Agnostic.com
  1. Agnostic
  2. Posts
  3. Philosophy & Meaning

11 0

Do you know anyone who is not agnostic?

If you can think of someone, do you know how they know?
Is their claim of knowledge valid?
If not, could you show them why it is not valid?
If so, please explain.

#agnostic
x0lineage0x 6 Mar 13
Share
Submit

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Level 7

I like what Stephen Hawking (rip) said:

"In such a massive place as the cosmos, we only have to look at ourselves to prove that extremely unlikely things can and do happen all the time."

marga Level 7 Mar 14, 2018
Reply
0

Level 6

Absence of evidence is not proof. Absence of evidence allowed people to think the Earth was the center of the universe.
There are negatives in science. % decrease is negative.
I don’t believe in a supreme being, but the possibility cannot be dismissed without evidence.

The possibility need not be considered until the claim has sufficient evidence to support it.
1

Level 2

Anyone with a grasp of basic logic and critical thinking cannot fail to accept that we are all agnostic. Even Dawkins when pressed on the point had to admit that he himself is.

It's an endless and often frustating and pointless debate though, to have with people who think they are nothing except theist or atheist. Academically and philosophically interesting, but often too emotive and unproductive. I'm happy for people to believe what they want to believe. Both theism and atheism give many people a lot of comfort in this cruel world, and I'm not going to take that away from them.

1

Level 7

I'm not agnostic. I have atheists, Christians and wiccans in my family. I love them all. I will tell you that my oldest brother (atheist) is the patriarch of our entire family and he is the least judgemental, most supporting and most loving of all.
Atheists in my family swear they do not believe they have found proof of a higher being so, therefore choose to disbelieve. I believe in a higher power and choose to acknowledge several deities. I have not seen nor have I literally heard from a deity but I have felt things emotionally and on a spiritual level that leads me to believe in deities.

So you are convinced based on feelings, but you admit that you do not actually know it to be true... this is the very basis of agnosticism.

Gnosticism provides three stances:

Gnostic Affirmative ( I know a God exists )
Gnostic Negative ( I know that no God exists )
Agnostic (I do not know any got to exist)
Literally everyone is one of those 3 as this is regarding a claim of knowledge.

Atheist is regarding a claim of belief which is why you can have Agnostic theists. They don't Know God exists, but they believe it

So, then I'm Agnostic Affirmative?

@ArtemisDivine Please try to look at my previous reply, then explain what Agnostic Affirmative means....
1

Level 4

Well I do know one Atheist, the rest are believers of some sort.

2

Level 9

I know many, many more people who are not agnostic or atheistic then who are. So long as they do not try to impose their beliefs on me and others, they have a right to be deluded.

I believe that allowing others to be deluded is a dis-service to them, you and your community.
Do they have the right to believe as they will? yes.
As a citizen that can vote to affect others, should they at least be opposed when holding false ideals as true? I believe so.
1

Level 8

I am not agnostic, I cannot disprove a diety, but I will say there are none until it is proven otherwise, so I am anatheist.

Gnosticism provides three stances:

  1. Gnostic Affirmative ( I know a God exists )
  2. Gnostic Negative ( I know that no God exists )
  3. Agnostic (I do not know any got to exist)

Literally everyone is one of those 3 as this is regarding a claim of knowledge.

Atheist is regarding a claim of belief which is why you can have Agnostic theists. They don't Know God exists, but they believe it.

@x0lineage0x good point, I am along the lines of, I believe no God exists.

"I cannot prove" is the very bedrock of agnosticism

@Rugglesby
I believe no God exists puts you in the atheist and agnostic camp.
0

Level 8

I can't be bothered, how do you cure stupid?

Enlightenment.

you can only get the horse to the water. you can't make it drink. if that was right there would be no religions now.
0

Level 9

I would just ask open-ended questions. A talking snake? Cain & Able wives? The floating zoo?

This approach though allows the theist to answer your question with other conflicting answers. I prefer to expose the fact that they deceive themselves and how easy it is to do especially when your community reinforces it.

@atheist you can come as long as the water is water and not turned into wine. (1)
1

Level 7

I don't understand the question. Someone who is not agnostic? Are you talking about religious believers? Or atheists?

I don't know what their claim of knowledge is, either, but asking if it's valid? It is to them. And I would never presume to show them why I think it's not valid. I would respect their right to believe what they want.

marga Level 7 Mar 13, 2018
Reply

Looks like to me is how would you sell being a non believer to a religious disadvantaged.

Letting people believe in untrue things I would argue is not the respectful thing.

How good of a friend would you be if you knew of a friends spouse was cheating and never told them?

How good of a voter would you be if you never read any of the propositions?

Knowing what is true and what has yet to be proven true I would say is way more important than be comfortable in your dilussion.

@TheMiddleWay I couldn't have put it better myself.

@TheMiddleWay

You seem to be trolling, but I'll answer as if you are not.

My point is more of we don't have "our truths" there is the truth. Any reduction from the truth into x.truth is misleading. this is why we deal in evidence rather than hearsay.

"letting them believe in something harmless but untrue is itself harmless"
Letting other believe in untrue things is not harmless, especially when those beliefs inform decisions and are packaged with life controlling principles.

"Suppose you know a friend is cheating on his wife but are wrong"

If I were to claim knowledge of my friend being cheated on I would provide the evidence and let my friend sort it out. To make a claim without evidence would be a theist like approach

"Relying on truth is akin to relying on god" The truth is that which corresponds with reality, god is unreality.. so I don't get how you could make that analogy.

"I think the respectful thing to do is not to change a persons truth but to try to understand it."
Yeah.. you would have to understand it before you are able to inform them of their err in data.

@x0lineage0x Why do you think TheMiddleWay is trolling? I think he/she is making some good points, and in a polite way.

@TheMiddleWay Ending the text wall here.
1

Level 6

I would consider myself agnostic because of science. You don’t eliminate possibilities without proof. I don’t believe that God is a probability, but there will always be a % until proven otherwise. I can prove man made religions are not real, but not the existence of a God like being.

@atheist The only problem being that science doesn't prove a negative, with an undefined or unapproachable sample size.

@atheist 🙂 reread what I said.

I agree negatives are provable, but not without a defined or approachable sample size.
Write Comment

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

Share this post

Copy Link

Categories

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:36659
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.