Agnostic?

[Kitsune]

I have kind of question. I am debating with a person on another board who claims to be an Agnostic. The problem is that he defends various bible passages as I have seen from an Apologist.

Woudl you consider him to really be an Agnostic or really just trying to cloak himself?

[The Spartan]

Which verses and how exactly is he going about defending them?

My gut reaction is that he's either cloaking, as you say, or in some form of denial about having lapsed. I've known the kind, they don't know if they believe in the Christian god anymore but they still believe the Bible is mostly accurate, etc.

[Kitsune]

Give you two:

Never swear an Oath!
Matthews 5-33 to 5-37

You mean this:

33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Looks like a sound policy for avoiding the sin of Pride, by not invoking God or his servants as guarantors of your faithfullness. The last verse is the $ shot -- if you say yes or no, mean it, whichever one it is, because you intend to be honest and make it so. How's that hard to follow?

Going on
You really cannot live in society and follow
Matthews 5-40 which is basically that you should not defend yourself in a Civil court of law
Taken out of context, it does sound very bleak, doesn't it? But let's have the whole context, shall we?

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Taken in context, 5:40 is a very small part of a detailed injunction, delivered metaphorically, to not assume you are better than any other of God's creations.

[General Zod]

That sounds like a lapsed Christian in denial to me. For the most part agnostics tend to be fence-sitters who just can't make up their mind for whatever reason.

[TithonusSyndrome]

He could simply be playing devil's advocate, but he sounds more like a bullshitting lapsed Christian or "tortured skeptic" a la Lincoln.

[General Zod]

He could simply be playing devil's advocate, but he sounds more like a bullshitting lapsed Christian or "tortured skeptic" a la Lincoln.

If he were playing devil's advocate he should have been up-front about it at the start. Whenever someone tries claiming they were doing it after the fact it always comes off as cowardly backpedaling to me.

[Darth Wong]

Any time someone corrects somebody about the true or correct meaning of the Bible, he's probably a Christian in some form or other. People who truly reject the faith usually come clean with themselves about how internally inconsistent it is.

[TithonusSyndrome]

He could simply be playing devil's advocate, but he sounds more like a bullshitting lapsed Christian or "tortured skeptic" a la Lincoln.

If he were playing devil's advocate he should have been up-front about it at the start. Whenever someone tries claiming they were doing it after the fact it always comes off as cowardly backpedaling to me.

Yeah, that or "just joking" as though you're the loser for not having detected it in the first place despite any significant tipoff to that end. "Successful troll is successful" and all that.

[Stuart]

I have kind of question. I am debating with a person on another board who claims to be an Agnostic. The problem is that he defends various bible passages as I have seen from an Apologist. Would you consider him to really be an Agnostic or really just trying to cloak himself?

If he claims that the existance of a God cannot be proven or disproven then he's an agnostic. Note that belief has nothing to do with this; an agnostic can believe or not believe in a God. The critical part of agnosticism is the assertion that said existance or non-existance in unprovable.

A Gnostic affirms that the the existance or non-existance of a God can be proven (is subject to rational proof). Again, belief has nothing to do with this; an Gnostic can believe or not believe in a God.

It sounds like your interlocutor is an Agnostic Theist. He believes in a god but admits he can't prove it.

[General Zod]

If he claims that the existance of a God cannot be proven or disproven then he's an agnostic. Note that belief has nothing to do with this; an agnostic can believe or not believe in a God. The critical part of agnosticism is the assertion that said existance or non-existance in unprovable.

A Gnostic affirms that the the existance or non-existance of a God can be proven (is subject to rational proof). Again, belief has nothing to do with this; an Gnostic can believe or not believe in a God.

It sounds like your interlocutor is an Agnostic Theist. He believes in a god but admits he can't prove it.

That's what makes Agnosticism absurd fence-sitting, though. It's someone is either incapable or unwilling to follow the reasoning that God's existence is impossible to prove through to its logical conclusion. Effectively a safe "middle-ground" for people who are too scared to give up that safety net completely.

[Rye]

If he claims that the existance of a God cannot be proven or disproven then he's an agnostic.

There's several types of agnostics, they're just one. I like those best though, because they're self-contradictory. They've not read all the theistic and atheistic arguments for/against God's existence, so by their own reasoning, they are unable to make that claim.

Note that belief has nothing to do with this; an agnostic can believe or not believe in a God. The critical part of agnosticism is the assertion that said existance or non-existance in unprovable.

Yeah, there's also the "vernacular" agnostic that is merely unconvinced by the existing arguments and hasn't made a decision, these types often maintain they're not atheists because of [strawman of atheism as definitively saying God doesn't exist rather than mere lack of acceptance of the concept].

It sounds like your interlocutor is an Agnostic Theist. He believes in a god but admits he can't prove it.

It could run both ways. It could be an ex-evangelical that doesn't believe in God but who was well versed in apologetics and a particular reading of the Bible and is drawing upon that for bible-based responses. I mean, I'm an antitheist, I have no problem responding to certain criticisms of the bible if they're in error (iron chariots can kill god, Jesus is based on Mithra, etc) as far as I know.

[PainRack]

That's what makes Agnosticism absurd fence-sitting, though. It's someone is either incapable or unwilling to follow the reasoning that God's existence is impossible to prove through to its logical conclusion. Effectively a safe "middle-ground" for people who are too scared to give up that safety net completely.

How was Occam fence-sitting when he came up with Occam Razor? The whole basis of that philosophy was that its impossible to prove god existence and that one must approach god through faith.

And he's not the first, nor the only Christian who believes that. God is real to them but not because of any evidence, but because they believe. An agnostic atheist may be unwilling to follow through to its logical conclusion, but an agnostic theist isn't willing to believe that logical conclusion in the first place.

[General Zod]

How was Occam fence-sitting when he came up with Occam Razor? The whole basis of that philosophy was that its impossible to prove god existence and that one must approach god through faith.

Why the fuck should god get an exemption when virtually everything else can logically be assumed to not exist if it is impossible to prove they are real? The fact that god magically gets an exemption vs. everything else is what makes agnostics fence-sitters.

And he's not the first, nor the only Christian who believes that. God is real to them but not because of any evidence, but because they believe. An agnostic atheist may be unwilling to follow through to its logical conclusion, but an agnostic theist isn't willing to believe that logical conclusion in the first place.

If they weren't willing to admit even the possibility that the logical conclusion is correct then they wouldn't be agnostic, they'd be a fundie.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Any time someone corrects somebody about the true or correct meaning of the Bible, he's probably a Christian in some form or other. People who truly reject the faith usually come clean with themselves about how internally inconsistent it is.

There is a context when that is not true, and that is using the bible to sow doubt in it. For example, using the contradictions between christianity and judiasm to show that one is not really an outgrowth of the other, but a perversion and misrepresentation.

[TithonusSyndrome]

And he's not the first, nor the only Christian who believes that. God is real to them but not because of any evidence, but because they believe. An agnostic atheist may be unwilling to follow through to its logical conclusion, but an agnostic theist isn't willing to believe that logical conclusion in the first place.

If they weren't willing to admit even the possibility that the logical conclusion is correct then they wouldn't be agnostic, they'd be a fundie.

Or a tradition-wanking Mindless Middle fucktard with more vanilla theism beliefs than direct Christian fundamentalism.

[Darth Wong]

Any time someone corrects somebody about the true or correct meaning of the Bible, he's probably a Christian in some form or other. People who truly reject the faith usually come clean with themselves about how internally inconsistent it is.

There is a context when that is not true, and that is using the bible to sow doubt in it. For example, using the contradictions between christianity and judiasm to show that one is not really an outgrowth of the other, but a perversion and misrepresentation.

Fair enough; my wording is not ideal. If you correct someone claiming to know the true meaning of the Bible, then that doesn't necessarily mean you yourself believe the Bible has a coherent meaning. But anyone who thinks the Bible has a coherent message is probably a believer, because only a true believer could convince himself that the muddled mess we call the Bible has such a message. In fact, the only consistent message in the whole damned book is "OBEDIENCE", which is not typically what people claim to be its central message.

[Darth Wong]

As for the subject in general, agnosticism is actually an epistemological argument: according to agnostics, it is impossible to have knowledge of whether there is or isn't a god. That's how the concept began, as defined by T Huxley. And the underlying premise is that you must be able to prove something's existence or nonexistence before you can know whether it exists.

People often confuse agnosticism with the statement "I won't take a position on the existence of God". But in fact, agnostics do take a position, by saying that it is impossible to have knowledge of God's existence. That is a position, subject to criticism and rebuttal.

[Rye]

Any time someone corrects somebody about the true or correct meaning of the Bible, he's probably a Christian in some form or other. People who truly reject the faith usually come clean with themselves about how internally inconsistent it is.

There is a context when that is not true, and that is using the bible to sow doubt in it.

Actually, objective textual criticism isn't reliant on agenda (unless you count wanting to know the truth as an agenda).

For example, using the contradictions between christianity and judiasm to show that one is not really an outgrowth of the other, but a perversion and misrepresentation.

Uh, what? This assumes judaism has some sort of pure form, rather than a shifting morass of judaic species that christianity evolved from.

[Kitsune]

Uh, what? This assumes judaism has some sort of pure form, rather than a shifting morass of judaic species that christianity evolved from.

That is if you can say that Christianity has one real message...I consider them both this whole family of beliefs.

[Surlethe]

The problem with real agnosticism is that it's, quite absurdly, hypocritical. In fact, it's hypocritical for precisely the same reason that solipsism is hypocritical: everyone acts on Occam's Razor, whether they say they accept its validity or not. To maintain that no knowledge of God can exist and then refuse to conclude that God does not exist, an agnostic must reject Occam's Razor; at that point, he's rejected a tool which he consistently uses elsewhere, and is therefore guilty of hypocrisy.

[Surlethe]

And he's not the first, nor the only Christian who believes that. God is real to them but not because of any evidence, but because they believe. An agnostic atheist may be unwilling to follow through to its logical conclusion, but an agnostic theist isn't willing to believe that logical conclusion in the first place.

If they weren't willing to admit even the possibility that the logical conclusion is correct then they wouldn't be agnostic, they'd be a fundie.

Since when has fundamentalism been broad enough to encompass almost every single Christian? Christians in general, gnostic and agnostic, are irrational -- the former because they do not operate from sound premises regarding reality, and the second because they refuse to acknowledge the validity of Occam's Razor -- but that does not make them fundies.

[General Zod]

[
Since when has fundamentalism been broad enough to encompass almost every single Christian? Christians in general, gnostic and agnostic, are irrational -- the former because they do not operate from sound premises regarding reality, and the second because they refuse to acknowledge the validity of Occam's Razor -- but that does not make them fundies.

If you have a better term for a Christian who has zero doubts of the validity of his religion, I'd love to hear it.

[Surlethe]

Since when has fundamentalism been broad enough to encompass almost every single Christian? Christians in general, gnostic and agnostic, are irrational -- the former because they do not operate from sound premises regarding reality, and the second because they refuse to acknowledge the validity of Occam's Razor -- but that does not make them fundies.

If you have a better term for a Christian who has zero doubts of the validity of his religion, I'd love to hear it.

The best I can come up with is 'unreasonable'. That doesn't make him a fundie, not by a long shot -- fundamentalism, in the strict sense, is a particular brand of premillennialist Protestantism; in the broad sense, it's the most conservative branch of a given sect.

[Twoyboy]

And the underlying premise is that you must be able to prove something's existence or nonexistence before you can know whether it exists.

I always thought this bit was the actual definition of agnosticism. Thus, I've always defined myself as an agnostic atheist - ie I don't believe in God because there's no evidence for one, and thus you should fall on the side of non-belief. Is there a word for this belief that I should be using other than agnostic? (Richard Dawkins defines it as a weak atheist.)

[Darth Wong]

Is there a word for this belief that I should be using other than agnostic? (Richard Dawkins defines it as a weak atheist.)

The most appropriate term is "irrational", since Occam's Razor is a principle of logic and you're ignoring it. But that's an excessively general term.