Choosing Agnosticism over atheism

[Themightytom]

First, please slap your friend upside the back of their head for me. Preferably with something blunt and trauma inducing.

[/i].

Like a lamp....

[Themightytom]

if you reason that God is a supernatural entity that exists beyond the confines of reality, and is tehrefore not subject to observable laws of reality thats not invalidating atheism, because technical, A supernatural being existing beyond the bounds of reality would be.. not real?

Even if the lizard doesn't understand how a lamp lights up, he can see the plain evidence that there is a lamp from which light comes. If someone could see plain evidence that God was real but couldn't work out how why would they choose agnosticism anyway, as opposed to gnosticism

[Simon_Jester]

What made him decide that humans can't understand higher beings?

This is something that he has yet to prove, other than assuming that just because lizards couldn't understand what is going on in the world around them, humans are like lizards.

It's not all that uncommon an idea, though. For example, people working on human-level artificial intelligence will sometimes stop to worry about what happens if they succeed, because the inevitable next step is going to be an AI that is smarter than human-level. How much smarter? Smart enough to create arguments so compelling that we wind up effectively its slaves? Smart enough that it can easily 'hack' and manipulate our minds the way we manipulate the minds of domestic animals? Smart enough that we can't trace its reasoning without orders of magnitude more time to work in than it needs?

While I understand if you don't think this is possible, I don't think the question can be casually dismissed. So while you may reasonably question whether supernatural superintelligences exist, I don't think that the idea of superintelligence can (or should) be lightly dismissed as unprovable bullshit.

[Rye]

Zod, shut your hole, you're full of shit. Vortex is completely right, he can cite the guy who fucking coined the term if he wants, whereas you have the equivalent position of that good old misrepresentation of atheism; that it's the belief that God doesn't exist rather than merely being the absence of theism. Agnosticism is actually position on how knowable they think god's existence (or in broader terms, how knowable "true reality" on the subject) is.

If you want to address agnosticism, you point out how useless it is (since it applies to all knowledge, since anything can have infinite unfalsifiable entities involved and we'd never know about it, but it could be true, whoa), you do not treat it as a position distinct from atheism and theism. It's a position on the possibility of knowledge, not belief. Agnostics that argue that it is are wrong. Huxley himself said he could be called an atheist and an infidel accurately.

Smug, self-satisfied agnostics, as opposed to the more benign versions that just don't grasp the burden of proof or those who think epistemology isn't subject to approximation, set up that false trilemma. Truth is, a person either believes in deities or they don't. Those agnostics are no different. If they don't believe in deities, they are atheists, by the reasonable definition of the word.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Agnostics are kids at the age where they understand that Santa Claus is probably not real. But they don't want to say he isn't real, because then maybe he won't bring any presents to their houses.

[Darth Wong]

People, please learn what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is the idea that it is at all possible for there to be some form of deity, gnosticism is being 100% sure there is or isn't. So you can either be a gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist. Either way, you are still either an atheist or a theist, since you either do believe a god exists or don't.

No, agnosticism is the idea that the idea of a deity should be taken seriously, rather than being dismissed as the childish nonsense that it is. Agnostics always say "possible" because that's an extremely low bar for admission and it makes it easier to evade contradictory arguments (in fact, I would suggest that most agnostics have chosen that label precisely because it allows them to evade arguments), but the fact is that a deity is only "possible" in the sense that it is "possible" for Santa Claus or Yoda to be real.

Agnostics might take that position in order to win an argument, but it's a hopelessly insincere argument: they believe that the idea of a deity is more credible than the idea of Yoda or Santa Claus being real.

The way you define agnosticism, it's nothing more than solipsism.

[The Romulan Republic]

There's nothing logical about agnosticism, it's a walking Golden Mean because some people are too cowardly to make up their mind one way or the other.

How is it "cowardly" for someone to take the position that they do not know weather their is a God or gods (which I have always taken to be Agnosticism)? While their might not be any proof that God exists, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that the existence of a God is impossible within the physical laws of the Universe as we know it (however, should anyone wish to try making that argument, I would be most interested in seeing it).

Admitting ignorance is not the same as fear of taking a side. And not every occasion where a person is not one hundred percent sure of something is a Golden Mean fallacy. I thought "Golden Mean" referred to taking a centrist or compromise position to be the right one because its in the middle, not the simple act of taking any position that falls somewhere between any two other options.

Or to put it more bluntly, please desist from the bigoted and unsupported generalizations.

People, please learn what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is the idea that it is at all possible for there to be some form of deity, gnosticism is being 100% sure there is or isn't. So you can either be a gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist. Either way, you are still either an atheist or a theist, since you either do believe a god exists or don't.

Since the overwhelming majority of people aren't 100% certain that sounds like a very dubious definition. The only people I've ever heard self-identify as agnostic were too much of a chickenshit to claim to either be religious or atheist.

"The only people I've ever heard..." Because personal anecdotes are worth so very much.

Since their seems to be some question as to what an agnostic is in this thread, I'll just state my point of view up front, and let you fellows argue about weather its agnosticism, theism, or atheism:

Simply put, I do not know weather their is a God or not. I don't see how I can definitively prove it either way, and while I don't claim that the question is ultimately unanswerable, I know that I cannot answer it currently. Now, since I don't technically believe in a God as a certainty, I suppose you could say I am atheist, but I don't rule out the possibility either. I am not sure weather my position meets the correct definition of agnosticism, but I have always took and used the term to mean simply "I admit that I don't know."

You would be perfectly correct if you called me ignorant, at least of the answer to this particular question. However, I frankly resent the presumption that my position is the result of cowardice. And I would like to see you provide some evidence to defend the assertion that all agnostics are cowards, besides a vague personal anecdote.

[Samuel]

How is it "cowardly" for someone to take the position that they do not know weather their is a God or gods (which I have always taken to be Agnosticism)? While their might not be any proof that God exists, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that the existence of a God is impossible within the physical laws of the Universe as we know it (however, should anyone wish to try making that argument, I would be most interested in seeing it).

Name your diety of choice. You can easily disprove all good/powerful/knowing and any other that interacts with reality in a meaningful way or desires worship.

[The Romulan Republic]

How is it "cowardly" for someone to take the position that they do not know weather their is a God or gods (which I have always taken to be Agnosticism)? While their might not be any proof that God exists, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that the existence of a God is impossible within the physical laws of the Universe as we know it (however, should anyone wish to try making that argument, I would be most interested in seeing it).

Name your diety of choice. You can easily disprove all good/powerful/knowing and any other that interacts with reality in a meaningful way or desires worship.

I most certainly do not believe that any particular faith's interpretation of God is factually accurate, and thus will refrain from attempting to defend any of them. When I refer to the possibility of God, I am using a very broad and non-denomination definition, which is little more than "a benevolent supernatural being or creator."

My personal beliefs aside, however, what I mainly object to is General Zod's claim that agnosticism nessissarily results from cowardice. That seems to me to be a rather suspect generalization, which he has left unsupported by anything more than a vague anecdote for the probable reason that it is unsupportable.

[The Vortex Empire]

No, agnosticism is the idea that the idea of a deity should be taken seriously, rather than being dismissed as the childish nonsense that it is. Agnostics always say "possible" because that's an extremely low bar for admission and it makes it easier to evade contradictory arguments (in fact, I would suggest that most agnostics have chosen that label precisely because it allows them to evade arguments), but the fact is that a deity is only "possible" in the sense that it is "possible" for Santa Claus or Yoda to be real.

Agnostics might take that position in order to win an argument, but it's a hopelessly insincere argument: they believe that the idea of a deity is more credible than the idea of Yoda or Santa Claus being real.

The way you define agnosticism, it's nothing more than solipsism.

I agree one hundred percent that it's a load of bullshit, it's just that most of the people who call themselves agnostics don't know what the word means. They think it's the idea that the existence of a deity is unknowable, rather than whether or not it is possible.

[Darth Wong]

My personal beliefs aside, however, what I mainly object to is General Zod's claim that agnosticism nessissarily results from cowardice. That seems to me to be a rather suspect generalization, which he has left unsupported by anything more than a vague anecdote for the probable reason that it is unsupportable.

It depends on what sort of cowardice you're talking about. It is no secret that a lot of atheists self-identify as agnostics simply to avoid the persecution that is often directed toward atheists in a Christian society. That could be interpreted as a form of cowardice, but of course, you could point out that not all agnostics would fall into this category. There are also agnostics who have adopted it as a serious philosophical argument, but that is scarcely different from solipsism (relying on the idea that it is presumptuous to declare knowledge of that for which you lack absolute proof), and in that case they would be sophistic morons rather than cowards.

And then, of course, there are the people who self-declare as agnostics simply because they don't like taking sides on contentious issues or stating their beliefs with confidence. Depending on how you define "cowardice", that could also be defined as cowardice.

[The Romulan Republic]

It depends on what sort of cowardice you're talking about. It is no secret that a lot of atheists self-identify as agnostics simply to avoid the persecution that is often directed toward atheists in a Christian society.

I'm certainly not denying that that is the case for some people. Its unfortunate, to say the least, that anyone should ever have to hide their honest opinion simply for fear of reprisals. However, depending on how bad the persecution might be, one could make the argument that such is rational and prudent self-preservation, not cowardice.

That could be interpreted as a form of cowardice, but of course, you could point out that not all agnostics would fall into this category. There are also agnostics who have adopted it as a serious philosophical argument, but that is scarcely different from solipsism (relying on the idea that it is presumptuous to declare knowledge of that for which you lack absolute proof), and in that case they would be sophistic morons rather than cowards.

I don't know that I would call them "morons," but obviously "absolute proof" is a pretty high bar to set. I'm not trying to argue the merits of solipsism, however. My point is simply that its not fair to insist that agnosticism is the result of being a coward.

And then, of course, there are the people who self-declare as agnostics simply because they don't like taking sides on contentious issues or stating their beliefs with confidence. Depending on how you define "cowardice", that could also be defined as cowardice.

That probably would be cowardice in my book.

However, I believe that their is another group of people who call themselves (rightly or wrongly) agnostics, as I count myself among them: these are people who, perhaps as a result of simple ignorance, honestly do not believe they know the answer to the question of weather God exists. Speaking only for myself, I describe myself as an agnostic at least in part because I believe that it is the most honest description of my beliefs on this subject, and I would not want to be dishonest and claim to know more than I do, especially not for the sake of "taking a side." Now, one might perhaps criticize me for ignorance, and I am always open to trying to better educating myself. But in the meantime, I feel that it would be dishonest or at least misleading for me to describe myself as either atheist or theist.

In any case, it is primarily the label of coward, applied to all as opposed to some agnostics, that I object to.

[Samuel]

which is little more than "a benevolent supernatural being or creator."

I've bolded the contradictory parts.

[Darth Wong]

I believe that their is another group of people who call themselves (rightly or wrongly) agnostics, as I count myself among them: these are people who, perhaps as a result of simple ignorance, honestly do not believe they know the answer to the question of weather God exists.

Do you honestly believe you do not know the answer to the question of whether the Easter Bunny exists?

[Stark]

As a teenager (the only time I ever encountered anyone who described themselves as 'agnostic') the only people who did so were recovering christians, those rebelling against their parent's religion, and left-field whackos who used 'who knows if god exists' as a segue into crystals, quantum tesla vibrowaves and other hokum. In other words, cowardice or smokescreen.

[Intio]

So you can either be a gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist. Either way, you are still either an atheist or a theist, since you either do believe a god exists or don't.

Correct, it is amazing that people still don't get this. Belief and knowledge are separate things. Sure, one feeds the other, but still...

That sounds like semantics nitpicking to me.

That sounds like not accepting you are wrong, to me. As has been explained, agnostic simply means not knowing, more specifically on the basis of actively thinking that we cannot know - it has nothing to do with belief. It is more of a modifier to theism or atheism. "...but apparently you don't like the common definition that virtually everyone but you uses" It's nothing to do with liking, you seem to think that your definition needs no expanding.

I believe that their is another group of people who call themselves (rightly or wrongly) agnostics, as I count myself among them: these are people who, perhaps as a result of simple ignorance, honestly do not believe they know the answer to the question of weather God exists.

... and I would not want to be dishonest and claim to know more than I do...

(Bolding mine)

That's the point Romulan, atheism is about belief and not knowledge. You can not know whether there is a god or not, and still be atheist. The default for anything is disbelief until you have a reason to believe. To use Darth Wong's example, you either believe in the Easter Bunny... or you do not. Knowing whether an Easter Bunny can exist is not the issue.

Until you have an active reason to believe in God, you are atheist. Your own awareness of your knowledge does not alter that.

[Mobiboros]

That sounds like semantics nitpicking to me.

What a odd thing to say when the very thing we're discussing is the semantics of a specific word. So yes, I am nitpicking because we're trying to determine the meaning (semantics) of a word.

You're basically arguing that determining the meaning of a word is useless in determining the meaning of a word.

There's a difference between being open to the idea that something exists with sufficient proof and sitting on the fence because you're too much of a chickenshit to commit to either concept.

That was my point, yes. saying "I don't believe, but I don't know" ISN'T agnosticism. It's atheism. Saying "I don't believe and we /can't/ know" is atheism AND agnosticism. But I also agree the agnostic philosophy is about as useful as solipsism. It's basically just the solipsistic argument applied to religion.