Agnosticism really annoys me, on a philosophical level.

Fortunately, agnostics don't have to believe you're annoyed unless you can prove it.

When I sat in church as a kid, I always was bothered by the idea that "why was I born into the 'correct' religion, when all those Jewish people or Muslim people are 'wrong'?"

At some point I decided that God was FAR TOO complex of a concept for me to believe in. Could God exist? Sure. Is he like what is described in the Bible? Almost certainly not. Then what is God? Way too complicated for me to pretend to understand or preach.

I always have to fell a little pity for anyone who thinks they know, one way or the other.

What's academic about saying "What the hell do I know? Stop asking me unanswerable questions, you nosepicking peckerhead."

Brain farts, like most philosophical/religious questions.

Since when is saying "I don't know the answer to this question" become a bad thing intellectually?

Whamdangler: When I sat in church as a kid, I always was bothered by the idea that "why was I born into the 'correct' religion, when all those Jewish people or Muslim people are 'wrong'?"

At some point I decided that God was FAR TOO complex of a concept for me to believe in. Could God exist? Sure. Is he like what is described in the Bible? Almost certainly not. Then what is God? Way too complicated for me to pretend to understand or preach.

I always have to fell a little pity for anyone who thinks they know, one way or the other.

This is where I was at in my thought process when I lost my faith. I slide back and forth between outright atheism and agnosticism. I call myself an atheist because I believe there probably is no God in the narrowest sense- but I'm willing to believe in a broader definition of God as a general driving force in the universe. Unfortunately, atheists can't say for certain that there is no God any more than a devout person can prove there is.

But I take comfort in the belief that if there is a God, he's nowhere nearly as petulant and vengeful as the one in the Bible.

This book will perhaps only be understood by those who have themselves already thought the thoughts which are expressed in it-or similar thoughts. It is therefore not a text-book. Its object would be attained if it afforded pleasure to one who read it with understanding.

The book deals with the problems of philosophy and shows, as I believe, that the method of formulating these problems rests on the misunderstanding of the logic of our language. Its whole meaning could be summed up somewhat as follows: What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.

The book will, therefore, draw a limit to thinking, or rather-not to thinking, but to the expression of thoughts; for, in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to thnk both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).

The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense.

Ludwig Wittgenstein
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

We don't have the logical capacity to even meaningfully ask the question on the existence of god, let alone answer it. It's metaphysics.

bronyaur1: Since when is saying "I don't know the answer to this question" become a bad thing intellectually?

That's not what agnosticism is.

DamnYankees: That's not what agnosticism is.

That's precisely what it is. Agnostic means "Without knowledge" which is exactly the same as "I don't know."

Not only do I not know, I don't want to know. And I don't want any of you to know, either.

It frightens me what mankind would do with that knowledge.

Whamdangler: DamnYankees: That's not what agnosticism is.

That's precisely what it is. Agnostic means "Without knowledge" which is exactly the same as "I don't know."

No. Agnosticism is the belief that the question is unanswerable. Saying "I don't know" is not the same thing. Are you an agnostic about the history of Bhutan in the 14th century BC? Probably not - you simply don't know anything about it.

Yes. It's atheism that's all farked up. In order to reject god and Jesus and all that other bullshiat, (like the rabid atheists) you first have to accept the concept, which means you have to believe in it.

At this point in my life, I've come to the conclusion that I just don't care whether there is a god or not.

It has no bearing on my life one way or the other and doesn't influence any of the decisions I make. It's just not that important to me.

If it helps some folks get through their day, more power to 'em. Just keep your beliefs to yourself and don't try to force them onto me and we'll probably get along swimmingly.

If someone asks me what my religious beliefs are, I usually just say, "I don't have any."

I don't deny the existence of a god or a collective consciousness of some sort... I just don't care.

/raised catholic while attended an evangelical christian grammar and middle school.

bronyaur1: Since when is saying "I don't know the answer to this question" become a bad thing intellectually?

It's a black and white world. You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists. You're either on board or you're damned to hell for eternity. Do you prefer killing convicted murderers or the unborn? There are only two sides, you must choose one. That's about the approach many have at least.

Hiro Nakamura: Whamdangler: When I sat in church as a kid, I always was bothered by the idea that "why was I born into the 'correct' religion, when all those Jewish people or Muslim people are 'wrong'?"

At some point I decided that God was FAR TOO complex of a concept for me to believe in. Could God exist? Sure. Is he like what is described in the Bible? Almost certainly not. Then what is God? Way too complicated for me to pretend to understand or preach.

I always have to fell a little pity for anyone who thinks they know, one way or the other.

This is where I was at in my thought process when I lost my faith. I slide back and forth between outright atheism and agnosticism. I call myself an atheist because I believe there probably is no God in the narrowest sense- but I'm willing to believe in a broader definition of God as a general driving force in the universe. Unfortunately, atheists can't say for certain that there is no God any more than a devout person can prove there is.

But I take comfort in the belief that if there is a God, he's nowhere nearly as petulant and vengeful as the one in the Bible.

This.
Thank you.

DamnYankees: No. Agnosticism is the belief that the question is unanswerable.

Just out of curiosity, what is your objection to that belief?

DamnYankees: Agnosticism is the belief that the question is unanswerable.

Okay, I'll still say that is my belief and that it is correct.

Not one of us knows a damned thing for truth. All there is faith in your particular religion, which was created by other men at some point. Or faith in scientific absolutes, which change all the time.

Philosophy is bunk.

costermonger: DamnYankees: No. Agnosticism is the belief that the question is unanswerable.

Just out of curiosity, what is your objection to that belief?

My basic objection is that its a double standard. Why is the question of god unanswerable but the question of my shirt color answerable? I've never been explain why the qualitative distinction is. Now, there is of course a probabilistic distinction - I know the color of my shirt to a much greater likelihood than I know that god exists. But agnosticism is not a probabilistic claim; it's a claim about the nature of god himself, from what I understand.

Eddie_Dean_NY: Not one of us knows a damned thing for truth.

But then you are an agnostic about *everything*. Which you might be. But to then use the word agnostic about only the question of god is both fallacious and a double standard. It is used as a shield against criticism (ie 'I'm not like those squabbling atheists and theists with their ridiculous certainty') more than any sort of coherent opinion.

DamnYankees: No. Agnosticism is the belief that the question is unanswerable.

You honestly believe that humans have the ability to comprehend the divine in a an accurate, meaningful way? Or can know enough to reject the divine? You have more faith in human ability than I do.

Whether or not there is a god isn't falsifiable. Even if every religious denomination was somehow "proven" to be wrong, it still isn't enough to definitively conclude there is no god. It's outside the realm of our understanding.

And because it is outside the realm of our understanding, it's pretty pointless to guess as to what's out there or what's not. This isn't science, where we can test hypotheses until we get closer and closer to "the truth" and are helped along by our tools and our advancing knowledge. The divine, if it exists, is on a different plane. It's outside our potential data set.

/agnostic, since middle school

One either believes, or they dont.

DamnYankees: Eddie_Dean_NY: Not one of us knows a damned thing for truth.

But then you are an agnostic about *everything*. Which you might be. But to then use the word agnostic about only the question of god is both fallacious and a double standard. It is used as a shield against criticism (ie 'I'm not like those squabbling atheists and theists with their ridiculous certainty') more than any sort of coherent opinion.

It's not meant to be an opinion. It's a statement of fact that the most pious of Catholics would agree with. Religions are based on faith (opinions) not knowledge (facts).

Agnostics are not interested in faith based decision making about what sort of supernumerary realities exist outside of our perceptual abilities. We like facts that can be agreed upon because the outcome of such a rigorous standard of belief is less bloodshed.

RodneyToady: You honestly believe that humans have the ability to comprehend the divine in a an accurate, meaningful way? Or can know enough to reject the divine? You have more faith in human ability than I do.

I don't think 'divine' makes any sense or exists. So I think we can reject it. Not sure what's wrong with that.

RodneyToady: Whether or not there is a god invisible dragon in my pocket isn't falsifiable. Even if every religious denomination was somehow "proven" to be wrong, it still isn't enough to definitively conclude there is no god. It's outside the realm of our understanding.

Fixed that to show you how that argument is silly. You can't simply define something as unfalsifiable and then say "how can you deny it!?!"

quickdraw: It's not meant to be an opinion. It's a statement of fact that the most pious of Catholics would agree with. Religions are based on faith (opinions) not knowledge (facts).

Agnostics are not interested in faith based decision making about what sort of supernumerary realities exist outside of our perceptual abilities. We like facts that can be agreed upon because the outcome of such a rigorous standard of belief is less bloodshed.

So are you agnostic about the color of your shirt? Or do you know what it is?

Bukharin: One either believes, or they dont.

This. You can all yourself whatever you want, you're still an atheist to me.

DamnYankees: So are you agnostic about the color of your shirt? Or do you know what it is?

At this moment and in this light it is a dark purple but to ignore the fact that the color of my shirt will change depending on the wavelength of the light hitting it would be folly. In addition to expect that everyone who looks at my shirt would see exactly the same shade I do would also be folly.

I call it purple because that is the color it most consistently appears to be but I always hold in my mind the fact that it will turn into a different color under different conditions.

DamnYankees: My basic objection is that its a double standard. Why is the question of god unanswerable but the question of my shirt color answerable?

It's not. It's actually both variable and open to interpretation.

Your shirt has properties that will be different "colors" depending on the light shone upon it, and by the optical qualities of the observer. It will look different to someone with "perfect" color vision, someone with red-green color blindness, and to a spectrometer. The results from the spectrometer will be accurate to a degree (infinite decimal places, and all), and to the level it has been programmed and calibrated.

Your shirt has a generally accepted color (e.g., good enough for goverment work), but taking all else into account, the color is neither absolute nor permanent.

Guy Innagorillasuit: Bukharin: One either believes, or they dont.

This. You can all yourself whatever you want, you're still an atheist to me.

Are Buddhists atheists?

Whamdangler: When I sat in church as a kid, I always was bothered by the idea that "why was I born into the 'correct' religion, when all those Jewish people or Muslim people are 'wrong'?"

Heh heh....I remember when I was a kid in church and when everybody bowed their heads to pray I would peak around to make sure they weren't all playing some big practical joke (or strange experiment) on me.

DamnYankees: So are you agnostic about the color of your shirt? Or do you know what it is?

You're comparing God to a shirt?

We define a shirt. We define colors based on shared experience. If you ask 100 people with functioning eyes what color something else, almost all will agree on the color (if it's red and not green, for instance). We hold the idea that this thing is a shirt based on the fact that we've defined shirts (vs. pants, for instance) and we've defined color.

Now, define God. THERE is the problem. You can't even define God to where a million different experiences would show that definition to be incorrect or at least, somehow lacking.

quickdraw: Are Buddhists atheists?

Probably some of them. Most of them believe in some sort of god(s) or another. I guess it depends on your definition of Buddhist.

Bukharin: One either believes, or they dont.

But keeping an open mind, either way, is inherently inferior? Accepting that some things won't be known is somehow an offense?

It's much the same argument that bisexuals are often treated like crap by the gay and lesbian community. This "with us or against" us mentality is part of the problem.

You can base a system of personal morality that doesn't need a God to enforce it that is just as ethical as one based on fear of reprisal. Is that immediately a rejection of society? Does having a healthy respect for mystery and an openness to the unknown, and unknowable mean that you reject ethics?

The quote assumes that you either fear a God, or you don't--and that you cannot be ethical without it. Very little in behavior or belief is black and white.

quickdraw: DamnYankees: So are you agnostic about the color of your shirt? Or do you know what it is?

At this moment and in this light it is a dark purple but to ignore the fact that the color of my shirt will change depending on the wavelength of the light hitting it would be folly. In addition to expect that everyone who looks at my shirt would see exactly the same shade I do would also be folly.

I call it purple because that is the color it most consistently appears to be but I always hold in my mind the fact that it will turn into a different color under different conditions.

RodneyToady: DamnYankees: My basic objection is that its a double standard. Why is the question of god unanswerable but the question of my shirt color answerable?

It's not. It's actually both variable and open to interpretation.

Your shirt has properties that will be different "colors" depending on the light shone upon it, and by the optical qualities of the observer. It will look different to someone with "perfect" color vision, someone with red-green color blindness, and to a spectrometer. The results from the spectrometer will be accurate to a degree (infinite decimal places, and all), and to the level it has been programmed and calibrated.

Your shirt has a generally accepted color (e.g., good enough for goverment work), but taking all else into account, the color is neither absolute nor permanent.

And you trust your eyes 100%? This is pure knowledge with no doubts at all? It passes the test of solipsistic doubt? How is this 'type' of knowledge different than knowledge of a god? Or is it merely easier to obtain?

DamnYankees: RodneyToady: Whether or not there is a god invisible dragon in my pocket isn't falsifiable. Even if every religious denomination was somehow "proven" to be wrong, it still isn't enough to definitively conclude there is no god. It's outside the realm of our understanding.

Fixed that to show you how that argument is silly. You can't simply define something as unfalsifiable and then say "how can you deny it!?!"

If it's "invisible" in the "naked eye" sense, it could theoretically still be "seen" with equipment that could pick up the microscopic, or pick up heat signatures. It would still consist of matter, in one form or another.

Just because we can't see something directly doesn't mean we can't measure it. Or would you like to debate the existence of gamma rays?

Isotope: I would peak around to make sure they weren't all playing some big practical joke (or strange experiment) on me.

They knew you were peeking.

Whamdangler: Now, define God. THERE is the problem. You can't even define God to where a million different experiences would show that definition to be incorrect or at least, somehow lacking.

How can you then claim to be agnostic about something without a definition? If you can't define what god is, how can you know even determine if its knowable? If you don't know what something is, you can't possibly believe it exists. So you're an atheist.

Guy Innagorillasuit: quickdraw: Are Buddhists atheists?

Probably some of them. Most of them believe in some sort of god(s) or another. I guess it depends on your definition of Buddhist.

Some are. Some are agnostic. Some are theists. In 2500 years, and several continents, you get a lot of variation.

RodneyToady: If it's "invisible" in the "naked eye" sense, it could theoretically still be "seen" with equipment that could pick up the microscopic, or pick up heat signatures. It would still consist of matter, in one form or another.

Just because we can't see something directly doesn't mean we can't measure it. Or would you like to debate the existence of gamma rays?

Get over your literalness. How about this:

There is an undetectable dragon in my pocket.

Are you agnostic about it?

DamnYankees: So are you agnostic about the color of your shirt? Or do you know what it is?

He's getting into epistemology. How do you know you're not really a brain in a jar, etc. There's no proof you can trust your senses that doesn't come from your senses.

My response here is to basically acknowledge the point, but not worry too much about it. Same for religion. I don't know, it may not be knowable, but it's a waste of time to get caught up worrying about brains in jars and gods and various other things nobody can disprove.

Thus, I am an agnostic atheist. :)

ag·nos·ti·cism (āg-nŏs'tĭ-sĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

DamnYankees: And you trust your eyes 100%? T

Nope. Not at all.

kaminariko: Isotope: I would peak around to make sure they weren't all playing some big practical joke (or strange experiment) on me.

They knew you were peeking.

Yes, I suspected this, so I tried to be very sneaky about it.

DamnYankees: Are you agnostic about it?

That depends, have you defined dragons as being beyond the scope of human comprehension? ;-)

ArbitraryConstant: He's getting into epistemology. How do you know you're not really a brain in a jar, etc. There's no proof you can trust your senses that doesn't come from your senses.

Yup. That's my point.

ArbitraryConstant: Thus, I am an agnostic atheist. :)

But by your standards everyone has to be agnostic. So you might as well call yourself a human atheist. It's a pointless adjective.

quickdraw: DamnYankees: And you trust your eyes 100%? T

Nope. Not at all.

So how do you know the color of your shirt?

hubiestubert: It's much the same argument that bisexuals are often treated like crap by the gay and lesbian community.

One can phycically fark a man and a woman at the same time.
How does one believe AND not believe?

What the agnostic believes, or doesn't believe, or thinks he might believe, and why he thinks that way, doesn't have to be "meaningful" to anyone but himself. If it somehow causes someone else discomfort for some reason, that's the other person's problem.

You don't have to consider whether God exits or not in figuring out how you're going to behave. You just have to understand that there are a lot of other people on Earth, and you have to live with them.

DamnYankees: How can you then claim to be agnostic about something without a definition? If you can't define what god is, how can you know even determine if its knowable? If you don't know what something is, you can't possibly believe it exists. So you're an atheist.

That's not atheism, that's ignosticism.

Guy Innagorillasuit: quickdraw: Are Buddhists atheists?

Probably some of them. Most of them believe in some sort of god(s) or another. I guess it depends on your definition of Buddhist.

They would not call them "gods" they would call them Bodhisattvas which translates more closely to "saints." In effect what Buddhism says is that a divine reality is unknowable and can't be defined.

Any god worth worshiping is a god that does not require worship.