Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Is there a point in being Agnostic? Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]hope19[/m] at 8:43 am on July 5, 2009[quote]Not necessarily...there are other gods that people believe in. Not just the one who damns people to Hell. I don't think there's anything wrong with being Agnostic.[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post Check Unavailability Posted at 8:41 am on July 5, 2009 A friend of mine told me there was no point of it, you may as well just claim to be Atheistic. He said no matter what, if there IS a God and you don't fully believe in him, you're going to Hell. Thoughts?

Replies invisable me Posted at 11:43 am on Oct. 24, 2009 to me an agnostic is someone "sitting on the fence." they are not saying god exists, but they arent saying he doesnt, and that there will never be proof to find out if he exists or not. and i agree, so u dont have to be atheist to be an agnostic Emilybird Posted at 8:44 pm on July 8, 2009 i never did understand quite what being agnostic meant.. theyareAs Posted at 8:39 pm on July 8, 2009 He's an idiot, agnostics just dont care. Atheists openly hate on people of faith more or less Forever Angel Posted at 4:24 pm on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 6:08 pm on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:42 am on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:27 pm on July 7, 2009 It is a direct logical implication from that definition. If I claim that I have no knowledge about the existence of god, I am stating that it is not the case that the god-concept is meaningless. If the god-concept was meaningless, it could not refer to anything that exists by definition. But to hold that god-concept as meaningful, you would have to be able to assign it primary qualities. But if you can do that, you obviously have some knowledge about the existence of god. Understanding the concept of god(s) is not the same as having knowledge of the existence of god(s). And it's that understanding that probably leads the agnostic person to believe that that knowledge is unknowable. I find this to be a very interesting argument worth further exploration. I'd like to ask you the following question: how is it possible to understand a concept (that is, assigning primary qualities to it), yet hold that it is in principle impossible to acquire knowledge? If something has primary qualities, it is by definition possible to corroborate or refute this in principle (although of course not always in practice). It's not that hard to develop a concept. Proving, or even providing evidence, that the object of that concept is actual or imaginary is quite different. http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/god-west.htm Western concepts of God have ranged from the detached transcendent demiurge of Aristotle to the pantheism of Spinoza. Nevertheless, much of western thought about God has fallen within some broad form of theism. Theism is the view that God is unlimited with regard to knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), extension (omnipresence), and moral perfection; and is the creator and sustainer of the universe. Though regarded as sexless, God has traditionally been referred to by the masculine pronoun. Concepts of God in philosophy are entwined with concepts of God in religion. This is most obvious in figures like Augustine and Aquinas, who sought to bring more rigor and consistency to concepts found in religion. Others, like Leibniz and Hegel, interacted constructively and deeply with religious concepts. Even those like Hume and Nietzsche, who criticized the concept of God, dealt with religious concepts. While Western philosophy has interfaced most obviously with Christianity, Judaism and Islam have had some influence. The orthodox forms of all three religions have embraced theism, though each religion has also yielded a wide array of other views. Philosophy has shown a similar variety. For example, with regard to the initiating cause of the world, Plato and Aristotle held God to be the crafter of uncreated matter. Plotinus regarded matter as emanating from God. Spinoza, departing from his judaistic roots, held God to be identical with the universe, while Hegel came to a similar view by reinterpreting Christianity. Issues related to Western concepts of God include the nature of divine attributes and how they can be known, if or how that knowledge can be communicated, the relation between such knowledge and logic, the nature of divine causality, and the relation between the divine and the human will. Moridin Posted at 4:08 pm on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:42 am on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:27 pm on July 7, 2009 It is a direct logical implication from that definition. If I claim that I have no knowledge about the existence of god, I am stating that it is not the case that the god-concept is meaningless. If the god-concept was meaningless, it could not refer to anything that exists by definition. But to hold that god-concept as meaningful, you would have to be able to assign it primary qualities. But if you can do that, you obviously have some knowledge about the existence of god. Understanding the concept of god(s) is not the same as having knowledge of the existence of god(s). And it's that understanding that probably leads the agnostic person to believe that that knowledge is unknowable. I find this to be a very interesting argument worth further exploration. I'd like to ask you the following question: how is it possible to understand a concept (that is, assigning primary qualities to it), yet hold that it is in principle impossible to acquire knowledge? If something has primary qualities, it is by definition possible to corroborate or refute this in principle (although of course not always in practice). Forever Angel Posted at 3:42 pm on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 5:27 pm on July 7, 2009 It is a direct logical implication from that definition. If I claim that I have no knowledge about the existence of god, I am stating that it is not the case that the god-concept is meaningless. If the god-concept was meaningless, it could not refer to anything that exists by definition. But to hold that god-concept as meaningful, you would have to be able to assign it primary qualities. But if you can do that, you obviously have some knowledge about the existence of god. Understanding the concept of god(s) is not the same as having knowledge of the existence of god(s). And it's that understanding that probably leads the agnostic person to believe that that knowledge is unknowable. Moridin Posted at 3:39 pm on July 7, 2009 If there is in principle no way to gain knowledge about god, then the god-concept is meaningless since it is pragmatically useless. But if that is the case, you could be sure that no gods existed, since meaningless concepts cannot refer to anything that exists. Event Horizon Posted at 3:35 pm on July 7, 2009 Well, let me ask you this: Do you know anything about god at the moment? Do you have any means of actively seeking knowledge about god? I think the fact that we can't answer yes to either of these questions justifies our saying "we don't know jack about god". These are points made by agnostics: --If god is physically immeasurable or otherwise observable materially then we do not have a way of gaining knowledge of such a being, at least for now. --If god IS material or somehow physical, then we still have no way of knowing this; or at least we have no way YET of obtaining this knowledge. --If god is material or somehow physical, we as yet have no knowledge of such a being, and as aforementioned, we have no way, as of yet, to find out any such knowledge. Any way you look at it, "we know jack." Moridin Posted at 3:27 pm on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 5:22 pm on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 3:51 pm on July 6, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 11:48 pm on July 6, 2009 No. That isn't what I'm arguing.    But that is precisely what you are arguing. Agnostics have to deny knowledge about god, yet hold that the concept of god is meaningful requires positive properties, which would by definition be knowledge about god. I think you're slipping away from the basic definition of agnostic. I don't believe it refers to "knowledge about god(s)", but to "knowledge of the existence of god(s)".   The term is applied specifically to those who don't know for certain whether or not God exists. An agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is unknown and most likely beyond human ability to discover. Agnostic It is a direct logical implication from that definition. If I claim that I have no knowledge about the existence of god, I am stating that it is not the case that the god-concept is meaningless. If the god-concept was meaningless, it could not refer to anything that exists by definition. But to hold that god-concept as meaningful, you would have to be able to assign it primary qualities. But if you can do that, you obviously have some knowledge about the existence of god. airemaye Posted at 1:33 pm on July 7, 2009 Everyone seems to be hating on agnostics lately. Haha. Forever Angel Posted at 7:22 am on July 7, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 3:51 pm on July 6, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 11:48 pm on July 6, 2009 No. That isn't what I'm arguing. But that is precisely what you are arguing. Agnostics have to deny knowledge about god, yet hold that the concept of god is meaningful requires positive properties, which would by definition be knowledge about god. I think you're slipping away from the basic definition of agnostic. I don't believe it refers to "knowledge about god(s)", but to "knowledge of the existence of god(s)". The term is applied specifically to those who don't know for certain whether or not God exists. An agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is unknown and most likely beyond human ability to discover. Agnostic imatwirp Posted at 9:47 pm on July 6, 2009 Definition Lesson There are believers who believe in a higher power. There are Agnostics who believe that there might be a god but are not sure. Then there are Atheists who believe that there is no god. A person can be an atheist but still acknowledge the possibility of a higher power. I am an atheist. I do not believe in a higher power. But I also do not believe in the Big Bang, Evolution, etc. Thus, I believe both could be possible. Both hold some partial truth. Moridin Posted at 1:51 pm on July 6, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 11:48 pm on July 6, 2009 No. That isn't what I'm arguing. But that is precisely what you are arguing. Agnostics have to deny knowledge about god, yet hold that the concept of god is meaningful requires positive properties, which would by definition be knowledge about god. Event Horizon Posted at 1:48 pm on July 6, 2009 No. That isn't what I'm arguing. Moridin Posted at 1:29 pm on July 6, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 8:59 pm on July 6, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 1:19 pm on July 6, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 8:15 pm on July 6, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 1:02 pm on July 6, 2009 Agnosticism is also suspicious for the fact that it simultaneously asserts that no knowledge of god is impossible (if some knowledge was possible, we could evaluate truth claims about god) but at the same time that we have knowledge about the properties of god (otherwise the god-concept would be meaningless and you would have to state that nothing that exist could be called a god).   I'm not sure there are any claims about the properties of God made by agnosticism. Agnosticism only says that we are not capable of knowing anything about god by virtue of how we've defined the thing. As the OED definition defined it, agnosticism only claims that: the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown. If we define god as anything but physical and material phenomena, then--the agnostic purposes--we cannot know anything about it. No properties necessary.   Agnosticism is a gnostic stance, not a theistic one.    Agnostics has to make claims about the properties of god. If there was no meaningful properties, the god-concept could not refer to anything that exists and they would have to hold that nothing that exists in reality is god, or equivalently, that god does not exist in reality, which is strong atheism.    Yes, properties are necessary, because agnostics think that god has a property call "is unknowable to humans". See this is where I disagree with you; and where I'm pretty sure you are wrong. Agnostics surely do not think that god has a property called "is unknowable to humans". For one: We, to date, have no real knowledge of god apart from speculation. It is not a property of god that we don't know anything about it, but rather a truth-of-the-matter that we do not.   It is not a property of an undiscovered beetle to be "unknowable by humans", we just don't know it.   As I noted before, agnostics only argue that anything "behind or beyond" the material and physical is unknowable. They don't add any properties to the concept of god.   An agnostic might simply say "I'm not sure that our concept of god is valid, but according to how you've defined god, I'd say we are not capable of knowing such things." So you seriously arguing that agnosticism deny knowledge about god, yet does not think god is unknowable? That would be a contradiction. Most recent 15 of 43 previous replies displayed.