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

[JMorris]

everyone should shut up about god. no one knows if he/her/it exists, much less any quality about him/her/it. but if that were to happen, the forum would have to change its name to "Word Association Forums".

 

[JustWondering]

everyone should shut up about god.

You first.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

if the discussion led to a position of God being just as real, in the minds of the believers, as if he were a physical manifestation? Would you agree, as an agnostic, not as a theist, that it was true?

Belief in something does not make that thing real. However, if you wish to substitute "psychologically" for "philosophically" in your following statement.......

....You can't deny that God exists, at least philosophically.

Then I would agree. Psychologicially, and even socialogically. A concept of a supreme being ("God", "Allah", "Brahma", etc...) is very real, and the existence of this concept has resulted in war, famine, hatred, murder, and many untold stories of evil and suffering throughout human history. It has also resulted in motivation and generosity, that.....perhaps.....wouldn't have existed without this psychological crutch.




As to your original query. Of course we agnostics should get involved in theist/atheist debates.......We're the refs.

 

[JMorris]

You first.

:drool: gladly

 

[Atheologian]

everyone should shut up about god. no one knows if he/her/it exists, much less any quality about him/her/it. but if that were to happen, the forum would have to change its name to "Word Association Forums".

So, ill mark that as a position for, there shouldn't be any discussions of God anyway.

 

[Atheologian]

Belief in something does not make that thing real. However, if you wish to substitute "psychologically" for "philosophically" in your following statement.......Then I would agree. Psychologicially, and even socialogically. A concept of a supreme being ("God", "Allah", "Brahma", etc...) is very real, and the existence of this concept has resulted in war, famine, hatred, murder, and many untold stories of evil and suffering throughout human history. It has also resulted in motivation and generosity, that.....perhaps.....wouldn't have existed without this psychological crutch.




As to your original query. Of course we agnostics should get involved in theist/atheist debates.......We're the refs.

I think the position of Ref is a perfect metaphor. I think I'll use that in future debates

 

[Quagmire]

Yep, lots of flaming and underhanded remarks. What of them?

The fact that that you're reading them that way says a lot.

 

[Atheologian]

You first.

lmao...



The response I got for posing this topic gave me an idea for another topic. I can relate to this one, because I am an atheist. It's,
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...d-atheists-shut-up-about-god.html#post1719026

 

[Atheologian]

The fact that that you're reading them that way says a lot.

Yeah, I'm pretty good at reading.

When are you going to settle down? The question was not a personal attack on you.

 

[JMorris]

So, ill mark that as a position for, there shouldn't be any discussions of God anyway.

given your position that knowledge is a prerequisite for discussion, then everyone should "shut up" since no one knows.

 

[Quagmire]

Yeah, I'm pretty good at reading.

When are you going to settle down? The question was not a personal attack on you.

I was never unsettled; I'm not an agnostic anyway.

I said what I said because I believe it. You took it as an insult because it applies, apparently.

 

[Atheologian]

given your position that knowledge is a prerequisite for discussion, then everyone should "shut up" since no one knows.

When did I say that was MY position?

 

[Atheologian]

I was never unsettled; I'm not an agnostic anyway.

I said what I said because I believe it. You took it as an insult because it applies, apparently.

That's a shabby lie, too. You know very well you meant it as an insult. Don't back out of it now.

You suggested anyone having a theistic debate, that wonders what an agnostic has to say, is pompous and deluded.

 

[Atheologian]

I can pose a question in a manner meant to inspire emotion, without necessarily taking any position, one way or another. You could call that position, agnostic. I am curious as to what sort of opinions agnostics DO have on god, assuming the absence of an opinion is not a valid opinion. Aside from the fact that we do not know, I want to know what insights we can gain from a third perspective. This is a chance for agnostics to better illustrate that their opinions hold weight and belong in a reasonable discussion of God and his existence/non-existence. If your stance is that agnostics are above those discussions, I can understand that, too. Complaining about the way the question was posed is not helpful at all, though.

 

[JMorris]

When did I say that was MY position?

its not? are you ghost writing for someone else then?

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?

 

[Atheologian]

its not? are you ghost writing for someone else then?

When did I say THAT was MY position? It's a question. Have NONE of you EVER taken a creative writing course?
I'd find that hard to believe.

You aren't suggesting that you really have NO opinion are you? That was a gross oversimplification with the intention of surfacing the opinions that DO exist.

 

[Quagmire]

That's a shabby lie, too. You know very well you meant it as an insult. Don't back out of it now.

This is so standard. You get upset because some one makes a general statement that applies to most people, including himself, decide it must be all-about-you personally, and blame the person making the statement for the fact that you're taking it personally.

What does this all add up to?

Lets see...

You suggested anyone having a theistic debate, that wonders what an agnostic has to say, is pompous and deluded.

Well there ya go. I make a general statement about the majority of people on this planet, and somehow you make it a personal indictment against the topic of the OP and, of course, exclusively ABOUT YOU.

Nothing pompous about that.



edit: Oh yeah, I almost forgot; and anything that doesn't conform to whatever ridiculous assumptions you've made about this conversation so far must be a "shabby lie". Pretty bullet proof denial system you got there.

 

[Caladan]

Since believers have their minds set, and unbelievers have their mind set, perhaps the agnostic has the most objective perspective to offer on the issue. if believers cant prove God and unbelievers cant prove that God does not exist, the agnostics have the most relevant information to discuss.
in essence it seems no one knows, as it is, so the agnostic delivers.

 

[Willamena]

Uh-oh. . .

:troll:

 

[Atheologian]

This is so standard. You get upset because some one makes a general statement that applies to most people, including himself, decide it must be all-about-you personally, and blame the person making the statement for the fact that you're taking it personally.

What does this all add up to?

Lets see...



Well there ya go. I make a general statement about the majority of people on this planet, and somehow you make it a personal indictment against the topic of the OP and, of course, exclusively ABOUT YOU.

Nothing pompous about that.



edit: Oh yeah, I almost forgot; and anything that doesn't conform to whatever ridiculous assumptions you've made about this conversation so far must be a "shabby lie". Pretty bullet proof denial system you got there.

You were directing the statement at me, just admit it. You don't have to deny it, it's ok. But, you still haven't answered the question. What kind of things could an agnostic offer, in a theistic debate. The obvious answer has yet to surface....

sorry, it actually has, i didn't see last few posts.