Skepticologist

How does George's very simple definition, "Agnosticism is the belief that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a deity", lead you to believe that an agnostic can have any "conception of god" whatsoever?

We're saying we don't know whether god exists. How, then, could we possibly have a conception of him/her/it to "arrive at the fence" with?

For that matter, I think your allusion to a fence is faulty. For any but the most neophyte agnostic, there's no sense of sitting on a fence. Our conclusion that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god has come about through, in some cases, serious failed attempts to find some validity in religions we once espoused and, in all cases, demanding that the basis for any beliefs we hold be logic and reason.

Further, just as I've failed over many years to prove or disprove the existence of a diety, so have I concluded that the information needed to do so will likely not be available to me within the relatively short time I have to live.

Consequently, I fully expect to die an agnostic. Does that sound like a fence-sitter to you?

__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

Clarence Darrow

pseudonous

If you didn't have a conception of "god" you would just be making noise when you say: "Agnosticism is the belief that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god."

Og

We can have a concept of a silly useless hypothesis. The god that agnostics speak to is one that is akin to Carl Sagan's Invisible dragon.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

It's not a concept of god.. It's a logical approach to a useless statement (i.e. the scientific non-dogmatic and self correcting approach).

If it's anything other than a non-disprovable hypothesis (i.e. most ethereal western anthropic gods) then there are specific claims that can be addressed and the validity of deities can be addressed.

Agnosticism says that we recognize the non-disprovable stances as being useless.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

pseudonous

Interesting. I think Sagan's dragon is just another way of saying what I'm thinking only he discusses a dragon rather than god. Consider that we all have a conception of a dragon. I'm sure you will agree that dragons are about as real as djinn. Yet if you see a picture of a dragon you would recognize that the image represents a dragon. You have a conception of a dragon and in the same way you have a conception of god.

God is a fuzzy logic category. The frustration Sagan speaks of is due to the ontological slant of most theists. Their belief in god has nothing to do with knowledge, it is strictly a security blanket. The god agnostics speak to is not one of our own making; it is what the theists make it.

Og

Dragons are metaphors. They speak of a creature that lives in a cave (darkness of your subconscious mind) and hordes gold/treasure and virgins and doesn't know what to do with either. It's a description of a psychological state of "merely hanging on."

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Tomasz

There's some inherent madness in discussions between atheists and believers about God's existance, watching those discussions I always get a headache

__________________
It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts - Sherlock Holmes

pseudonous

Dragons are used in metaphors. The particular metaphor is cultural. In some metaphors the dragon is used to represent chaotic and violent weather.

Gettin' In Tune

In this thread I have been labeled an embarrassment, panic stricken, and unintelligent about agnosticism.

Absolutely no one has taken up the cause of identifying "god", It has resorted to immature deflection towards Og's definition of Sagan's god. The most sound answer I received, but incomplete.

I ask a very simple question that is difficult for agnostics. "What types of god do you subscribe to for arriving at the fence."? A very simple question. Why is “god” and the “fence” hard to arrive at?

Is God Barney the dinosaur, or Ronald Reagan? Is it something more? Is it the Prime Observer, ground of being, or source of origin?

Perhaps, I am uneducated in Huxley and making a fool of myself, but at least I make you think and take a stance…or not. You remain grounded in your belief, that you defend by embarrassment, panic stricken, and unintelligence about agnosticism, but don’t add anything to the “Agnostic God”.

Very simple, "What "god" do you arrive at the fence at"?

A simple question, even a deist could answer it.

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

Jayhawker Soule

Yes, you make me think you are uneducated and making a fool of yourself. There is no Agnostic God. Rather, there is the set of theological claims characterized by being "conclusions ... not demonstrated or demonstrable".

Skepticologist

I'm not sure I understand the question anymore, nor ever did, for that matter. However, on the off chance I'm missing something, I'm asking for a little clarification.

Following are instances of "the question" in its various forms, as posted on this forum:

08-04-2007, 07:29 PM: In essence, what types of “gods” bring agnostics to the fence?
08-04-2007, 07:50 PM: What type of "god/diety" brings you to the fence?
08-04-2007, 09:46 PM: Again, what "god" do you arrive at the fence?
08-07-2007, 01:43 AM: What types of god do you subscribe to for arriving at the fence?
08-07-2007, 01:43 AM: What "god" do you arrive at the fence at?

Despite the serious misusages of pronouns, I can see that there are at least three distinct ideas in the foregoing:

1: that there are types of god or diety that bring agnostics to the fence;

2: that there are types of god or diety that agnostics subscribe to when arriving at the fence;

3: that there are types of god or diety that agnostics simply arrive at the fence [with? at?].

So, the first clarification of the question I'm requesting is "what's the question?"

Then there's the definition of the term "fence". I believe it originally connoted the idea that agnostics are "fence sitters" when it comes to belief in god, and I recall responding at one point that most agnostics are firmly convinced of their beliefs. Just because one's beliefs include an assertion of lack of physical evidence for two widely divergent concepts of god, doesn't mean that belief is any less firmly held.

The second clarification I'm requesting is "please be more specific about the nature of the fence."

__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

Clarence Darrow