I read bbarr's definitions and find that agnosticism, as he explains it, seems fairly close to my beliefs. Then I read rwingett's argument, and I'm glad that bbarr chimed in. But then, I reflect that I find notions of the spiritual--the existence of something beyond material reality--comforting even while finding the beliefs of every enthusiast that preaches neither comforting, nor compelling, nor even within the bounds of reasonable possibilities.
Evidence for or against the existence of a creator seems elusive, but not impossible. The behavior of the most devout Muslims and Christians, however, does offer evidence that tilts me towards the views of atheism.
Originally posted by Lord Shark How do you know it's not possible to know whether or not agnosticism exists?
I was only joking.
But if you really think about it, the idea or concept of agnosticism is just that. It's in the mind. It's not like a tree or a building or a mountain that one can see. To think to ones' self that it isn't possible to know whether or not there be a God leaves one's mind in a mental vacuum. It sucks.
The atheist says there is no evidence for the existence of God, but an agnostic says there's no evidence either for or against the existence of God.
Now I can almost understand the atheists' reasoning, but agnosticism is devoid of all reason. Either there is evidence or there's not.
It's like having evidence for there being no evidence. 🙄
Originally posted by Wulebgr I read bbarr's definitions and find that agnosticism, as he explains it, seems fairly close to my beliefs. Then I read rwingett's argument, and I'm glad that bbarr chimed in. But then, I reflect that I find notions of the spiritual--the existence of something beyond material reality--comforting even while finding the beliefs of every enthusiast that preaches ...[text shortened]... lims and Christians, however, does offer evidence that tilts me towards the views of atheism.
"The behavior of the most devout Muslims and Christians, however, does offer evidence that tilts me towards the views of atheism."
I suggest you get your eyes off people. If you're going to know God, then it is He that you should focus on.
After all, the behavior of most Satanist shouldn't offer you evidence that would tilt you toward Satan either.
But if you really think about it, the idea or concept of agnosticism is just that. It's in the mind. It's not like a tree or a building or a mountain that one can see. To think to ones' self that it isn't possible to know whether or not there be a God leaves one's mind in a mental vacuum. It sucks.
The atheist says there is no eviden s evidence or there's not.
It's like having evidence for there being no evidence. 🙄
To think to ones' self that it isn't possible to know whether or not there be a God leaves one's mind in a mental vacuum. It sucks. Actually, the letter "a" preceding "God" in "a God" is important because it dereferences one specific god in favour of infinitely many (depending on how they are formulated by humans or left un thought of). I too hold that it is impossible for me to know either way. I hold, however, it is probably not the case that any gods claimed by you, myself, or anyone else are likely to be true (as infinitely many others have not yet been discussed and compared against them), and so I operate as though none of them exist.
Originally posted by Agerg [b] To think to ones' self that it isn't possible to know whether or not there be a God leaves one's mind in a mental vacuum. It sucks. Actually, the letter "a" preceding "God" in "a God" is important because it dereferences one specific god in favour of infinitely many (depending on how they are formulated by humans or left un thought of). I too hold tha ...[text shortened]... nst them), and so I operate as though none of them exist.
I don't think it sucks :][/b]
"I too hold that it is impossible for me to know either way."
Originally posted by josephw "I too hold that it is [b]impossible for me to know either way."
Impossible?[/b]
I am not supernatural, I have not the necessary senses that I can perceive supernatural dimensions, I have no means of performing any tests on them so as to acquire knowledge indirectly. Therefore it is impossible for me to know until I am granted new abilities, exposed to, or placed in a supposed supernatural realm.
Originally posted by Agerg Therefore it is impossible for me to know until I am granted new abilities, exposed to, or placed in a supposed supernatural realm.
And even then you would not be able to tell, because the supernatural has no rules by definition, and thus it is impossible to carry out any form of inquiry in a scientific manner.
Originally posted by twhitehead And even then you would not be able to tell, because the supernatural has no rules by definition, and thus it is impossible to carry out any form of inquiry in a scientific manner.
I'm not so sure that one of the definitions of supernatural really is, technically, that it has no rules (one may suppose this is the case when dealing with most theists though)...furthermore if I could be absolutely sure it had no rules then it would not be the case I know nothing because trivially, I would know there are no rules.
It might be the case that the set of all things which can be happen in some supposed supernatural realm subject to some mysterious collection of rules are a superset of the set of all things that can happen in the physical realm...or perhaps some things which happen in the physical realm cannot happen in this supernatural realm.
How can anyone make *any* valid claim at all without actually visiting or being affected by such a place?
Originally posted by Agerg I am not supernatural, I have not the necessary senses that I can perceive supernatural dimensions, I have no means of performing any tests on them so as to acquire knowledge indirectly. Therefore it is impossible for me to know until I am granted new abilities, exposed to, or placed in a supposed supernatural realm.
No sir. You are mistaken. You are fully equipped to know and perceive that which is spiritual. In fact that is just what you are doing right now. Forget all the mumbo jumbo about the "supernatural". It is your mind and your thoughts that are spiritual. You simply don't recognise it as such. You have been told/taught that you think with your brain, and though the brain plays a part in the process it is not where thought originates.
You are a spiritual being that was designed to know, and have a complete and full relationship with your creator. Any other description of who and what we are is a lie.
Open your mind to greater possibilities before you slam the door shut again.
You are a spiritual being that was designed to know, and have a complete and full relationship with your creator. Any other description of who and what we are is a lie.
Open your mind to greater possibilities before you slam the door shut again.[/b]
To me, this doesn't sound like an open mind talking.
Originally posted by Agerg I'm not so sure that one of the definitions of supernatural really is, technically, that it has no rules (one may suppose this is the case when dealing with most theists though).
It is necessarily the case, because there would be no reason for invoking the supernatural category otherwise.
But if you really think about it, the idea or concept of agnosticism is just that. It's in the mind. It's not like a tree or a building or a mountain that one can see. To think to ones' self that it isn't possible to know whether or not there be a God leaves one's mind in a mental vacuum. It sucks.
The atheist says there is no eviden ...[text shortened]... s evidence or there's not.
It's like having evidence for there being no evidence. 🙄
I was only joking. So was I but I sometimes forget that people need emoticons to make that obvious.
But if you really think about it, the idea or concept of agnosticism is just that. It's in the mind. It's not like a tree or a building or a mountain that one can see. To think to ones' self that it isn't possible to know whether or not there be a God leaves one's mind in a mental vacuum. It sucks. I disagree with your conclusion and I think comparing agnosticism to a tree or a building and saying it isn't like that adds nothing to the debate. We already know that concepts are not objects.
The atheist says there is no evidence for the existence of God, but an agnostic says there's no evidence either for or against the existence of God. Why not try to read and understand what I actually said upthread instead of making your own straw version?
Now I can almost understand the atheists' reasoning, but agnosticism is devoid of all reason. Either there is evidence or there's not. I think you don't understand agnosticism then.
It's like having evidence for there being no evidence. 🙄 You can have reasons and evidence to think that you have no evidence for X without contradiction. I just don't think you've really thought this through.
Originally posted by twhitehead It is necessarily the case, because there would be no reason for invoking the supernatural category otherwise.
I'm generally allowed to assume this is the case when dealing with theists; but if my own opinion is sought on the matter then the point stands. The entire concept is meaningless and I make precisely no assumptions whatsoever.
Originally posted by josephw No sir. You are mistaken. You are fully equipped to know and perceive that which is spiritual. In fact that is just what you are doing right now. Forget all the mumbo jumbo about the "supernatural". It is your mind and your thoughts that are spiritual. You simply don't recognise it as such. You have been told/taught that you think with your brain, and though ...[text shortened]... are is a lie.
Open your mind to greater possibilities before you slam the door shut again.
Who told you thought does not originate from the brain? 😕
What do you think of agnosticism?
15 Apr '10 02:36
Back to Top