Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Agnosticism

Page 3 of 4 [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Apr 2009, 5:57 pm

Orwell wrote:
Hm. I don't use the argument as an evangelical tool (as I am not an evangelist) but instead as a description of what I see. There does not seem to be much, if any, practical difference between agnostics and atheists.

Not saying you do, and frankly, my comment was a rationalization of an experiential claim, however, I do think I have perceived this kind of thing.

In any case, even if this isn't evangelical, the evangelical view to analyze it is important, because people believe that their beliefs are true, and thus that other views misweigh evidence.



makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

04 Apr 2009, 9:58 pm

BTM: No worries, I just wanted to make sure that I had not spoken in an untoward manner when addressing the topic. A moderator cannot solve all issues; before I was asked to join, there were numerous occasions when I was called out because I commented that another member was out of accordance with site rules... there is no substitute for the involvement of the membership as a whole for maintaining a site. Given that this is a support site, there are more requisites for behavior and content than perhaps a more generalized forum might have; such are the terms of doing business, as it were. When it comes to vigilante or unfounded behaviors, I feel the role of a moderator is to balance opportunity for discussion while preserving the setting created here at Wrong Planet.

I agree with your assessment of the situation; while there is content that I would like to dissect, there seems to be no interest in conversation or analysis of what is being proposed. Perhaps our best bet is to see if there reaches a point of discussion, or if it evaporates.

Excerpts from Rules & ToS wrote:
Unacceptable content includes swearing; racist, sexist, homophobic language; behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members; violent or sexually demeaning content; sexual fetish; and discussion of excretory function. Posting graphic images or videos of people or animals being harmed is prohibited.

2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

3. Other inappropriate content and behavior prohibited on Wrong Planet:
This includes copyrighted material, serial codes, and posts made to promote a website, group or product, particularly if made repeatedly and without other participation in the WP community (spamming). This also includes discussion of locked topics, discussion of banned members and why they were banned and anything else that purposely causes conflict with other members.

Posting Specifications
--------------------
* Please don't post duplicate threads.
* Don't spam the forums with affiliate links
* Reposting a locked or deleted posts or threads is against the rules.
* Personal attacks against people or other sites are not permitted. If you have an issue with someone, talk to them about it somewhere other than our forum.
* Ensure that links and pictures in posts fit the page format
* Posts which disrupt the page format may be edited or deleted by the Moderators.
* Mentioning your own site is only permitted once you've contributed substantial useful content to the forums.
* Owners of WrongPlanet reserve the right to delete, edit, move, or lock any thread for any reason.


Just wanted to address some of the questions... Taking from the rules, discussion of locked topics (re-opening) and discussion of banned members (or the behaviors leading to that action) is verboten. If an individual has questions, a private message to one or more of the moderators may provide additional information, but more than likely the issue belongs between those involved and does not belong as a general topic of conversation. The actions of a moderator can be questioned - you will find a thread on that subject in the wrongplanet.net forum, in fact - but dredging up the past repeatedly tends to only incite further furor instead of productive change. As for discussing other members, there is nothing forbidding the discussion per se; the rules stipulate no personal attacks (this includes individuals and groups, regardless whether they are members here - this is not a soap box for personal battles), and that content meant to provoke or belittle is unacceptable. There have been frequent threads of appreciation, thanks, and acknowledgment over the past year I have seen; it is the content, context and purpose that has a strong role in the criteria in my judgment.

I hope that clarifies somewhat; if you have further questions, I invite you (or anyone) to post in the wrongplanet.net forum so that we can all help make things run more smoothly.


M.


_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

05 Apr 2009, 12:48 am

makuranososhi wrote:
BTM: No worries, I just wanted to make sure that I had not spoken in an untoward manner when addressing the topic. A moderator cannot solve all issues; before I was asked to join, there were numerous occasions when I was called out because I commented that another member was out of accordance with site rules... there is no substitute for the involvement of the membership as a whole for maintaining a site. Given that this is a support site, there are more requisites for behavior and content than perhaps a more generalized forum might have; such are the terms of doing business, as it were. When it comes to vigilante or unfounded behaviors, I feel the role of a moderator is to balance opportunity for discussion while preserving the setting created here at Wrong Planet.

I agree with your assessment of the situation; while there is content that I would like to dissect, there seems to be no interest in conversation or analysis of what is being proposed. Perhaps our best bet is to see if there reaches a point of discussion, or if it evaporates.

Excerpts from Rules & ToS wrote:
Unacceptable content includes swearing; racist, sexist, homophobic language; behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members; violent or sexually demeaning content; sexual fetish; and discussion of excretory function. Posting graphic images or videos of people or animals being harmed is prohibited.

2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

3. Other inappropriate content and behavior prohibited on Wrong Planet:
This includes copyrighted material, serial codes, and posts made to promote a website, group or product, particularly if made repeatedly and without other participation in the WP community (spamming). This also includes discussion of locked topics, discussion of banned members and why they were banned and anything else that purposely causes conflict with other members.

Posting Specifications
--------------------
* Please don't post duplicate threads.
* Don't spam the forums with affiliate links
* Reposting a locked or deleted posts or threads is against the rules.
* Personal attacks against people or other sites are not permitted. If you have an issue with someone, talk to them about it somewhere other than our forum.
* Ensure that links and pictures in posts fit the page format
* Posts which disrupt the page format may be edited or deleted by the Moderators.
* Mentioning your own site is only permitted once you've contributed substantial useful content to the forums.
* Owners of WrongPlanet reserve the right to delete, edit, move, or lock any thread for any reason.


Just wanted to address some of the questions... Taking from the rules, discussion of locked topics (re-opening) and discussion of banned members (or the behaviors leading to that action) is verboten. If an individual has questions, a private message to one or more of the moderators may provide additional information, but more than likely the issue belongs between those involved and does not belong as a general topic of conversation. The actions of a moderator can be questioned - you will find a thread on that subject in the wrongplanet.net forum, in fact - but dredging up the past repeatedly tends to only incite further furor instead of productive change. As for discussing other members, there is nothing forbidding the discussion per se; the rules stipulate no personal attacks (this includes individuals and groups, regardless whether they are members here - this is not a soap box for personal battles), and that content meant to provoke or belittle is unacceptable. There have been frequent threads of appreciation, thanks, and acknowledgment over the past year I have seen; it is the content, context and purpose that has a strong role in the criteria in my judgment.

I hope that clarifies somewhat; if you have further questions, I invite you (or anyone) to post in the wrongplanet.net forum so that we can all help make things run more smoothly.


M.


Although I understand the intent of the basic limitations there are areas where attacking a strongly held belief which has an emotional base pretty much bereft of logic can be inferred as being a personal attack. I don't know how this can be resolved.



makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

05 Apr 2009, 12:54 am

I think it's pretty straight-forward... the difference between "I disagree with what Makuranososhi is saying, his ideas are offensive to the way I think and unacceptable to me" and "Makuranososhi is a ................." I think there is little chance of offense here if I'm implying that I am attacking myself.


M.


_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

05 Apr 2009, 4:30 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
claire333 wrote:
I see, the black and white, either-or. Sometimes it just does not fit

Nope, sometimes it doesn't. In any case, I'd bet that some people reject Axiom S5 as well.

well, becoming that a black and white issue is actually mostly the case, because it would be likely used to support ideas belonging to a single demonination against another, in the sense of who is trully a christian, which has been argued before, and to say who is truly a believer based on that, and basing the belief system on what a person act upon would seem to be incredibly reductionist, as well as black and white thinking. I tend to see the acting atheism aspect problematic, in that sense, and giving that many believers, who would strongly affirm the existence of God, but wouldn't participate in religious activities nor pray and not belonging to any church, and perhaps going as far as the ones who don't agree with certain moral issues to be accused of being not truely believers, I see that problematic the issue of believers being 'acting atheists'. A part from that, the position of not knowing the nature of God besides or a part from the existence seems to be ignored or rejected by that aspect.

Quote:
:lol: I believe you certainly do. If nothing else, you are an interesting read.
I agree, which he is the reason I created this thread.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

05 Apr 2009, 4:55 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, Transcention started this thread about how he could write a new religion, and it would be the best thing ever, right here:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt95514.html

And within that thread, Claire333 brought up the fact that he was writing an agnostic religion, which makes sense given his post right here:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp1944155 ... t=#1944155

Where he states
Transcention wrote:
To put it more simply: it is just as stupid to not believe in God, as it is to believe in God...

The only spiritual, religious, or philosophical position, of any worth, that a human beings can take, is that of the agnostic.


I haven't read that thread, which seems to be interesting, anyway, I believe my position would be similar to his, from that quote, in the sense that if we use the word 'delusional' as a valid term, which I believe it isn't, which it has been aimed to believers here, I would say it would fit to strong atheism as well, practically a position favoring Uncertainty over Certainty, which I am inclined to. Though I don't agree with being stupid, as the term is subjective, and given that there are intelligent people who are both theists and atheists, but the comparison of both views, given the nature of certainty, seems to make some sense, from such position at least, though I haven't seen the thread to really know what is his position, but mine would tend to be that way, given that I am even uncertain about my own position about metaphysics, which I have to admit it is subjected to change at anytime.

Quote:
If one accepts S5(S5 is widely accepted in modal logic) then the notion of god is either true or it is false, but one is not given much room to be agnostic about it as premise 3 is purely a logical notion of contradiction. Thus agnosticism has problems given Plantinga's ontological argument. The agnostic can only escape this by denying S5, or perhaps the ability of logic to do something like this.

well, I am not sure if axiom S5 would actually fit to this and if it would be logical consistent and valid or not, perhaps even a fallacy, to be used as a proof of something being true, I mean, I have trouble seeing when "necessarily possibly p, then possibly p" to be indicative of truth, though I may be wrong on this, but it seems to me that it just eliminates the neccesity of something to possibly exist to just the possibility of it to exist or to add it, but just that.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Last edited by greenblue on 05 Apr 2009, 5:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.

claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

05 Apr 2009, 4:56 pm

You make good points, Greenblue. I would have to agree black and white thinking applied to either side could be just as messy as trying to compare them. When Orwell made his statements about his views earlier in this thread, I kept waiting for an atheist to come along and say, If anyone cannot say, "I beleive God does not exist and this is why" then they are a theist. :lol: But seriously, I have never even known another agnostic in person (which might seem to give power to Orwell's notion I do not exist) and have never really discussed these things with other people, so I find it a bit frustrating here when theist call agnostics atheist, and atheist call agnostics indecisive bench-warming chickens.



Last edited by claire-333 on 05 Apr 2009, 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

05 Apr 2009, 5:37 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Another argument against agnosticism is inconsistency, as the agnostic is only agnostic towards god, for other things, there is usually a presumption of knowledge, even if through the lack of knowledge. After all, are we invisible unicorn agnostics? Or do we instead say that invisible unicorns do not exist? Usually the latter. So, agnosticism fails to reduce away a possibility where it either already would, or where it is rational to.

well, not exactly, in some cases, yes, but in others, it isn't the case, agnosticim can indeed go beyong the issue of God, not only that but it can be said that agnosticism is actually skepticism, even though agnosticism is related to metaphysics mostly, there are few skeptics that are skeptics towards few things and not towards other things, in which the burden of proof would be on them on everything they claim, giving their position of skepticism, wouldn't mean that skepticism is necessarily inconsistent, but I would say it lies on the individual.

The issue about invisible unicorns, IMHO, is that it depends on the consideration of the logical consistency of that aspect, I mean, to consider the possibility of a being to exist can be considered logical and ilogical, given some factors regarding the rules of logic, also, few christians defend their position that there are historical records that point out to the possibility, at least, of people witnessing God such as the Bible, as well as other documents that may be indicative of that, but none actually serious or of scholarly nature related to the possibility of an invisible unicorn to exist, I mean, I would consider the issue of the unicorn to be more valuable if there is indeed a theology or a serious school of thought to support said entity and claim at least the possibility, or even the necessity of the possibility, for it to exist. Besides, I think it can be said that in an alien world, there could be creatures which would resemble unicorns or be unicorns, in their physical aspect, so in that sense, given the issue about aliens, it could be said that such possibility may not completely be zero, if we accept the possibility of alien life to exist.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

05 Apr 2009, 8:12 pm

greenblue wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Another argument against agnosticism is inconsistency, as the agnostic is only agnostic towards god, for other things, there is usually a presumption of knowledge, even if through the lack of knowledge. After all, are we invisible unicorn agnostics? Or do we instead say that invisible unicorns do not exist? Usually the latter. So, agnosticism fails to reduce away a possibility where it either already would, or where it is rational to.

well, not exactly, in some cases, yes, but in others, it isn't the case, agnosticim can indeed go beyong the issue of God, not only that but it can be said that agnosticism is actually skepticism, even though agnosticism is related to metaphysics mostly, there are few skeptics that are skeptics towards few things and not towards other things, in which the burden of proof would be on them on everything they claim, giving their position of skepticism, wouldn't mean that skepticism is necessarily inconsistent, but I would say it lies on the individual.

The issue about invisible unicorns, IMHO, is that it depends on the consideration of the logical consistency of that aspect, I mean, to consider the possibility of a being to exist can be considered logical and ilogical, given some factors regarding the rules of logic, also, few christians defend their position that there are historical records that point out to the possibility, at least, of people witnessing God such as the Bible, as well as other documents that may be indicative of that, but none actually serious or of scholarly nature related to the possibility of an invisible unicorn to exist, I mean, I would consider the issue of the unicorn to be more valuable if there is indeed a theology or a serious school of thought to support said entity and claim at least the possibility, or even the necessity of the possibility, for it to exist. Besides, I think it can be said that in an alien world, there could be creatures which would resemble unicorns or be unicorns, in their physical aspect, so in that sense, given the issue about aliens, it could be said that such possibility may not completely be zero, if we accept the possibility of alien life to exist.


There are a couple of factors here. To a large extent either atheism or agnosticism have emotional impact because of the strength of emotion and social elements of power involved in the belief in a god. Any denial or doubts about that undercuts not only a theological concept but an immense amount of personal and social power. Whether or not unicorns exist has no effect on the way the world functions. Religion is not only a social power source but lays claim to systems of morality which unicorns do not do. The second factor is the way people think and act. Pragmatism is a prime motivation in accounting for the force of a belief. Most people evaluate the possibility of consequences and act accordingly. Probably the fact that direct intervention by supernormal beings in our daily lives has negligible possibilities in our lives is why that has very little consideration on our actions and is why science has become such an enemy of religion since it displaces superstitious belief of the causes of events. That is why ignorance and religion are such good allies.



solinoure
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 211
Location: Toontown, Texas

05 Apr 2009, 8:51 pm

It is possible to reserve judgement - and this is essencialy what agnosticism is.
The theist and the athiest have both passed judgment. The agnostic has not - much to the chagrin of both.


_________________
The river tells no lies - but, the dishonest man, standing near, will hear them. - Oma
I am not responsible for what I say - you are! I am only responsible for the words I speak. - me


makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

05 Apr 2009, 9:27 pm

claire333 wrote:
You make good points, Greenblue. I would have to agree black and white thinking applied to either side could be just as messy as trying to compare them. When Orwell made his statements about his views earlier in this thread, I kept waiting for an atheist to come along and say, If anyone cannot say, "I beleive God does not exist and this is why" then they are a theist. :lol: But seriously, I have never even known another agnostic in person (which might seem to give power to Orwell's notion I do not exist) and have never really discussed these things with other people, so I find it a bit frustrating here when theist call agnostics atheist, and atheist call agnostics indecisive bench-warming chickens.


Ah - but what about adeists?


M.


_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

05 Apr 2009, 9:37 pm

makuranososhi wrote:
Ah - but what about adeists?
Oh, do you mean the indecisive bench-warming chickens? :lol: Just kidding. I guess that is a term I am not familiar. You may have to define for me.



makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

05 Apr 2009, 10:47 pm

*BAWK*

Alright, back to the conversation... *chuckle* Adeist, taken from the roots: a- (prefix, meaning without), -deus- (god), -ism (suffix, loosely meaning belief in) - without belief in God, or a godhead. Where atheism at it's roots means "without belief" - often meant as without religion, faith, or belief in God - and agnosticism would be "without knowledge"... here it is used to refer specifically to being without belief in the incorporation of faith into form. I do believe that there is much that lies beyond the realm of our measure; that belief doesn't translate into personification of those qualities into an arbitrary being. I hate to wiki anything, but I'm lazy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism


M.


_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


solinoure
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 211
Location: Toontown, Texas

05 Apr 2009, 11:03 pm

Hmmm...

Theist and Deist... from Theos and Dios... don't both of these just mean god? with the first being the greek root and the second the latin?

It would seem to me, at its core, that argueing there is difference between Atheist and Adeist is like saying Zeus is different from Jupiter...


_________________
The river tells no lies - but, the dishonest man, standing near, will hear them. - Oma
I am not responsible for what I say - you are! I am only responsible for the words I speak. - me


makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

06 Apr 2009, 2:12 am

solinoure wrote:
Hmmm...

Theist and Deist... from Theos and Dios... don't both of these just mean god? with the first being the greek root and the second the latin?

It would seem to me, at its core, that argueing there is difference between Atheist and Adeist is like saying Zeus is different from Jupiter...


Aye, they do - though Theos tends to be associated with the study of God and beliefs, thus the association with atheists being "without belief" vs. agnostics being "without knowledge"... in this case, Dios, associated with the word deity, is a more appropriate semantic formation for me as I have beliefs without having a godhead figure - therefore the term adeist being akin to being "without God(s)" in the scheme of things.


M.


_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

06 Apr 2009, 6:09 pm

makuranososhi wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
I am guessing this wiki link to deism (which I do understand) was provided because, like me, you were also unable to find adeism. But considering deist believe in a 'hands off' god, I would have to agree with solinoure; it is still the same thing. If I ever get the guts to get off the bench and get into the game, I might very well end up a deist. :wink: