Ask an agnostic...

[warpus]

In our lives, we consider the opinions of experts or the majority to be important. The experts tell me they have found evidence of Black Holes, so I believe them. The majority of people tell me that there're wars going on right now, I believe them.

And, the majority of people claim to have experienced a spiritual experience or spiritual connection - even a divine interconnection. Why not believe them? If the majority of scientists told you X, but you were unable to mimick their results easily(though you didn't really try) - would you disbelieve them? If a dozen friends insisted that a cloud had looked like a Star Destroyer, would you believe them?

Hell, the majority of people tell me that blood and chocolate are different colours; I've never experienced this (colourblind), but I believe them anyway. Why not start with the position that you lack the sensory-equipment/dedication to detect the supernatural? Especially because your sensory-data is in the minority?

Because the people who say they can sense the supernatural cannot agree on what exactly they are sensing. The most they can agree on is a vague feeling that even people who don't believe in the supernatural have felt at some point..

Besides, the experts who say that black holes exist are able to back up their claims with data & people who say that they have seen a cloud that looks like a star destroyer are not making an extraordinary claim. People who claim that they can sense the supernatural are making an extraordinary claim without having extraordinary evidence to back it up with - something we should be suspicious of.

 

[Perfection]

Just because LSD can make me see an apple when it's not there, doesn't mean that I don't see apples that are really there when I'm sober. Being able to hallucinate something doesn't disprove that it exists ...

True, but these visions are generally under similar temporal lobe conditions. In addition, it's personal and unverifiable to any other outside means.

In the end a few 'cultural differences' are washed out by the massive similarities between their experiences; a sense of connection, a sense of purpose, a sense of something greater...

That's where the similarities end! A suite of feelings are a pretty crappy argument for God if you ask me.

 

[El_Machinae]

A suite of feelings are a pretty crappy argument for God if you ask me.

Actually, it's a definition, not an argument, no?
What is god? "The suite of feelings that people get when they ernestly seek access to god"

Anyway, for readers outside of people who have replied; don't believe my crap, I don't fall for these arguments, I'm merely playing devil's advocate. And if you wouldn't fall for my crap, no need to rudely point it out

 

[Perfection]

Actually, it's a definition, not an argument, no?
What is god? "The suite of feelings that people get when they ernestly seek access to god"

That definition is both self-referential and contrary to popular usage.

 

[El_Machinae]

That definition is both self-referential and contrary to popular usage.

Absolutely: okay: "The suite of feelings that people get when they earnestly seek to communicate with something that makes them feel connected and purpose-driven"

I think that the 'something' is important. People can't just look for connection, but for the something that inspires these feelings.

 

[Perfection]

Absolutely: okay: "The suite of feelings that people get when they earnestly seek to communicate with something that makes them feel connected and purpose-driven"

God has existance outside of one's mind. You're taking creative definition use too far and I'm not going to allow it.

 

[El_Machinae]

God has existance outside of one's mind. You're taking creative definition use too far and I'm not going to allow it.

So does an apple and so do cats.
Anyway, this is an agnosticism thread, not an an atheism thread.

The problem with gods are that people assign them too many attributes. Not only do they create the universe, but define morality and answer prayers! Why does this all have to be the same being? There's no reason to assume they're under the same umbrella.

 

[Perfection]

So does an apple and so do cats.

How so?

The problem with gods are that people assign them too many attributes. Not only do they create the universe, but define morality and answer prayers! Why does this all have to be the same being? There's no reason to assume they're under the same umbrella.

Ther'es a uniform theme of all historical things considered god that it is external to self!

 

[Kyriakos]

I would ask an agnostic, but he probably wouldnt know

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Is this whole thread going to be a bunch of atheists arguing against the idea of agnosticism? Just curious is all.

 

[Masquerouge]

Is this whole thread going to be a bunch of atheists arguing against the idea of agnosticism? Just curious is all.

Yeah, and then we gonna burn those agnostic heretics!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And I thought the actual religious people had it bad . . .

 

[warpus]

Is this whole thread going to be a bunch of atheists arguing against the idea of agnosticism? Just curious is all.

Haha.. I just pictured an atheist food fight.. for some reason.

I need a nap.

 

[Sidhe]

Is this whole thread going to be a bunch of atheists arguing against the idea of agnosticism? Just curious is all.

Apparently, it was interesting anyway. At least it gave some insight into why agnosticism came into existence as the philosophical or more intellectual alternative to atheism based on reasoned argument rather than pure speculation, simply because it bears up to scrutiny both from a philosophical or scientific stand point better by default.

It may be a cop out but at least it's not claiming things without having any evidence, either way, which is a dead end argument and has no basis in reality only in opinion and subjective arguments, eminenetly fine for an individual but it makes the mistake of assuming it is reasoned and based on thoughtful dialogue when in fact atheism falls foul of the same inconsistency as theism.

Now I'm not saying that Atheism isn't a valid position, all I'm saying is it requires a different kind of faith than theism, a sort of will to propose without recourse to anything tangible, you must be right.

Agnosticism is the real lack of "faith", because you truly believe you cannot answer the question and you do not need to resort to opinion or arguments about ontology to substantiate it's logical consistency.

 

[Masquerouge]

Apparently, it was interesting anyway. At least it gave some insight into why agnosticism came into existence as the philosophical or more intellectual alternative to atheism based on reasoned argument rather than pure speculation, simply because it bears up to scrutiny both from a philosophical or scientific stand point better by default.

It may be a cop out but at least it's not claiming things without having any evidence, either way, which is a dead end argument and has no basis in reality only in opinion and subjective arguments, eminenetly fine for an individual but it makes the mistake of assuming it is reasoned and based on thoughtful dialogue when in fact atheism falls foul of the same inconsistency as theism.

Now I'm not saying that Atheism isn't a valid position, all I'm saying is it requires a different kind of faith than theism, a sort of will to propose without recourse to anything tangible you must be right.

Agnosticism is the real lack of "faith", because you truly believe you cannot answer the question and you do not need to resort to opinion or arguments about ontology to substantiate it's logical consistency.

So basically even though I have rational and logical arguments as to why I'm an atheist, it's still a matter of faith?
Even though I've given it a lot of thoughts, philosophically and intellectually?
Even though I'm willing to accept I was wrong if proven otherwise?

In a nutshell, I strongly disagree when you say that agnosticism is inherently more logical or intellectual than atheism.

Maybe some atheists are faith based, but I wouldn't say ALL atheists are faith-based.

But it was very intersesting discussing with you anyway

 

[GenMarshall]

How do agnostics feel about former agnostics who have found God and religion?

 

[CartesianFart]

I am an agnostic in the sense I believe that I can not know whether God exists or not. Ask away.

Ok.

If you believe that you can't know,then how can you proclaim the knowledge of "not knowing anything exist?"Isn't God constitute everything so therefore God exist?

 

[Perfection]

Is this whole thread going to be a bunch of atheists arguing against the idea of agnosticism? Just curious is all.

Yeah, they're so close! They just need to be harangued until they join us!

Now I'm not saying that Atheism isn't a valid position, all I'm saying is it requires a different kind of faith than theism, a sort of will to propose without recourse to anything tangible, you must be right.

Atheists don't require absolute proof, or insist that "we must be right", only that the valid course of action in regard to notions of god is dismissal as rubbish.

How do agnostics feel about former agnostics who have found God and religion?

Well, knowing how shifty those agnostics are, I bet they'd probobly hate them with a burning passion.

 

[Adamb0mb]

How do agnostics feel about former agnostics who have found God and religion?

skeptical.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yeah, they're so close! They just need to be harangued until they join us!

Hmm, that's exactly what I say about all those non-Christian religions . . .