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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

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

 

[Helm]

Agnostics are really just weak atheists.

 

[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.

 

[Watchman]

Agnostics are really just weak atheists.

True, in a sense.

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

Because the qualifications of a properly formulated and logically sound argument are quite independent on our subjective knowledge or lack thereof (or lack of interest in the whole question) concerning the existence of God ?

 

[FuZe]

Agnostic is simply a non-believer. I may not believe in your god, but this does not mean I am uninterested in what you think your god is like and what it wants. Religion is still a driving force in human behavior and politics and in order to relate, to understand where someone is coming from, one must understand the message in the context of the culture.

 

[wearycelt]

Also, as a side note, agnosticism is not lazy. It is taking rational stance on the existence of god... Agnosticism requires no leap of Faith. Unlike theism or atheism which cannot prove their case, agnosticism is the only purely rational answer to the question. It is a logical conclusion based on the evidence.... it is not.... I repeat NOT, indecision.

 

[Aetius]

I don't like the position of agnosticism either.

Its either you are;

A) Too lazy to think about it
B) Too afraid to make a decision

Sure they argue this and that about "you can't be sure there is a god or not so I cannot decide!"

Well thats not how life works. Everday we make decisions in life without have 100% of the information, because otherwise we would be paralyzed with indecision.

You take all the information you can gather and make an informed decision.

Also, as a side note, agnosticism is not lazy. It is taking rational stance on the existence of god... Agnosticism requires no leap of Faith. Unlike theism or atheism which cannot prove their case, agnosticism is the only purely rational answer to the question. It is a logical conclusion based on the evidence.... it is not.... I repeat NOT, indecision.

Its suspending judgement, not actually a real position at all.

You are answering nothing logically at all, because you do not even provide an answer. You are afraid to answer, which may be wise, but stop pretending agnosticism is a stance.

 

[finsternis]

Remember, agnostics are the ones who finally stop trying to be better than everyone else and say "I have no ****ing idea".
Because of this they tend to look at both sides without a bias view. Thus they understand better both sides.

 

[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.

 

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

shades of gray (agonisim) populuate the world.

Elaborate, please.

 

[Helm]

I used to call myself agnostic until I understood that atheism didn't necessarily entail a faith in the non-existence of God, which seems a bit object defeating.

 

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

I used to call myself agnostic until I understood that atheism didn't necessarily entail a faith in the non-existence of God, which seems a bit object defeating.

So you were afraid to being called an atheist.

 

[Revolves]

Elaborate, please.

Agonism in lingustic context, is a bad word for 'grey' in this case. I mean simply that most people are not only religious - nor are they only athiest. They take teachings from both sides, even the so called atheists and theists. I'm pressure every athiest has refered to god in one way or another - some might have had an off prayer, others might have charctericized nature and thus made a god for themselves (even if only in irony), while the theists never 100% follow the word of god. They commonly make moral decisions based on ethics developed and used by theists all the time.

EDIT: Although, most greys are, in this case, strongly black, or almost white, but never fully black, and never fully white... agonistics, however, are the strong grays, so to say.

 

[Watchman]

Its suspending judgement, not actually a real position at all.

It is a rational position to suspend judgement on a case when there isn't enough data to formulate a solid conclusion, you know...

But clearly you prefer arbitrarily picking either of the Definitive Answers.

 

[Helm]

So you were afraid to being called an atheist.

No I just thought atheists had more of religious belief in literal nothingness. A few may still believe that but it seems a bit odd, you may as well just believe in something nice if you're going to believe in something that can't be proved.

 

[wearycelt]

I used to call myself agnostic until I understood that atheism didn't necessarily entail a faith in the non-existence of God, which seems a bit object defeating.

This is something I am not aware of. I was of the assumption that atheism was the denial, theism the affirmation, and agnosticism the neither.

 

[finsternis]

Oh come one Wu'a'ihiwalu! I was going to rep you for not making this thread one of your Shenanigans.

But you had to add a senseless poll.

 

[Player989random]

Due to the sick/malevolent nature of this "God" thing, I would suppose that agnostics are simply afraid of the being's psychopathic wrath being unleashed upon them if they doubt it's existance. Or they could simply like to **** with missionaries and/or people who want to convert them by saying that they could be swayed.