guys, if you aren't pompous and self-deluded enough to presume to know how the Universe works, what are you doing here (I mean how can you stand being around people who are?)?

 

[Atheologian]

Yeah guys, if you aren't pompous and self-deluded enough to presume to know how the Universe works, what are you doing here (I mean how can you stand being around people who are?)?

This isn't about claiming to know anything. It's about offering an opinion one way or another.
I fail to see how having an opinion automatically makes someone pompous and deluded.

 

[BucephalusBB]

While this is a pretty honest approach, it's the equivelent of not jumping in the pool because it could be hot, or it could be cold.

That's the worst example ever, The agnost will simply put his toes into the water to check. An agnost is not afraid to do research, he's just not afraid to say that he hasn't found a conclusion yet..

 

[BucephalusBB]

That's the worst example ever, The agnost will simply put his toes into the water to check. An agnost is not afraid to do research, he's just not afraid to say that he hasn't found a conclusion yet..

You and the agnost both have the same workingarea, the only difference is the solution.

 

[Atheologian]

I am not talking about having proof.
You guys are so upset that someone pointed out your position, you're ignoring the question. I never said you should be ashamed of not knowing, or claim to know anything you don't. What I'm asking, is if you believe you have anything to say in a discussion of whether he exists or not, besides "We don't know."
I'm asking what the absence of conclusion has to do with the discussion of beliefs.

 

[Quagmire]

This isn't about claiming to know anything. It's about offering an opinion one way or another.
I fail to see how having an opinion automatically makes someone pompous and deluded.

"fail" or "refuse"?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Kudos for an honest answer

But, would you say you have anything useful to say in a discussion of God? Whether he does or does not exist?

I say It both does and doesn't.

(And not just because it's a funny reply given the thread. )

And I like to think I've been usefully contributing to the discussions about God here for a few years at least.

 

[JustWondering]

I'll admit, we are all, in truth, agnostic, as NONE of us know if God exists or not.

I am glad to see we agree on something.

If your position is simply, "I don't know, and neither do you," what business do you have offering any input in a discussion?

To remind all the theists and atheists that they don't know what their talking about.

Btw, if your agnostic and you think agnostics should keep their mouths shut, why are you talking?

 

[Atheologian]

I say It both does and doesn't.

(And not just because it's a funny reply given the thread. )

And I like to think I've been usefully contributing to the discussions about God here for a few years at least.

The tone of the topic was supposed to be tongue in cheek.
I think that opinion would be fairly useful in a discussion, maybe you could elaborate.

 

[Atheologian]

I am glad to see we agree on something.



To remind all the theists and atheists that they don't know what their talking about.

Btw, if your agnostic and you think agnostics should keep their mouths shut, why are you talking?

ONCE AGAIN, the point of the question is not to determine whether anyone knows if GOD exists. PLEASE READ THE WHOLE TOPIC. I am interested in knowing whether not having an opinion either way can be useful in a discussion. Don't just get angry and start throwing insults, tell me what you would say that would introduce some insight to a theistic debate.

 

[Aquitaine]

I think Athiests, Agnostics and mostly Theists should just shut up. Since none of us really know anything about what happens after death, or what death even is.

It's always best for one's spriritual or religious opinions to be kept private to themselves, then maybe we could avoid so much friction between the factions.
On the other hand, if we did that, then there'd be no RF ^_^

As for me, I won't shut up until those arrogant (not all of them are arrogant, though) Theists shut up, since most of my effort is spent responding to people who think they know what happens after death, what the "purpose" of life is, and that we're all living it wrong and are going to be punished for it.

Yeah, Agnosticism has it's perks

 

[Atheologian]

I think Athiests, Agnostics and mostly Theists should just shut up. Since none of us really know anything about what happens after death, or what death even is.

It's always best for one's spriritual or religious opinions to be kept private to themselves, then maybe we could avoid so much friction between the factions.
On the other hand, if we did that, then there'd be no RF ^_^

As for me, I won't shut up until those arrogant (not all of them are arrogant, though) Theists shut up, since most of my effort is spent responding to people who think they know what happens after death, what the "purpose" of life is, and that we're all living it wrong and are going to be punished for it.

Yeah, Agnosticism has it's perks

Okay but you didn't answer the question. What kind of useful things would you have to say in a discussion of the existence of god?

 

[Atheologian]

I think I've got my answer. Agnostics refuse to stick to the topic, instead professing how much noone knows. What would they have to say in a theistic debate? Not much.

 

[Quagmire]

"fail" or "refuse"?

Got it.

 

[Atheologian]

Got it.

Clever insult, but you still never answered the question. What would agnostics offer in a theistic debate, besides the fact we don't know?

Why is this so hard for everyone to answer? Guitar's Cry is the only one to answer the question so far. He didn't even have to insinuate I was somehow pompous or deluded to do it, either.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The tone of the topic was supposed to be tongue in cheek.
I think that opinion would be fairly useful in a discussion, maybe you could elaborate.

Well, for me, God does exist as at least a concept that can be experienced.

However, objective existence is something else entirely and who can tell whether or not an objective existence of God is "factual" or whether that is relevant or not. (Especially since I don't believe objective existence is meaningful.)

 

[Aquitaine]

Okay but you didn't answer the question. What kind of useful things would you have to say in a discussion of the existence of god?

I'd first respond to the Theist who makes these claims of his existence, then I'd say it cannot be proven and there's yet to be any credible evidence for the existence of any of these Gods, and I'd also point out that an Omni-max being is logically impossible anyways, that's all I'd say, that's all I'd need to say.