Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
66 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 892,995 Year: 4,107/6,534 Month: 321/900 Week: 27/150 Day: 0/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Exploration Into"Agnosticism"
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 8 of 179 (553827)
04-05-2010 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
04-03-2010 8:33 PM


What constitutes "agnosticism" in the sense of actually claiming to be "agnostic" (as opposed to simply lacking absolute certainty) towards a particular question?

Agnosticism means many things to different people. Agnostics in general feel that proving or disproving is God is an impossible endeavor by the nature of it. For me it is about being an open-minded skeptic, of which I am.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 04-03-2010 8:33 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Straggler, posted 04-06-2010 2:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 44 of 179 (554508)
04-08-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Straggler
04-06-2010 2:10 PM


Re: We Are All "Agnostics" But Some re More Agnostic Than Others
those who claim to be agnostic on this basis seem to have an inconsistent obsession with disproving or refuting some things but not others.

Science, by definition, deals with all aspects of nature. It is not equipped to deal with the supernatural, if there is such a thing. Things that can be refuted are only done so on the basis of physical law. This is why it is so funny when creationists use science to explain the supernatural. It's absurd and undermines the very premise of the inquiry.

When somebody says, "but then the FSM falls in to this category, so why aren't you agnostic about that?" My answer is one in the same. I can't disprove the existence or non-existence of the FSM either. And to be perfectly honest, I could care less about that, especially since it's an reductio ad ridiculum argument.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Straggler, posted 04-06-2010 2:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 04-08-2010 5:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 63 of 179 (554608)
04-09-2010 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Straggler
04-08-2010 5:50 PM


Re: We Are All "Agnostics" But Some re More Agnostic Than Others
I simply suggest that the evidence suggests that such notions are more likely the product of human invention. On what basis might we conclude that they are anything else?

That the majority of the world over the course of human history identifies with supernaturalism in form or the other makes it relevant to at least examine why that is. It could be entirely a human invention or there could be some truth to it. What I am saying is for me, personally, I do not have all the evidence to make a truly educated decision. The sensible thing to do in my opinion, is simply state that I am an agnostic. Why? Because I awaiting more evidence.

That's all it means to me. If you want to be an atheist, knock yourself out. You are entitled that, and your reasons for being an atheist are your own. Why do you feel the need to question my reasons? This is the third thread (that I'm aware of) where you have asked similar questions.

What is your beef with agnosticism?

The point of the FSM, IPU and other such "absurd" entities is to demonstrate that the the argument that "you cannot refute god" is logically irrelevant. There are an infinite multitude of irrefutable entities. Yet nearly all are considered absurd. So irrefutability alone is not a criteria upon which rational agnosticism can be justified.

There is a reason why it is a logical fallacy. You are leaning upon your own incredulity to make the case for you.

If you elevate some irrefutable entities over others on the basis of genuine belief you are doing nothing other than citing belief as evidence upon which to justify belief. And that is a circular argument.

How people arrive at their conclusions about the supernatural is claimed to come from personal experience, none of which I can refute, nor care to. The best way to demonstrate the logic or illogic of their position is to ask them specific questions and see if they hold contradictory answers. The bible is a breeding ground for illogical and inconsistent claims. That, however, does nothing to disprove God. It only serves to invalidate what the bible claims of God. And even then there could be smatterings of truth.

Either way it is of no consequence to me, and why it is to you is a profound mystery to me.

When you say you are "agnostic" what do you mean exactly? What are you agnostic towards exactly?

I am agnostic towards the conception of God, whatever that might be. That could be Vishnu, YHWH, or Spinoza's God, whatever. I only argue the specifics.

To me, atheism is the positive declaration of no gods, and agnosticism has not enough information make a declaration in either direction.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 04-08-2010 5:50 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 04-10-2010 8:08 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 115 of 179 (555469)
04-13-2010 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Straggler
04-10-2010 8:08 PM


Re: We Are All "Agnostics" But Some re More Agnostic Than Others
you are simply citing widespread belief in the supernaual as evidence upon which to elevate supernatural concepts over other entirely uevidenced concepts.

Then just answer one question: Do you believe that belief in religion or the supernatural has a biological function that was selected by nature being that most human beings in human history are driven towards it?

It sounds superficially reasonable and smacks of mindless middle-ism whilst being unable (in my view) to hold up to rational analysis (with regard to any concept of god I have ever seen anyone actually advocate or define).

What is irrational about not having enough evidence in either direction to make a declaration in either direction? Why do I have to choose?

The point of the FSM, IPU and other such "absurd" entities is to demonstrate that the the argument that "you cannot refute god" is logically irrelevant. There are an infinite multitude of irrefutable entities. Yet nearly all are considered absurd. So irrefutability alone is not a criteria upon which rational agnosticism can be justified.

I understand the purpose. I find it a vacuous argument because it is actively trying to persuade people not to believe in God. I mean, that's the goal, no need to beat around the bush. It has now gone from mere disbelief if supernaturalism to taking on its own identity -- where a lack of belief in something is applauded as something inherently good and something that should be modeled after.

quote:
There is a reason why it is a logical fallacy. You are leaning upon your own incredulity to make the case for you.

Er no. That is what you are doing in differentiating the irrefutable FSM and IPU (and whatever other "absurd" entities" you find incredulous) from other equally irrefutable entities which you consider worthy of your agnosticism. I advocate that they should all be treated with skepticism on the basis that they are more likley the product of human invention than not.

You freely admit that the FSM and IPU are concoctions intended to be ridiculous in order to equivocate God _______ (<----- insert version here) to the same order of sillyness. So if your intent is to be absurd, you shouldn't be surprised when people see it as absurd. You intended it to be an absurdity and so it is. If God is silly to you, that's fine. If you want to be an atheist because you think God is silly, fine. That really doesn't bother me. I submit, however, that you take a closer look at your motivations as an atheist. Your version of atheism seems intent on persuading others, very similar to proseletyzing, in the interests of ridding the world of the concept of God. That seems like a very strange position to take, especially if you don't believe in something.

Why I don't go the extra mile from agnosticism to atheism is because I think there is room for both arguments in the public sphere. I am not equipped to make a solid decision, which is why I remain an open-minded skeptic (a.k.a. agnostic).

The bible is a breeding ground for illogical and inconsistent claims.

I agree, because we have something to actually discuss. See the difference between something specific versus a concept so vast it could mean anything? As much as the bible says that the bible and God are synonymous, that very well might not be the case. If we were to be arguing specifically about the God of the bible in relation to infallibility, that is something that could be refuted logically. In that case, I would lean closer to your position of atheism. But the bible doesn't encapsulate the concept of God, it doesn't own the name of God, which means the concept of God is left open to interpretation.

Because it is so open, it would only be fair to remain open as well.

Then why not the IPU? Seriously. Why exactly is Vishnu more worthy of agnosticism than the IPU?

Sure, the IPU could exist. That means I am agnostic towards the IPU as well. Satisfied?

Is there any evidence in favour of the concept of god being a human invention? Would such evidence have any bearing on the likelihood of such concepts being more or less likely to be the product of human invention than to actually exist?

I think there is ample evidence to suggest that many conceptions about "God" (insert concept -----> here ________) are fabrications. But it is also entirely possible that God reveals himself to the faithful, and only so much for a specific reason. I will go so far to say that I have had some very surreal experiences, which may largely attribute to my stance on God. There were a couple of instances that I could not explain rationally.

The other thing that makes me question is the illogical hatred towards that which doesn't exist. In a sense, atheists make me question the reality of God more than theists do, as ironic as it might sound.

Why is this seemingly innocuous question considered by those (such as RAZD) who advocate agnosticism as so confrontational?

I don't understand. Can you expound?

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 04-10-2010 8:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2010 2:14 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022