How agnostic are you?
Is the likelihood of god(s) in your opinion, vanishingly small but you acknowledge that proof of no god(s) is impossible?
Do you consider that the probability of god(s) or a higher power is more than next to nothing?
Or are you not agnostic at all?
7
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
22 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I hate Chicken and Garlic
Diaco
Level 7
Sep 21, 2022
3
Funny!!!
I like them!!!
@of-the-mountain Apparently everyone, but me!
@SpikeTalon Well you're not alone, my family and close friends call me that! Oh, I kinda don't like daylight as well 
The chance of a god existing is very small indeed. There are so many other implications if a god existed - ALL of which would have to also be true - that it is basically a 'ludicrously small probability' that you would be silly to give meaningful credence too.
Yet is there PROOF god(s) don't exist? No.
I am 'agnostic atheist' - I can't PROVE god(s) don't exist, but that doesn't stop me seeing the idea as being batshit crazy.
ToakReon
Level 8
Sep 21, 2022
2
Agnosticism is irrelevant. Everyone is agnostic, including theists. They, like everyone else, DO NOT KNOW definitively if a god exists, that is why agnosticism is irrelevant.
Theist: theist = belief in god
Agnostic: a = without; gnostic = knowledge
Atheist: a = without; theist = belief in god
In order to know, you must have knowledge, in order to have knowledge, you must have evidence. Believers simply believe without evidence producing knowledge. An atheist or non-believer accepts knowledge that evidence produces. Theists have NOT produced any evidence for gods.
This is why atheists demand proof in order to obtain knowledge and theists demand belief in order to sustain their faith.
A god is not defined by reality or existence, believers make the assertion that it is, the god makes no assertion whether it exists or not, it is therefore the believer who must then prove the assertions they make.
There have been innumerable myths over the centuries that are no more real or relevant than they were when the first fool believed the idiot who invented them, it would be foolish to hold onto a false legitimacy of a god until it has been proven, the believer must prove their nonsense or "truth" with evidence first.
nogod4me
Level 8
Sep 21, 2022
3
For a know it all, you actually know nothing!!!
@of-the-mountain It is very easy for those who know very little to believe that others "know it all".
If you believe in god/s or live your life regulated by beliefs without evidence, then you are a believer.
There are religious believers, political believers, fantasy believers, etc. If you believe something without evidence producing knowledge, then you are a believer.
Trump and his cultists are perfect examples. If Trump had any evidence for the lies that he consistently tells he would have something substantial. His cult followers believe him without evidence and even contrary to evidence.
@nogod4me sorry!!!
No imaginary anything that ruled/rules over my life!!!
@of-the-mountain you are not making sense, you haven't refuted anything. What point are you trying to make?
that is the point, there is no point, only conjecture!!!
I am atheist. I reject the "you can't prove nonexistence". There is no reason to believe a god exists, so I don't.
I can't prove unicorns don't exist on Mars, but I don't wonder is one might exist there. Does anyone?
Alienbeing
Level 8
Sep 21, 2022
2
John Lennon said
I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?
Can't say John Lennon didn't have some influence in this world.
There is more possibilities in life, when the mind and heart and imagination is alway open for even greater potential possibilities. Personally I do act on the those possibilities that clearly knock on my door.
@Castlepaloma Who is to say??? People who know more than you know, that is who is to say.
Lennon's influence was fleeting at best. Few people 30 years old or younger know he ever existed.
The Beatles are the best music artists of all time?
Any pop chart of any kind has to include the Beatles. Personally I don't know any youth who loves music, who are not aware of the Beatles and how they influence our cultures world wide.
@Castlepaloma If lived in the USA you would see that MANY people on US quiz shows have no idea who the Beatles were, and virtually o one could name them individually.
As to whether they were the best music artists of all time... many would disagree with your choice.
US is only 4% of the world population. Who is more popular worldwide? Even Evis or Jackson didn't get to do much internationally and died younger.
@Castlepaloma First we are the only % that matters, second merely because Elvis &/or Jackson did or didn't achieve lasting fame is totally irrelevant to the point that the current younger generations can't ID Beatles.
Much of the new music sucks, they keep coming back to the music with soul.
@Castlepaloma Music with soul, or soul music.
I have more fun entertaining the thoughts of this universe spawning from a multiverse than I do of any gods haphazardly playing with all of existence for reasons that are suspiciously and specifically humanoid. I'm not compelled to hinge my life and death on the ever miniscule chance that Cthulhu truly wants to enslave my soul.
summatyme
Level 7
Sep 21, 2022
3
The reality is that it just does not matter!!!
Your born then you die!!
In the end after a few years you are not even a distant memory!!!
of-the-mountain
Level 9
Sep 21, 2022
2
No such thing as proof in science. I reject the premiss that underlies your question.
anglophone
Level 9
Sep 21, 2022
2
There is proof in science. For example (only one) proof of gravity.
@Alienbeing Apart from math, science never "proves" anything (it can disprove some things).
There is always doubt/error-bars/new evidence.
Newton's Law of Gravity was considered fully convincing until Einstein provided better evidence.
@FearlessFly Things can be supported by extensive evidence and be accepted as fact. That's as good as "proof" for all practical purposes. An opinion isn't required to have evidence. Some opinions are more likely to be true than others based on common sense and logic.
@barjoe I don't agree with your "definition" of "proof",
@FearlessFly I didn't say it was my definition of proof, I said that when something is accepted as fact, it's as good as being proven. In the practical world it's factual and we run with it. We don't need "proof" to accept something in practice.
@barjoe You claim not your "definition of proof", yet you also say "we run with it".
I don't accept that you speak for (some set of) "we".
I don't agree that even that/when 'something is accepted as fact' MEANS 'proof'.
That may be a reasonable (jump to) conclusion, but IMO it doesn't meet CT (or scientific) criteria. 
@FearlessFly Who cares about criteria? I don't care about that. I have my opinions and I don't feel the need to justify them to anybody. If someone disagrees, they don't have to justify that to me either.
@FearlessFly The "Law" you referred to actually is the mathematical proof Newton offered, not the observation. A non-math example of scientific proof is water is 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Note in my initial repyl I said "only one" Science has many proofs, and I really don't care to start a list.
@Alienbeing No doubt Newton had convincing math backing-up his 'laws'.
He described gravity as a force.
His 'laws' and the associated math being may still useful.
In terms of CT and science, the Law of Gravity isn't still "TRUE" -- gravity is NOT actually a 'force' but a curvature of spacetime.
Despite science now considering Einsteins relativity as "settled science", I wouldn't call it "proof".
It is possible future new evidence could convince scientists otherwise.
@FearlessFly I have no time for the Madman from Mars, a.k.a. @Alienbeing .
@anglophone You had time to say you had no time. However the real point is you cannot counter anything I said about anythig you posted and I proved you don't know US laws, and customs.
I don't need you to answer anything. Showing you up as ignorant in your adopted hobby is quite satisfying.
@FearlessFly As I previously said "The "Law" refers to the mathematical portion of Newton's study.
If you are trying to say that Science has no laws because if new &/or different evidence becomes available the theory is modified, I agree with yu.
In my opinion, the probability of God's existence is vanishingly, and I acknowledge that proof of no god(s) is impossible.
Flyingsaucesir
Level 8
Sep 22, 2022
1
Some people seem to think that a willingness to change one’s belief if new evidence emerges is a fair definition of agnosticism, but I think the better term for that is intellectual honesty.
To me, agnosticism is heartfelt uncertainty about the existence of a literal god… given the knowledge that we have. No one can base a belief on knowledge they don’t have.
So I am not an agnostic of any degree.
Given the knowledge I have, I have zero confidence that such a being exists, and plenty adequate confidence that the being in question is a figment of human imagination. All the while happily acknowledging the undeniable possibility of such a creature existing on some yet undiscovered plane of existence. But I have no knowledge of that plane, and no reason to suspect it exists until such evidence arises.
So, of the three standard options, agnosticism is the least appealing to me. Not because I think I know anything for certain, but because I am adequately convinced.
But I don’t identify as atheist either.
Because all of the above is predicated on one particular concept of god - a literal, all-powerful, sentient being, who consciously and deliberately created the universe. And that’s not what I think God is.
Which is why I can’t call myself a theist either, because I think that’s what most people are referring to as theism - the belief in a literal god-person.
Given what I am currently aware of - a smattering of the biology, psychology, and history of human nature - it appears to me that the term “god” was a word early humans used to refer to the collective forces of nature, that were mostly invisible and inscrutable, and yet had unavoidable and consequential sway over their lives.
These forces self-evidently exist.
To personify them in mythological tales is not a crime. Neither is it a lie. It is an expedient.
It is a useful user interface for the otherwise cumbersome handling of a very complex abstraction.
It works. (The only two words evolution understands.)
Ignosticism is a fair stance relative to a conversation between two or more people. The conversation can’t usefully proceed until an agreement about the definition of “god” is reached.
But, as an individual, I am not living in disabling uncertainty about that definition.
To my own satisfaction, God is
the sum of all things which
at any given moment
cannot
not exist.
This “sum” did create the universe, to whatever extent it was created.
It is a greater power than I am.
It did create me, and to it I will return.
I am subject to its laws.
It is Truth.
Not my truth or your truth, but the abstraction of… ‘whatever happens to be factual.’
It is worthy of veneration.
skado
Level 9
Sep 21, 2022
1
So, do you worship the "sum" or believe that it influences you in any way? How do you know "it" specifically created you or that you will return to "it"? Do you "know" its "laws", will it punish you if you break those laws? Does it have feelings or emotions? Do you believe you have a spirit that can interact with the "sum"? If you believe that "God is the sum of all things which at any given moment cannot not exist", isn't it also possible that there are innumerable possibilities that exist outside that belief?
@nogod4me
"So, do you worship the "sum" or believe that it influences you in any way?"
According to Dictionary.com:
"Origin of worship
First recorded before 900; Middle English noun wors( c )hipe, worthssipe, Old English worthscipe, variant of weorthscipe; Middle English verb derivative of the noun; see origin at worth1, -ship"
[dictionary.com]
In other words, to "worth-ship" something is to recognize and acknowledge its value. The sum total of existence is of ultimate value to me, because, without it I cannot exist. Without question, it influences me in every way. We are all made of its ingredients. All of its forces influence every living and non-living thing, at every moment.
"How do you know "it" specifically created you or that you will return to "it"?
How could it be otherwise? If this universe didn't create me, what did? If my constituent parts don't return, at my death, to the environment from which they sprang, where could they possibly go?
"Do you "know" its "laws", will it punish you if you break those laws?
I know a few of them. If I leap off a tall building, the Law of Gravity will slam me into the concrete below, causing the ultimate punishment - death.
"Does it have feelings or emotions?"
I see no evidence that it does.
"Do you believe you have a spirit that can interact with the "sum"?
I don't believe in anything supernatural. To me, the word, "spirit" refers to the mental, emotional, or attitudinal aspects of human nature. So, yes, it is not only my body that interacts with my environment - it is also my mind.
"If you believe that "God is the sum of all things which at any given moment cannot not exist", isn't it also possible that there are innumerable possibilities that exist outside that belief?"
Of course. This is just how it appears to me, given the evidence I have seen. There are many perspectives that can all be true, without conflict. And some others, of course, that do present conflicts. But, just working from first principles, I don't see how it can be denied that this entity is a philosophical necessity, regardless of whether a given individual chooses to call it God or Freddy. The entirety of existence axiomatically does exist. And we are all emergent properties of that entity - all entirely dependent on it for our very existence, not to mention our daily bread.
To my own satisfaction, physics chemisty biology and mathematics is
the sum of all things which exist.
This science did create the universe, to whatever extent it was created.
It is a greater power than I am.
It did create me, and to it I will never return other than as elements.
I am subject to its laws.
It is.
Not truth just reality
Intelligent beings marvel at the reality.
Your words are incontrovertible however I would use a slightly different set of descriptors.
That’s it!
Reality is reality,
regardless of which throat-noises we assign to it.
I'm a radical agnostic. I don't accept any proof from both sides about the existence of a deity. I'm more prone to the non-existence. I don't know if any exists. I don't believe there is. Who cares anyway?
Paddypereira
Level 7
Sep 21, 2022
1
@TheMiddleWay, what I exposed was my personal position in the matter. At the end of the day, what matters the most is if you feel comfortable with what you are and where you stand regarding this and everything else in life. So, the rest, does it really matter?
@TheMiddleWay, okay ,I had to look what "ignostic" meant because it was the first time in my life I saw that word. Probably you're right.
In a broad sense, no I would not say I am agnostic. You are a God. You exist, I know you exist.
As to Harry Potter God, I would have to say I do not know if Harry Potter God exists.
Therefore at least, in the broad sense I do not have to worry about carrying the label of agnostic around with me every where I go. If I come across a Harry Potter God worshiper or fan club prothelizing, I can then hold agnosticism towards their advertising so long, or until they actually produce some Harry Potter style God whiz bang.
Word
Level 8
Sep 21, 2022
1
I don't like labels, yet agnostic is not so onesided or bad.
Having figured it out now, I believe that the religious can even be agnostic. One can be agnostic about anything. What I have figured out is that there are various gods all written about in books. Yes, humans wrote those books. Regardless of claims otherwise humans wrote those books every time.
DenoPenno
Level 9
Sep 21, 2022
1
There is good possibilities they are higher powers in action in degrees. Some may not been discovered well enough, such as higher energy, subconscious mind, imagination, Aliens , personal growth and so on. I'm an agnostic in the sense that religion and federal level politics are ugly fairytales. As nationalism is more dangerous than religion. The only true God for most is the Government. So sad.
No one is above me or below me. So higher power more so comes from the source of good intention and action of relationships, nature and good sense.
Castlepaloma
Level 8
Sep 21, 2022
0
I don't have wings, yet do have equal left and right arms and legs. I would say your more correct. The politicians are in the back pocket of these self interest wealthy globalist. Bankers and Government are the greatest scammers of all. It's easy to get trapped, as I was a toy for the wealthy for a good period of time, not now. Yes, many don't think for themselves.
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
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.