Technically speaking, everyone is agnostic

[JGL53]

As I've said before, it depends on the god.

There are god concepts that are logically contradictory. Logically contradictory things cannot - and therefor do not - exist. So there are god concepts about whose nonexistence I am 100% certain.

Also, agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. Gnostic/agnostic is a distinction pertaining to knowledge. Theist/atheist is a distinction pertaining to belief.

Your last paragraph - good point. Which is why when I am asked to self-label on the atheist/agnostic/true believer scale - which is ridiculous as you point out - I self-label as an agnostic atheist.

As to logically contradictory concepts being impossible - actually, I am not sure humans are in a position to rule anything out absolutely. To do so invites charges of being illogical.

E.g., we can define something being both a particle and a wave as logically contradictory but light does not seem to care. LOL.

Taking a different approach, I think the William James language is useful here, i.e., an individual might consider a particular concept or claim or assertion not to be a live option. IOW, it is a dead option to him or her.

One can try to explain why but may not be able to get some other particular person to see the light, as is said. That is why even what we might agree are settled debates are not settled for some certain number of people - always.

E.g., spherical earth vs. flat earth, YECs vs. OECs vs. theistic evolutionists vs. naturalistic evolutionists. So in even these cases we can point out the logical contradictions in a concept and its proponents will either be too dense to see it or will just perversely persist in its promotion because they are psychologically wedded to it and thus will NEVER give it up.

 

[super animator]

I label myself as agnostic, on the stance that I have yet to verify certain religion for myself.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Since no one really knows if a god exists or not isn't everyone, technically, agnostic? Some religious people claim to know that a god exists but they can never demonstrate how they know. They just believe. Most atheists claim there is no evidence for a god (not "I know with 100% certainty there is no god.")
So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

Err, no.

Agnosticism is the belief that we cannot deduce the existence or non-existence of God - the question of "Does God exist?" is forever unknowable. Gnosticism (as distinct from its ancient counterpart) is the opposite position, that "Does God exist?" is a question we can answer (but that doesn't mean we do know the answer to that question, only that it's answerable).

Now, a theist is necessarily a gnostic: they believe that the question has a knowable answer, and they believe the answer is 'yes'. They may not be justified in that belief, or be able to submit it on paper for your purview, but they nonetheless hold those beliefs. Ultimately, they are not agnostics.

The central error seems to be your treatment of the word 'agnostic' - it doesn't refer to justified certainty in belief. A theist may have no justification whatsoever for their gnosticism, but gnostic they are.

 

[Cearbhall]

Since no one really knows if a god exists or not isn't everyone, technically, agnostic? Some religious people claim to know that a god exists but they can never demonstrate how they know. They just believe. Most atheists claim there is no evidence for a god (not "I know with 100% certainty there is no god.")
So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

Religious people say that they know for sure, but one of the responses that I've gotten when I ask for the evidence is "If there were evidence, we wouldn't need faith." So I guess that both they and those atheists who claim to know the opposite are using rather liberal definitions of certainty.

I consider myself to be somewhere between agnostic and atheist, maybe simply an agnostic atheist. Sometimes I call myself an atheist because more people are familiar with that term, but I'm not completely happy with that label for the reasons that you've laid out.

 

[Elioenai26]

Since no one really knows if a god exists or not isn't everyone, technically, agnostic? Some religious people claim to know that a god exists but they can never demonstrate how they know. They just believe. Most atheists claim there is no evidence for a god (not "I know with 100% certainty there is no god.")
So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

This is incorrect.

I know that God exists, therefore I am not an agnostic regarding the matter of God's existence.

For one, God's existence is demonstrated in the things that have been made.

For two, God's existence has been demonstrated in the fact that Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, has been raised from the dead which was the culmination of His worldly ministry and the fulfillment of several prophecies which were given hundreds of years before He was even born.

Thirdly, God is alive and working through His Church, which is His body and His means through which He works and fulfills His plans and purposes in this present age.

Fourthly, each child of God has the personal witness of the Holy Spirit that they are children of God and this witness demonstrates to them in a thousand and a thousand ways that God is love and that He dwells within them.

Fifthly, God's existence is demonstrated in the love that the children of God have not only for one another, but for humanity in general. For Christ Himself said that the world would know that we were His disciples by the love that we have for one another.

So even if I were charitable and were to say that I agree with your view that unless something is demonstrable, we must be agnostic regarding its existence, (which I do not agree with by the way because it is far too vague and ambiguous a statement) you still are faced with the insurmountable difficulties you encounter when trying to refute the above.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is incorrect.

I know that God exists, therefore I am not an agnostic regarding the matter of God's existence.

For one, God's existence is demonstrated in the things that have been made.

For two, God's existence has been demonstrated in the fact that Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, has been raised from the dead which was the culmination of His worldly ministry and the fulfillment of several prophecies which were given hundreds of years before He was even born.

Thirdly, God is alive and working through His Church, which is His body and His means through which He works and fulfills His plans and purposes in this present age.

Fourthly, each child of God has the personal witness of the Holy Spirit that they are children of God and this witness demonstrates to them in a thousand and a thousand ways that God is love and that He dwells within them.

Fifthly, God's existence is demonstrated in the love that the children of God have not only for one another, but for humanity in general. For Christ Himself said that the world would know that we were His disciples by the love that we have for one another.

So even if I were charitable and were to say that I agree with your view that unless something is demonstrable, we must be agnostic regarding its existence, (which I do not agree with by the way because it is far too vague and ambiguous a statement) you still are faced with the insurmountable difficulties you encounter when trying to refute the above.

Insurmountable? Most of these are simply idle claims tantamount to "Because I say so".

1. Demonstration required.
2. Demonstration required. Self-fulfilling / unconfirmed prophecies don't substantiate the NT.
3. Demonstration required (though I'd love to hear why you believe the Catholic Church's promulgation of HIV/AIDS in Africa is 'God's work')
4. Believing really really hard is not proof that God exists. I'm sure Muslims and Hindus are just as convinced that they have had personal experience with their deities.
5. If you think all Christians are united in their love of humanity, or even if they were that this somehow proved the truth of Christianity, you're sorely mistaken.

As arguments for the existence of God go, that's rather weak. 1/10, though bonus marks for the sheer arrogance in believing "Because I say so" is an "insurmountable" proof.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Yup, there's a big difference between knowing something yourself and being able to demonstrate that to someone else. I love my children, wife and grandchild. I can't necessarily convince anyone else of that, and even if my actions gave the impression of loving care then anyone could say I was faking it.

So no, I'm not agnostic, because I believe there is a God, and what anyone else believes about what I believe is irrelevant. Theism, agnosticism and atheism are all personal positions, and unaffected by anyone else's opinions or beliefs.

 

[Upisoft]

I disagree. For one to actually "know" something then that must mean it can be demonstrated to another person. I know 2+2=4 and I can demonstrate how I know that. Belief is not the same as knowing no matter how beyond a shadow of a doubt it is.

You do not know that, you believe it, along with all arithmetic axioms. I say that 2+2=11.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Since no one really knows if a god exists or not isn't everyone, technically, agnostic? Some religious people claim to know that a god exists but they can never demonstrate how they know. They just believe. Most atheists claim there is no evidence for a god (not "I know with 100% certainty there is no god.")
So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

I would politely disagree.

I know that Zeus exists, therefore I am not an agnostic regarding the matter of Zeus's existence.

For one, Zeus's existence is demonstrated (to the greeks at least) that he is God of all Gods.

For two, Zeus's existence has been demonstrated in the fact he was king of Olympus.

Thirdly, Zeus is alive and well, this fact can be observed (sometimes spectacularly) especially during severe electrical storms. He works and fulfills his desire to communicate his mood by manipulating our weather.

Fourthly, each child of Zeus is a personal witness of Zeus, they are not only descendants of Zeus, but Gods in their own right. His multitudinous population of offspring is testament he had a propensity for making love and spreading his love.

Fifthly, Zeus's existence is demonstrated in that we have law, order, fate and justice.

So even if I were to align my definition of the word knowledge with yours to minimise to some degree any ambiguity and vagueness, and agree with your view that unless something is demonstrable, we must be agnostic regarding its existence, you must admit, you are still faced with insurmountable difficulties when trying to refute the existence of Zeus.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I would politely disagree.

I know that Zeus exists, therefore I am not an agnostic regarding the matter of Zeus's existence.

For one, Zeus's existence is demonstrated (to the greeks at least) that he is God of all Gods.

For two, Zeus's existence has been demonstrated in the fact he was king of Olympus.

Thirdly, Zeus is alive and well, this fact can be observed (sometimes spectacularly) especially during severe electrical storms. He works and fulfills his desire to communicate his mood by manipulating our weather.

Fourthly, each child of Zeus is a personal witness of Zeus, they are not only descendants of Zeus, but Gods in their own right. His multitudinous population of offspring is testament he had a propensity for making love and spreading his love.

Fifthly, Zeus's existence is demonstrated in that we have law, order, fate and justice.

So even if I were to align my definition of the word knowledge with yours to minimise to some degree any ambiguity and vagueness, and agree with your view that unless something is demonstrable, we must be agnostic regarding its existence, you must admit, you are still faced with insurmountable difficulties when trying to refute the existence of Zeus.

Well, that's obvious to anyone with half a brain. But you are forgetting the Stoic argument that you have to presuppose the existence of Zeus in order to justify your reasoning processes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dlamberth]

So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

What about those folks who "experience" in the mystical sense the unity of Oneness with an underlining power that reaches into everything in existence? For those folks, it's not a "belief" that they hold. It's something that they actually experience as their reality in life.

.

 

[quatona]

Yes, believing to know something is sufficient to not be included in the group of agnostics - technically or otherwise.

 

[Elioenai26]

Insurmountable? Most of these are simply idle claims tantamount to "Because I say so".

1. Demonstration required.
2. Demonstration required. Self-fulfilling / unconfirmed prophecies don't substantiate the NT.
3. Demonstration required (though I'd love to hear why you believe the Catholic Church's promulgation of HIV/AIDS in Africa is 'God's work')
4. Believing really really hard is not proof that God exists. I'm sure Muslims and Hindus are just as convinced that they have had personal experience with their deities.
5. If you think all Christians are united in their love of humanity, or even if they were that this somehow proved the truth of Christianity, you're sorely mistaken.

As arguments for the existence of God go, that's rather weak. 1/10, though bonus marks for the sheer arrogance in believing "Because I say so" is an "insurmountable" proof.

Well, I have read your post and must say that I expected more from you than what you have supplied. I am sorry that you devoted so little thought and time in compiling this response. I shall endeavor not to return the favor but to thoughtfully and respectfully address what you have written.

I find it quite interesting that on one hand, you demand proof that God exists, and then on the other, maintain very unapologetically and quite vigorously that you have a problem with God's decision to create a world of free creatures who rewards said creatures according to their deeds, whether these deeds be evil or good.

It seems to me my friend, that if God's existence was demonstrated to you as you seem to want us to believe is all that you need to happen in order for you to believe, then this would be the greatest of nightmares come true for you.

This would be the very last thing you would want to happen. You see Wiccan Child, this God of Christianity is by your own words a: "phenomenally wicked" individual. Just think for a moment how you would feel if God appeared in the sky and said: "Hey look here, I exist!"

Surely you would ball your fist, clench your teeth and say at the top of your lungs: "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo! It can't be!!!!!!"

Surely you would pinch yourself in the hopes that it was all a horrendous nightmare and that by pinching yourself, you would awaken to your godless world in which there is no God who knows your every thought and who will one day render to you what your deeds merit.

You do not believe the God of the bible exists because you view this God as a phenomenally wicked celestial tyrant and to keep your mind at ease, you at all costs will not entertain the possibility that this being could exist. It is akin to a man, who in an attempt to keep a very bad memory forever buried in the recesses of his mind, continually blocks out any and everything that could trigger that memory to surface.

It is akin to the Shutter Island character played by Leonardo DiCaprio, who, in an attempt to deal with the horrendous memory of killing his wife after she killed their three children, unconsciously develops this alternate personality and world in which he lives where he is not a widower who murdered his wife, but rather, a detective on a island in search for mad scientists...

In layman's terms, for you, and many who think like you, God is simply bad news... a spoilsport, a killjoy, a big man upstairs with a bat who is itching to crack your skull and send you into a fiery oven for the slightest infraction. A cosmic north korean dictator (Christopher Hitchens) who loves torturing the "innocent". Of course you are going to want to disbelieve in such a being....

Humans have remarkable defense mechanisms, as I am sure you are aware. And the human brain is capable of much. Many times, when confronted with an unpleasant truth, people utter words like: "its not real, its not real...its just my imagination....its just my imagination...." or "this cant really be happening, it just cant be happening"....


And yet.....

And yet....


You unabashedly demand proof and demonstrations that this God exists!

As if by being supplied proof would cause you to immediately and gladly believe and worship this God....

But we all know that is not what you would do...right?

I mean, if you are gonna be completely honest.... what would be your response if you were convinced God did exist?

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Well, that's obvious to anyone with half a brain. But you are forgetting the Stoic argument that you have to presuppose the existence of Zeus in order to justify your reasoning processes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

But Mark, Zeus's existence is too obvious to ignore, He didn't always exist, Zeus was the creation of Cronus and Rhea. This is common knowledge. I "know" he exists, I feel Zeus in my heart, I hear his voice in every clap of thunder, I see him illuminate the heavens with every lightning strike. Surely to ignore his existence would be the epitome of denial.

 

[Elioenai26]

And by the way, I am quite certain that I do not actually need to say what I am about to say, but since some have ventured to insinuate that Zeus and Jesus of Nazareth are somehow commensurate or equivalent, I feel the need to be pressing.

Jesus of Nazareth and Zeus are two completely different entities, one a historical figure (a Galilean Jew who lived in Judea and was crucified under orders of Pontius Pilate), the other a member of the Greek olympic pantheon of mythological figures.

So for those who desire to continue to place the two side by side and compare them as if they are somehow interchangeable, I would simply ask that you cease from doing so. It makes you look at best, uninformed, and at worst, intentionally deceptive.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

And by the way, I am quite certain that I do not actually need to say what I am about to say, but since some have ventured to insinuate that Zeus and Jesus of Nazareth are somehow commensurate or equivalent, I feel the need to be pressing.

Jesus of Nazareth and Zeus are two completely different entities, one a historical figure (a Galilean Jew who lived in Judea and was crucified under orders of Pontius Pilate), the other a member of the Greek olympic pantheon of mythological figures.


So for those who desire to continue to place the two side by side and compare them as if they are somehow interchangeable, I would simply ask that you cease from doing so. It makes you look at best, uninformed, and at worst, intentionally deceptive.

Off course they are two different entities, I encourage the distinction. I would cringe at the thought of Zeus, to be in any way associated with any entity of hebrew legend.
Since you obviously still dont comprehend my point, I'll be more explicit. The point of my antic Elio was to demonstrate the fallibility of your approach. It makes you look at best, uninformed, and at worst, intentionally deceptive.

 

[Elioenai26]

Off course they are two different entities, I encourage the distinction. I would cringe at the thought of Zeus, to be in any way associated with any entity of hebrew legend.

Are you saying that Jesus is an entity of Hebrew legend?

Because that is who we are talking about.

I hope that is not your position. In fact, I hope I am simply misunderstanding what you are trying to say as opposed to your maintaining that Jesus is some sort of figure of ancient lore.

Since you obviously still dont comprehend my point, I'll be more explicit. The point of my antic Elio was to demonstrate the fallibility of your approach.

How exactly did you demonstrate the "fallibility" of my approach?

By comparing apples to oranges? By taking what I said and replacing the name "Jesus" with "Zeus"?

Is that how you demonstrated the fallibility of my approach?

If Jesus was another mythological character akin to Zeus, then your approach might have merit, however, since the two, as you yourself confess, are patently fundamentally dissimilar, I will have to ask you:

What are you talking about?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, I have read your post and must say that I expected more from you than what you have supplied. I am sorry that you devoted so little thought and time in compiling this response. I shall endeavor not to return the favor but to thoughtfully and respectfully address what you have written.

I find it quite interesting that on one hand, you demand proof that God exists, and then on the other, maintain very unapologetically and quite vigorously that you have a problem with God's decision to create a world of free creatures who rewards said creatures according to their deeds, whether these deeds be evil or good.

It seems to me my friend, that if God's existence was demonstrated to you as you seem to want us to believe is all that you need to happen in order for you to believe, then this would be the greatest of nightmares come true for you.

This would be the very last thing you would want to happen. You see Wiccan Child, this God of Christianity is by your own words a: "phenomenally wicked" individual. Just think for a moment how you would feel if God appeared in the sky and said: "Hey look here, I exist!"

Surely you would ball your fist, clench your teeth and say at the top of your lungs: "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo! It can't be!!!!!!"

Surely you would pinch yourself in the hopes that it was all a horrendous nightmare and that by pinching yourself, you would awaken to your godless world in which there is no God who knows your every thought and who will one day render to you what your deeds merit.

You do not believe the God of the bible exists because you view this God as a phenomenally wicked celestial tyrant and to keep your mind at ease, you at all costs will not entertain the possibility that this being could exist. It is akin to a man, who in an attempt to keep a very bad memory forever buried in the recesses of his mind, continually blocks out any and everything that could trigger that memory to surface.

It is akin to the Shutter Island character played by Leonardo DiCaprio, who, in an attempt to deal with the horrendous memory of killing his wife after she killed their three children, unconsciously develops this alternate personality and world in which he lives where he is not a widower who murdered his wife, but rather, a detective on a island in search for mad scientists...

In layman's terms, for you, and many who think like you, God is simply bad news... a spoilsport, a killjoy, a big man upstairs with a bat who is itching to crack your skull and send you into a fiery oven for the slightest infraction. A cosmic north korean dictator (Christopher Hitchens) who loves torturing the "innocent". Of course you are going to want to disbelieve in such a being....

Humans have remarkable defense mechanisms, as I am sure you are aware. And the human brain is capable of much. Many times, when confronted with an unpleasant truth, people utter words like: "its not real, its not real...its just my imagination....its just my imagination...." or "this cant really be happening, it just cant be happening"....

Are you actually conceding that the God you believe in is actually a wicked celestial tyrant?

And yet.....

And yet....


You unabashedly demand proof and demonstrations that this God exists!

As if by being supplied proof would cause you to immediately and gladly believe and worship this God....

But we all know that is not what you would do...right?

I mean, if you are gonna be completely honest.... what would be your response if you were convinced God did exist?

The question of whether God exists, the question of whether that God is good, and the question of whether he deserves worship can be treated as three separate questions.

 

[quatona]

There are plenty of people who believe that Satan exists - although in their worldview Satan is the epitome of an evil entity.
Your attempt at armchair psychology fails, Eli.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Are you saying that Jesus is an entity of Hebrew legend?

Unfortunately your Christian privilege (Netiquette) opposses and prevents an honest elucidation on this point.

How exactly did you demonstrate the "fallibility" of my approach?

I emulated your Petito Principii fallacy. (Begging the question) You are presupposing the existence of your deity, in order to justify your reasoning.

By comparing apples to oranges?

If Jesus was a human being of no supernatural origin then yes, apples to oranges. However, you are claiming Jesus is a deity are you not?

By taking what I said and replacing the name "Jesus" with "Zeus"?

My description's of the almighty God Zeus were pertinent to the almighty God Zeus.

If Jesus was another mythological character akin to Zeus, then your approach might have merit, however, since the two, as you yourself confess, are patently fundamentally dissimilar, I will have to ask you:

What are you talking about?

There are many fundamentally and dissimilar traits between Zeus and Jesus.

However if Jesus was indeed a deity, then the distinguishing differences between him and Zeus in the context of the argument for his incorporeal existence is negligible.

Simply claiming that gods exist on the basis of "because I said so" can be described as not only authorative and arrogant, but fallacious.