The Moral Implications of Agnosticism and other Comprimises

[newfangle]

Good day fanatics!

There have been many religous/non-religious threads about, and I think it's time to address a related topic- agnosticism.

I for one believe that agnosticism represents a moral comprimise found in those unwilling or unable to ask the questions of existence and human morality.

The typical stance taken by agnostics (over more issues than just religion, such as ESP, astrology and conspiracies) is "We can't prove the claim is true. But we can't prove the claim is false, either. So the only proper conclusion is: we don't know; no one knows; perhaps no one will ever know."

Not only is this a plead of ignorance, it perpetuates it! The agnostic treats arbiotrary claims as matters properly open to consideration. He allows that it is "possible" that these claims are "true." He demands proof of a negative. He decides that it is up to you to disprove ESP.

The agnostic can also be represented as a coward. He believes that he has avoided taking any controversial position, ergo he is immune to attack. In fact, he has taking a disgustingly irrational position. In struggling to elevate the arbitrary to a position of cognition, he is attemtping to equate logic with illogic.

To summarize the argument, does a murderer have to kill every human being to become a murderer, or just one? He either is a murderer or isn't .

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Your nice little attack is debunked by that fact that you don't understand agnosticism.

It is two-fold. First I admit I can't prove it or disprove it. Secondly I prefer to disbelieve it until proved wrong.

I don't admit EQUAL chances that there is a God or not a God. There IS a chance there is a God, but it's more rational to believe there isn't.

 

[newfangle]

What's to not understand. You choose not to choose. You say you choose to disbelieve until proven wrong? So you choose to disbelieve the nonexistence of something until proven wrong?

Crazy

 

[Comraddict]

Agnosticsm I see as there is gray place between black and white. And maybe not necessary belief that there might be goD but that there exist stuff we can't explain or know therefore we can't undestand or have answer.

 

[Junzi Nicuzn]

They have made a choice. They choose to admit that they don't know. They refuse to blindly following a belief system based on the words of men millenia dead, but they are willing to accept the possibility that they might be wrong.

newfangle
To summarize the argument, does a murderer have to kill every human being to become a murderer, or just one? He either is a murderer or isn't .

That's one of the most idiotic analogies I've encountered.

What if a suspected murderer is on trial? You're right that he either is or isn't a murderer. But we don't know which until the trial. You will then have three types of people on the jury. The ones who believe he is guilty, the ones who believe he is innocent, and the ones who refuse to make a judgement until they have all the facts.

The validity of Religion is on trial. We're the jury.

 

[Immortal]

Id say the existencer of God is whats on trial.

 

[Junzi Nicuzn]

Thats what I meant. I just like my wording better.

 

[Richard III]

Judging by the kaka I've seen on these boards, I'd say the existence of freedom of religon is what's on trial.

R.III

 

[Junzi Nicuzn]

That trial's over, has been for a while.
The ruling was you can be any religion you want, but you have to listen to people explain why you are wrong and an idiot for having those beliefs.

 

[Gothmog]

“I for one believe that agnosticism represents a moral comprimise found in those unwilling or unable to ask the questions of existence and human morality.”

For me agnosticism represents the beginning of honesty. To admit that we cannot ‘know’ and can choose to believe or not. At that point true investigation can begin.

In the case of God there is no evidence that exists of what came before the ‘big bang’, no evidence at all. You can make up whatever you want about that period and all possibilities are equally likely IMO. In the same way an all powerful God could have created the universe yesterday, just as we find it now – how could you know? You are a slave to your senses whether you choose to admit it or not and your senses can be deceived.

“The typical stance taken by agnostics (over more issues than just religion, such as ESP, astrology and conspiracies) is "We can't prove the claim is true. But we can't prove the claim is false, either. So the only proper conclusion is: we don't know; no one knows; perhaps no one will ever know."”

Again I believe the beginning of honesty is ‘I don’t know’. That said we can put forth theories with testable consequences. A claim that makes no testable predictions cannot be tested, obviously. So what is the point of saying that it is ‘true’ or ‘false’. Once we test those consequences in a reproducible way we can gain information about the correctness of that theory. A theory can be disproved, but never proved. What results is accumulated scientific knowledge.

Re: ““the knowledge structure produced by science has a quality unique among the creations of the human species. Its uniqueness lies in its capacity to provide reliable quantitative predictions of phenomena within its own domain; no other aspect of human experience has that kind of capability. This predictive power is a consequence of the way scientific studies evolve – and science’s validation processes, themselves unique, guarantee that power.”
“Science advances by trial and error, guided by past observations and their interpretations. Establishing the validity of each new result is essential. Some new findings, such as the measurement of a quantity predicted by a well-established theory, call for only modest efforts to establish validity. At the opposite extreme are results that challenge established concepts. Some apparently idiosyncratic ideas cannot be tested rigorously at the time when they are proposed. For example, continental drift, eventually called plate tectonics, could not be validated until may years after it was proposed. But the celebrated cases of “cold fusion” and “polywater” immediately produced major efforts at validation, because both would have been important were they correct. That stimulated may researcher to examine each and, in months, to discredit them.”

“Not only is this a plead of ignorance, it perpetuates it! The agnostic treats arbiotrary claims as matters properly open to consideration. He allows that it is "possible" that these claims are "true." He demands proof of a negative. He decides that it is up to you to disprove ESP.”

How can one a priori know if an arbitrary claim is true or not? Do you claim to have innate knowledge of the nature of the universe? Or perhaps you are saying that God speaks to you… Anyway, for me – as I state above – anything not formerly disproved is open to consideration. And even things that were believed to be disproved should be given a second look in the light of new data. This is how the scientific method works, are you saying that scientific knowledge is another way of saying ignorance?

“The agnostic can also be represented as a coward. He believes that he has avoided taking any controversial position, ergo he is immune to attack. In fact, he has taking a disgustingly irrational position. In struggling to elevate the arbitrary to a position of cognition, he is attemtping to equate logic with illogic.”

That is your opinion. I am an agnostic and yet I love taking controversial positions, and backing them up. I would lump the atheist in with anyone else who thinks that they have true knowledge of the physical nature of the universe. I would say this is ‘a disgustingly irrational position’. As I said above, the statement ‘I don’t know’ is the beginning of wisdom. Not the end, but the beginning. I cannot say why you think I am attempting to equate logic with illogic. I say it is illogical to think that you have true knowledge of the nature of the universe. You are a tiny little human, you aren’t even important to the human race much less the universe, and humans just aren’t very smart.

“To summarize the argument, does a murderer have to kill every human being to become a murderer, or just one? He either is a murderer or isn't .”

Do you really need an answer to this idiotic statement?

 

[Yago]

The agnostic can also be represented as a coward. He believes that he has avoided taking any controversial position, ergo he is immune to attack. In fact, he has taking a disgustingly irrational position. In struggling to elevate the arbitrary to a position of cognition, he is attemtping to equate logic with illogic.

I can't stand religious people. Thank you for reminding me why.

Praying to things described in some weird book is just not my idea of fun. And if there's hell, I'm sure it ain't a bad place to be.

 

[Immortal]

Well, since Newfangle is a self-described "militant anti-religious" person. Its a pretty stupid comment to make that he has reinforced your disdain of religious people.

but whatever helps your bias I guess...

 

[thestonesfan]

I am 100% with Gothmog on this one.

To me, agnosticism is admitting that you really don't have any idea about the nature of existence. To think you do is the height of obstinate stupidity.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
I am 100% with Gothmog on this one.

To me, agnosticism is admitting that you really don't have any idea about the nature of existence. To think you do is the height of obstinate stupidity.

I know enough of the nature of existence to know that I exist . When one uses reason from this axiomic foundation such fantastical claims as the supernatural are quickly dissipated.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Yago


I can't stand religious people. Thank you for reminding me why.

Praying to things described in some weird book is just not my idea of fun. And if there's hell, I'm sure it ain't a bad place to be.

Moderator Action: Why don't you try debating without the insults.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Gothmog]

I agree that the supernatural is easily dismissed. But what if the natural world is stranger than you think it is?

As I said above, how do you know?

Why are you so sure that you know the true nature of the universe?

Do you just 'know' without evidence?

Does it just 'feel' right?

Are you going to offer any rebuttal to my response to your insulting statements about the 'moral implications of agnosticism'?

 

[Yago]

Hm ? Because I did not debate, I just felt offended. And yes, for some reason....

Well, since Newfangle is a self-described "militant anti-religious" person. Its a pretty stupid comment to make that he has reinforced your disdain of religious people.

I don't know the biography of the poster, no I don't. But what he wrote sounded awfully familar. Familar enough. But yes, my so called "bias" .... let's say, ...... (can't say that). But I can say that I wouldn't let anyone in my house ?

 

[Junzi Nicuzn]

Yago
I can't stand religious people. Thank you for reminding me why.

Immortal
Well, since Newfangle is a self-described "militant anti-religious" person. Its a pretty stupid comment to make that he has reinforced your disdain of religious people.

I think this just goes to show that atheists are just as bad as religious people when it comes to accepting other people's beliefs.

Judging by the kaka, as Richard III called it, that has been posted in this forum, most religious people view atheists with pity and the need to save them, while most atheists view religious types with scorn and the need to break them of their silly beliefs. Each side commences with a "logical, reasonable arguement," but usually end up trolling and in a flame war with the other side, usually without posting any evidence other than their self-serving arguements. No links, no easily-accessable facts, no anything.

I wouldn't be suprised if some of the people here said they were agnostic just to avoid being drawn into these fights.

I admit that I not completely unbiased either, I always thought a thread that attacked agnostic people would be started by someone who is pro-religion. I also realize the irony of accusing those posters of using no evidence other than self-serving arguments and then doing the same myself.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Gothmog
I agree that the supernatural is easily dismissed. But what if the natural world is stranger than you think it is?

As I said above, how do you know?

Why are you so sure that you know the true nature of the universe?

Do you just 'know' without evidence?

Does it just 'feel' right?

Are you going to offer any rebuttal to my response to your insulting statements about the 'moral implications of agnosticism'?

I hope the world is stranger than it appears. That will make my faculty (astrophysics) far more interesting. Despite strangeness, existence still exists.

How do I know? I know because I can know. It's an axiom. If you chooses to accept that axiom that A is A, there should be no debate here.

I did not mean for my statements to be insulting. If they are, well, they are. Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that agnosticism reflects honestly. If anything, it reflects dishonesty.

When I dismiss a claim as 'arbitrary' it is not the equivalent of pleading ignorance as an agnostic would. It is not the same as saying "I don't know" or "I haven't made up my mind" or "I have no opinion." The responses presuppose that there is some evidence pertaining to the issue and that it is legitimate to consider.

I can dismiss a claim as arbitrary because I don't start with a zero and seek to discover evidence of God's nonexistence. I'd prefer to start with the metaphysically given, and denie that which clashes with it.

Hopefully now you can see why I see it as a moral confliction when one chooses some sort of grey fuzz between faith and reason.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by newfangle
I for one believe that agnosticism represents a moral comprimise found in those unwilling or unable to ask the questions of existence and human morality.

There is a very clear and bold line between "unwilling to ask" and "unwilling to accept an inferior answer". The people whose reasoning derives directly from their supposedly divine scriptures are "unwilling to ask". The atheists are "willing to believe in probablity". The agnostics are "unwilling to accept a 'less than perfect' answer" to the ultimate question.

Originally posted by newfangle
The typical stance taken by agnostics (over more issues than just religion, such as ESP, astrology and conspiracies) is "We can't prove the claim is true. But we can't prove the claim is false, either. So the only proper conclusion is: we don't know; no one knows; perhaps no one will ever know."

Why is that NOT a good answer? Knowledge of the inexistence of certain knowledge is also knowledge.

Originally posted by newfangle
Not only is this a plead of ignorance, it perpetuates it! The agnostic treats arbiotrary claims as matters properly open to consideration. He allows that it is "possible" that these claims are "true." He demands proof of a negative. He decides that it is up to you to disprove ESP.

Please define what constitutes a "plead of ignorance".

Originally posted by newfangle
The agnostic can also be represented as a coward. He believes that he has avoided taking any controversial position, ergo he is immune to attack. In fact, he has taking a disgustingly irrational position. In struggling to elevate the arbitrary to a position of cognition, he is attemtping to equate logic with illogic.

Explain how it is "disgustingly irrational" and the claim of "equating logic with illogic". Also, regarding the "coward" claim, I would ask what was it that you are claiming that we are refraining from? Besides, unless you ahve been validated as an idiot already, it does take courage to admit that you don't know.

Originally posted by newfangle
To summarize the argument, does a murderer have to kill every human being to become a murderer, or just one? He either is a murderer or isn't .

This analogy doesn't make it. A better analogy would be: "You do not know whether or not that person committed the murder, are you going to convict him"?