Question to Agnostics

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

If you don't know whether God exists or not, how can you conduct a theological discussion at all?

[Watchman]

Poorly formulated arguments are poorly formulated arguments, and deserve to be rebuked as such.

[The Count(er)]

If you completely lack understanding of what other religions and stances on God are, or how they work, then how can you conduct a theological discussion at all?

Edit: Damn, I was trying to mock his argument but I ended up making sense.

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

I do not lack understanding, and that wasn't the question.

Edit: Damn, I was trying to mock his argument but I ended up making sense.

Atheists rarely make sense.

[The Count(er)]

I do not lack understanding, and that wasn't the question.

Aloha.

Well every post and thread you've previously created here does seem to suggest the opposite, but I suppose I'll give you another chance, not sure why though. Maybe because this is less of a troll thread than your other attempts.

Edit: Nope, with the addition of your poll this is just as much of a troll thread

Here's a definition of Agnosticism, how about you tell me.

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself and the terms are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief.[2]

[Watchman]

Atheists rarely make sense.

Given that their entire conception of reality is based on what's more or less the polar opposite of the religious folks' equivalent (ie. also yours, unless I'm completely mistaken), it should come as little surprise you guys have difficulties speaking the same language...

Though for the record, I for one find the position of *denying* God only marginally less silly (albeit considerably more harmless) than the Theist party line; the abject absence of meaningful evidence one way or another would seem to put any "definite" stance on the subject on some rather marshy ground indeed...

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

Agnostics fall into two categories, those who think that it is impossible to determine whether or not there is a God, and those who don't care enough to form an opinion.

The first kind believes this means they'll still make it to heaven (if god exists) when they die because they didn't doubt God, yet still "win" religious debates on forums by teenagers by saying the other side is closed-minded, and resorting to pathetic excuses like "just because there is zero evidence for God, doesn't mean he doesn't exist." Of course, they would never apply this logic to anything else, like say, the Easter Bunny.

The second type of agnostics argue that because one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, afterlife or metaphysics, that there is no reason for them to adopt a stance either way.

So, basically agnostics are just too lazy to form an opinion a matter, and as such lack the basics to engage in theological debates.

My grandfather always said "I don't like agnostics because they are too lazy and drunk to show up to service on Sunday." My atheist friend says "I do not like Agnostics because they won't commit to the overthrow of religion." Well, I respect Agnostics, as long as they don't open their mouth in religious debates. It's like saying the people who didn't study law for years should act as lawyers in court.

[MaximiIian]

So, basically agnostics are just too lazy to form an opinion a matter

Not that any of your posts make sense anyway, but what's wrong with laziness? ;D

[Behind The Mask]

My grandfather always said "I don't like agnostics because they are too lazy and drunk to show up to service on Sunday." !

Now, I don't know you and you don't know me, and I am a Russian so I do not fully grasp the English language so please excuse me if I say this wrong...

Your grandfather sounds like a complete .

Damn, I spelt that wrong, allow me to fix that... !

[Theseus1234]

Now, I don't know you and you don't know me, and I am a Russian so I do not fully grasp the English language so please excuse me if I say this wrong...

Your grandfather sounds like a complete .

Damn, I spelt that wrong, allow me to fix that... !

*mimicking W* True +rep

Agnostics are based on the idea that it is impossible to determine. It isn't always laziness or inability to make decisions, but looking at the issue from both sides and saying "hey, the only way to find out for sure is for someone who died to come back to life and say 'OMFG THERE'S NO GOD' or "OMFG THERE'S A GOD'"

I will seriously give you a dollar if you make a fair poll, like honestly. This is getting ridiculous and your pissing a lot of people off. Not everyone has to share your twisted view!

[Chaigidel]

its really one of the only subjects I find interesting, that is my sole reason for discussing it.

[Watchman]

...in other words, you don't understand Jack about agnosticism do you, W ?

Gee. I'm so surprised.

[The Count(er)]

well, looks like one more chance didn't do it, you go straight to insulting a view, with little or no reason, seeming only because their ideas are different.

[wearycelt]

If you don't know whether God exists or not, how can you conduct a theological discussion at all?

This question doesn't make sense... You are equating a lack of faith (whether it is faith in God's existence or faith in God's non-existence, as the matter cannot be proved) with a lack of intellectual comprehension.

Unless you are suggesting that one cannot understand a religion without having faith in it....... which is probably a nice way to insulate your religion from criticism.

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

This question doesn't make sense... You are equating a lack of faith (whether it is faith in God's existence or faith in God's non-existence, as the matter cannot be proved) with a lack of intellectual comprehension.

Unless you are suggesting that one cannot understand a religion without having faith in it....... which is probably a nice way to insulate your religion from criticism.

Example:
I don't know whether morals exist or not. I'm also bitshat lazy to search for an answer. How am I about to partake in a debate about erthics? It presumes you take a stance on the subject first.

Agnostics are really just weak atheists.

True. +rep

[wearycelt]

Example:
I don't know whether morals exist or not. I'm also bitshat lazy to search for an answer. How am I about to partake in a debate about erthics? It presumes you take a stance on the subject first.

No it doesn't. Again you are equating faith with comprehension. Whether or not I believe that morality is real has nothing to do with whether or not I can speak intelligently on the topic.... I could have read every moral thinker from Plato to Descartes and describe it all with elegance and that will bear no reflection on whether or not I believe in it.

For that matter, I could read the bible and all of the writings of all of the church fathers and still have no faith.

You are equating and comprehension with faith. They are not equal.

[Revolves]

Example:
I don't know whether morals exist or not. I'm also bitshat lazy to search for an answer. How am I about to partake in a debate about erthics? It presumes you take a stance on the subject first.

I'll say this in one big metapor;

The world doesn't consist only of black (athiesm) and white (theism), in fact, a lot of the time, shades of gray (agonisim) populuate the world. To say that debating for something/against something related to black and white requires one to be either black or white - is in itself, not looking at the possibility of there being gray - and not consdering gray's standpoint - because it is a color of many shades - is, in itself, ethically questionable. And there's a diffrence between not knowing anything about a subject and not have a concrete, black or white, opinion. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can be undecided of a certain topic, and yet, still be well informed, espically in cases such as religion and theology. Indeed, you could have decided to reside in between black and white.

[Aetius]

I'll say this in one big metapor;

The world doesn't consist only of black (athiesm) and white (theism), in fact, a lot of the time, shades of gray (agonisim) populuate the world. To say that debating for something/against something related to black and white requires one to be either black or white - is in itself, not looking at the possibility of there being gray - and not consdering gray's standpoint - because it is a color of many shades - is, in itself, ethically questionable. And there's a diffrence between not knowing anything about a subject and not have a concrete, black or white, opinion. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can be undecided of a certain topic, and yet, still be well informed, espically in cases such as religion and theology. Indeed, you could have decided to reside in between black and white.

Blablablabala, metaphors upon metaphors that are irrelavant

Shades of Gray?

That may work sometimes but not with yes or no opinion questions. Here are two yes or no opinion questions, notice why maybe never works :

Is their God(s)?

Theist: Yes
Atheist: No
Agnostic: Maybe???

Is Murder of innocents acceptable?
Citizen 1: Yes
Citizen 2: No
Citizen 3: Maybe?? (you can see with opinion yes/no questions maybe just doesnt cut it. An answer is required for it to be an answer)

[Revolves]

Blablablabala, metaphors upon metaphors that are irrelavant

Shades of Gray?

That may work sometimes but not with yes or no questions. Here are two yes or no questions:

Is their God(s)?

Theist: Yes
Atheist: No
Agnostic: Maybe???

Is Murder of innocents acceptable?
Citizen 1: Yes
Citizen 2: No
Citizen 3: Maybe? (you can see with opinion yes/no questions maybe just doesnt cut it)

Religion and belief in it entails more things than simple belief in a deity and a couple (of simple) moral questions.

On those two questions, let me show you the grey areas;

Is there a god?

White Area: Yes
Black Area: No
Grey Area: Perhaps, a deity only comes to exsitence, if we think he exsits. All of his power derives from the fact that people beleive in him.


Is the murder of innocents acceptable?

White Area: No
Black Area: Yes
Grey Area: (Grey Philosophy would say that there is no such thing as 'innocence', only varying degrees of guilt, but that aside) To save two other innocent lives, yes.

Seriousally, give me at least one question, which isn't in itself rigged so that you don't go arround begging the question (by, for example, introducing the concept of absolutes in itself in the question, like you did mildly with 'innocence'). Find me one yes/no question which has no possibility of having a third answer.

[wearycelt]

@ Helm

I see what you mean. Thanks.

Blablablabala, metaphors upon metaphors that are irrelavant

Shades of Gray?

That may work sometimes but not with yes or no opinion questions. Here are two yes or no opinion questions, notice why maybe never works:

Is their God(s)?

Theist: Yes
Atheist: No
Agnostic: Maybe???

Is Murder of innocents acceptable?
Citizen 1: Yes
Citizen 2: No
Citizen 3: Maybe?? (you can see with opinion yes/no questions maybe just doesnt cut it. An answer is required for it to be an answer)

Yes, the murder of innocents is a "maybe."
How many innocents are to be murdered? What beneficial consequences will come of murdering them?

When the black plague swept Europe, people ran into secluded wilderness where they tried to eek out a living while waiting for the plague to pass by. Some of these refugees would kill any other human that threatened the integrity of their self imposed quarantine. Were the hapless wanderers in the forest not innocent? Were the over protective murderers wrong?

Generalized questions mean nothing. They only attempt to construct absolutes. Anyone who has ever read a page of sci-fi or watched an episode of Twilight Zone knows that absolutes are not absolute.

In the case of most decisions that humans are faced with, we can make a value judgement based on the conjecture as to the consequences of that decision. This is not the case with the question of God's existence. There is no way to conjecture the consequences of the decision, as there is no agreement amongst the world's religions as to what those consequences may be.

So, we can either choose to believe, like so many, out of fear.... Hedging out bets, if you will.
Or we can choose to not believe, not live in fear, and hope that in the end we are right.

Both decisions are based in fatih. Agnosticism, is the rejection of Faith.