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

[Atheologian]

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.

This is what I was getting at. Agnostics can offer arguments for both sides, and keep a debate flowing neutrally. So, is it reasonable to conclude that without agnostics, we could not have a conducive debate?

 

[Quagmire]

You were directing the statement at me, just admit it.

Ok, you got me. In fact, all the posts and threads in here are about you, even the ones we made before you showed up. We just figured you'd get here eventually (as foretold by the prophets).:bow:

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....

OBJECTIVITY.


I take it you're not an agnostic.

 

[Atheologian]

Ok, you got me. In fact, all the posts and threads in here are about you, even the ones we made before you showed up. We just figured you'd get here eventually (as foretold by the prophets).:bow:




OBJECTIVITY.


I take it you're not an agnostic.

you assume way too much.
I never said, anywhere in THIS thread, that I wasn't agnostic. My personal beliefs are NOT what I am basing this discussion on.

 

[Quagmire]

Uh-oh. . .

:troll:

I'm not a troll

I'm just cranky today (made decaf this morning by mistake).

 

[Atheologian]

This is what I was getting at. Agnostics can offer arguments for both sides, and keep a debate flowing neutrally. So, is it reasonable to conclude that without agnostics, we could not have a conducive debate?

why don't you read the posts in this thread?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

..... 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.....

Actually, as you have already stated, the abscence of an opinion is the only correct opinion.
As an agnostic, my opinion on God and/or gods is that they might or might not exist.

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......

I was not joking (well.....not entirely) when I said "We're the refs." You might also see us as the judges.
We are the ones who look at all the other sides of this multi-way shouting match of monkeys, and say "Prove your point."

To date, nobody has.


10,000 years and we are still waiting.......

 

[Atheologian]

I'm not a troll

I'm just cranky today (made decaf this morning by mistake).

Maybe I should not have worded the question so strong...
I do apologise if I sent the wrong message.

 

[JMorris]

ok..........

what is it that agnostics add to the discussion? only 1 thing (which is 1 more than atheists or theists bring to the table). that there is no knowledge to be had about god, or whether he even exists. theists believe that god exists, which adds nothing, because they have no evidence to back up their claims. and atheists say the lack of evidence proves that god doesn't exist. but that also adds nothing, because once upon a time, there was a lack of evidence of a great many things that we now know are real. while this certainly points the needle in atheists favor, the same could of been said about people who, prior to evidence, wouldn't have believed in atoms. or any number of other things.

it is my belief (and note my use of the qualifier BELIEF) that there is no evidence to be had of god because there isn't any. but i don't KNOW that. so when there is no knowledge by anyone on a subject, what can be usefully said about the subject?

 

[Atheologian]

Actually, as you have already stated, the abscence of an opinion is the only correct opinion.
As an agnostic, my opinion on God and/or gods is that they might or might not exist.

I was not joking (well.....not entirely) when I said "We're the refs." You might also see us as the judges.
We are the ones who look at all the other sides of this multi-way shouting match of monkeys, and say "Prove your point."

To date, nobody has.


10,000 years and we are still waiting.......

I also think, that since we can't prove a discussion of existance either way, the agnostic should be the moderator, or the litmus test even, to the arguments of either side.

 

[Atheologian]

ok..........

what is it that agnostics add to the discussion? only 1 thing (which is 1 more than atheists or theists bring to the table). that there is no knowledge to be had about god, or whether he even exists. theists believe that god exists, which adds nothing, because they have no evidence to back up their claims. and atheists say the lack of evidence proves that god doesn't exist. but that also adds nothing, because once upon a time, there was a lack of evidence of a great many things that we now know are real. while this certainly points the needle in atheists favor, the same could of been said about people who, prior to evidence, wouldn't have believed in atoms. or any number of other things.

it is my belief (and note my use of the qualifier BELIEF) that there is no evidence to be had of god because there isn't any. but i don't KNOW that. so when there is no knowledge by anyone on a subject, what can be usefully said about the subject?

This is another good point, because in ANY discussion, unless both sides can be assumed, the discussion goes nowhere.
Though, I never liked the atom example. The atom is an entirely different entity than was first suspected. The nature of the atom is nowhere close to what we imagined, before we had evidence and information about them. THAT SAID, I wonder how that argument would be applied to God?

 

[Quagmire]

you assume way too much.

You comprehend way to little; I was saying since agnostics tend to be objective, obviously you're not an agnostic.

I never said, anywhere in THIS thread, that I wasn't agnostic. My personal beliefs are NOT what I am basing this discussion on.

And yet when I implied that any stance besides agnosticism would necessitate some level of pompousness and self-dellusion, you took it as a personal insult.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Uh-oh. . .

:troll:

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.

 

[Atheologian]

You comprehend way to little; I was saying since agnostics tend to be objective, obviously you're not an agnostic.



And yet when I implied that any stance besides agnosticism would necessitate some level of pompousness and self-dellusion, you took it as a personal insult.

Aren't you done yet?

 

[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.

Not at all. The terminology is simply to identify one or more positions in a debate. These help to group like ideas and theories, and make the flow of conversation easier.
Positions of opinion are exactly what FEUL A DEBATE.

 

[Quagmire]

Aren't you done yet?

I'm not bored with you yet.

 

[Atheologian]

I'm not bored with you yet.

Have you read any other posts in this thread, other than your own?

 

[Atheologian]

What's the spirit of discussion and debate come to when you can't pose a controversial question? Who says any of these positions are mine? Who says I am not actually a worshipper of John Frum, of the cargo cults? My position does not matter, I only posed the question in a way to avoid warming up a flimsy consersation first to get to the crux. What kind of discussion could we theoretically have about God anyway, if we aren't allowed to step on toes in the process?

Forget my position, forget your feelings being hurt or your sense of reason being twinged by the question, just answer it. I bet you agnostics have some interesting things to say, besides, "We don't know." In fact, I know you do, and I think we should explore them.

 

[Quagmire]

Have you read any other posts in this thread, other than your own?

A cpl.

 

[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."

 

[JMorris]

Forget my position, forget your feelings being hurt or your sense of reason being twinged by the question, just answer it. I bet you agnostics have some interesting things to say, besides, "We don't know." In fact, I know you do, and I think we should explore them.

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