Many agnostics seem to be mislead about agnosticism and belief in God. - Page 11

**George** · 09-11-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jessetheatheist

Also, some atheists, such as myself, see no reason to think that knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of god is impossible for them to obtain. That's not to say that they think it can be obtained, though they could think that, but that "knowledge on the matter is impossible to obtain" isn't accepted as true in their minds.

Good example of a circular argument. An argument that consistently reinforces itself but never actually proves anything.

**The An-Jel** · 09-11-2007, 04:42 PM

You know people fear people they can not label. Agnostic is simply a label to place open minded people that can't conceive of metaphysical events as they are portrayed by people on this Earth... probably more scientific minds as I have observed so far. People that believe like this have their own observations and opinions and the majority of people can't handle people they can't label like sheep and cows.

Gettin' In Tune · 09-11-2007, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George

I can sum the multiple responses I'd have for this into one response really.

I'm not saying there is a God. I'm just saying it's possible. No matter how many times we go around in circles on this, in the end I'm sure we'd both have to agree that it is possible simply because neither of us has all the answers.

I admit that we can devise an infinite number of god concepts, and one of them can turn out to be true. I admit that we do not have full knowledge on the origin of the universe. One can be open to the possibilities, but still lack a belief in god: hence, atheism.

One can arrive at atheism for a variety reasons; from emotional revulsion of revealed religion to intelligence. I am arguing that most agnostics are atheists; they lack a belief in god. Lacking a belief is not close minded. It basically says that there is no evidence to support a divine entity. If future counter evidence presents itself, then it would be natural to believe in god.

Quote:

But if you'd like to keep going around in circles by all means continue. I'll put on my track shoes

I am getting a work out from this thread

Gettin' In Tune · 09-11-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudonous

Gettin' In Tune,

I am not sure what your position really is on proofs for god. I have selected two quotes from your reply to shop the source of my confusion. In the first quote it appears you want me to give proof of the possibility of a christian (personal) god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gettin In' Tune

This is where I disagree. Why be open to the possibility of christian god? Where is the evidence?...

In the second quote you seem to admit being open to the idea of a prime mover sense you have no evidence to disprove it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gettin' In Tune

It really boils down to your concept of god and how you define god. There is no evidence for a personal god, but I tend to be more open to the idea of Prime or unmoved mover...While I have doubt of a Prime Mover, I cannot rule it out with 100% certainty.

This seems like a double standard to me.

The prime mover is based on the first cause argument which uses Newtonian physics and our understanding of the universe. Also the first cause argument suggest that there needs to be a only a first cause and not necessarily a prime mover.

I am open to possibility since the first cause cause argument uses reason. I am also aware of the many logical criticisms of the first cause argument and the prime mover concepts. IMO, it is an untestable scientific hypothesis that cannot be ruled out with 100% certainty. I also find it irrelevant in my everyday living. I think the answer does have metaphysical implications.I also think that the question below have metaphysical implications:
1. Where did matter came from?
2. How were the parametric values of the universe defined?

I think these are valid metaphysical questions that can hopefully be answered by science one day. Currently, we do not know; i.e agnostic

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudonous

Also, to some extent it seemed like you were asking why take a christian seriously instead of why be open to the possibility of a christian god. So I just want make a possible clarification, I do not take christian arguments seriously. This is the same opinion expressed in both the strong and weak agnostic videos I linked. Perhaps the words are different but it is the same message.

I understand that you do not take the christian god seriously. You probably lack a belief in personal god. If so you are atheist in the respect that those agnostics were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudonous

I am open to the possibility only because I can not prove it. This is a very scientific viewpoint. Never, make any unnecessary prejudgments. This is what distinguishes the agnostics from the rest of the atheists.

A christian god is not based on science and thus does not belong in science. It is not a valid scientific view point. Any god concept not based on evidence, empirics, logic, and reason will go unproven since they suspend reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudonous

Of course, I would change my mind if you can provide me with proof that a personal god can not exist. Otherwise, I don't plan on giving it further thought. I don't entertain the idea that would be mindless speculation.

There is no evidence to support a personal god and a personal god is not based on our understanding of the cosmos. It requires a leap faith. One must ask themselvesif a personal god concpet is created on reason, empirics, and logic. I understand that someone can suspend judgment do to a lack of evidence, i.e agnostic. To believe in a personal god that various theists believe in requires a leap of faith. If you lack a belief, then you are atheist. If you admit that there is unkown knowledge, then you are agnostic. Many nontheists are both.

Gettin' In Tune · 09-11-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinterland

If you will allow me to add the M&W definition of belief to weak (a)theists, and this definition to strong (a)theists, then an agnostic can be both a theist and atheist.

I still do not understand. Each source has various definitions of belief. Which one are you using?

Quote:

And finally, if the definition of belief describes beliefs as something held as true due to personal observation, but does not have to be true, an agnostic can be a theist.

What are these personal observations that lead to your belief?

Quote:

GIT, you are describing an anthropomorphic god, and a personal God doesnot have to have some of the properties you are attributing to it.

A personal god takes on various attribute depending on the individual or group. What are some properties that god has to have?

I have yet to see how agnosticism and theism can be reconciled. Perhaps if you describe god this would help to see if agnosticism and theism can be reconciled.

SirArthur · 09-11-2007, 05:59 PM

Gettin' In Tune,

For not make you waste your time, and by the way you are trying to lead the conversation, I think you rather seek some religious people and put them your questions.

Those people yes, they're convicted that God exists, they even know who is the true God, etc.

They're far more suitable to reply to you on those subjects than Agnostics.

EDIT:

I would recommend my grandmother, Methodist fanatic, she would talk over and over to you... unfortunately you would need to know or learn portuguese or won't be able understand her.
Other than that, one time I got really amazed by the skills of Jehovah's Witnesses, two of them came to me start speaking and when quoting from the Bible they ALWAYS managed to open their Bible directly on the page they quoted (and as far as I could noticed there weren't bookmarks on their Bible)... now that's Biblical skill

Gettin' In Tune · 09-11-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirArthur

Gettin' In Tune,

For not make you waste your time, and by the way you are trying to lead the conversation, I think you rather seek some religious people and put them your questions.

Those people yes, they're convicted that God exists, they even know who is the true God, etc.

They're far more suitable to reply to you on those subjects than Agnostics.

Supposedly agnostic-theist believe that god exist.

SirArthur · 09-11-2007, 06:23 PM

Yes, but you're quite mistaken if you believe an Agnostic-Theist is a religious sure of their faith that can stand on theological and dogmatic discussions.
In order to get a full description of God as you keep requesting you've to seek for religious people.

pseudonous · 09-11-2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Yes, but you're quite mistaken if you believe an Agnostic-Theist is a religious sure of their faith that can stand on theological and dogmatic discussions.

I think this is a cop out. You can't suggest that a theistic view point is reasonable and then refuse to provide a justification for that claim. Even if your belief is more of a 60/40 kind of bet. You should be able to justify that view point. If your argument rest on the same ground as a regular theist then your not really offering an alternative. I think you would be a wolf in sheep's clothing or maybe just another equivocator.

SirArthur · 09-11-2007, 07:30 PM

Agnosticism-theism has NOT:

-Anything to proof or disproof - Agnosticism is the acceptance of ignorance on Theological subjects and therefore all your claims on God's behalf or against God are meaningless.

-Nothing to offer to the World - One can have to offer as individual, Agnosticism as definition of group doesn't.

-No converter preachers - one joins if he finds it suitable to, no body will run after him with a cross or a crescent saying he must believe or half-believe on Muhammad, Jesus or whatever.

-One can believe on God existence for thousands of reasons, personal or not. Each one will speak for himself AND I ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY I'M AN AGNOSTIC-THEIST, if you do not care to go back a couple of pages and read it it's certainly not my problem.