An agnostic burner’s point of view

[Ugly Dougly]

See that guy on the right?
That's SANTA CLAUS!

[theCryptofishist]

You might try looking here.

[cowboyangel]

how about Agnes-ticism

i vote for moorehead.

Forget agnosticism....I'm Bewitched......

[Ugly Dougly]

She got them there purty lips.

[TomServo]

religious and atheists are just jealous

[unjonharley]

Where did you find a picture of the Ugly Dugly

[cowboyangel]

Tom....ya got me there.....ve vill pump you aull upp!

(Actually Adam was probably of Ok size. It was Pope Julian who ordered him to diminish the size of the instruments of sin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

btw, Love Hitchens calling the current pope, Mr. Ratzinger.... Poor old Hitchy, we miss him already. Actually met the guy once. Always had a drink and a butt dangling from his fingertips....for you 70's and older kittens, that was slang for cigarette...shit hate it when I gotta spell things out....

[Ugly Dougly]

It's not the real Adam, of course. Michelangelo never met him.

[unjonharley]

It's not the real Adam, of course. Michelangelo never met him.

Michelangelo flat backed for a living..

[JStep]

I’m an agnostic. I believe It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a god.

Agnostic is effectively the same thing as atheist, only it's less controversial. It is essentially the exact same thing

The difference between the two is about as fine as the difference between these 2 statements:

Atheist: There is no tiny teapot orbiting the sun.

Agnostic: I believe there is no tiny teapot orbiting the sun.

Agnosticism in no way states an equivalence of merit between the position that something for which there is no evidence still exists despite all evidence and logical thought vs the position that the world is rationally explained by the evidence we have without need to create the existence of something that we have no evidence for to answer questions we have that we simply haven't discovered the answer to yet. (How's that for a run-on sentence!)

Semantically here's the breakdown of the 2 words and the 4 possible positions implied:

Gnostic: One who knows.
Agnostic: One who does not know.
Theist: One who believes in a god or gods.
Atheist: One who does not believe in a god or gods.

Gnosticism goes to what you know. Theism goes to what you believe.

There are 4 possible positions here:

Gnostic Atheist: One who knows there is no god. (Untenable position, assumes to prove a negative)
Agnostic Atheist: One who does not know, but believes, there is no god. (Rational and empirical.)
Gnostic Theist: One who knows there is a god. (Possible but untenable, similar to knowing there's a teapot orbiting the sun.)
Agnostic Theist: One who does not know, but believes, there is a god. (Somewhere between 70% to 90% of the world)

The whole Agnostic vs Atheist "debate" is not a debate at all, it's a posing of a false equivalence between rational thought and superstitious belief as if they were of equal merit. It's a common hangup, and an argument that will be repeated over and over until more enlightened times arrive where the word atheist will cease to exist. (I don't believe in fairys, but I'm not an afairyist... I don't collect stamps, but I'm not an astampcollectorist.)

"I maintain that we are both atheists, I simply believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ~Steven F Roberts

[ygmir]

I like cheese.

[Bob]

I like cheese.

[5280MeV]

I’m an agnostic. I believe It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a god.

Agnostic is effectively the same thing as atheist, only it's less controversial. It is essentially the exact same thing

The difference between the two is about as fine as the difference between these 2 statements:

Atheist: There is no tiny teapot orbiting the sun.

Agnostic: I believe there is no tiny teapot orbiting the sun.

I agree with you 100% in the context of any reasonably conservative theology. Ask any self-identified agnostic if they are really open to the possibility that there not only is a glorious architect, dreamer, or what have you that conceived of and constructed the universe in all of its natural beauty - there is not only this amazing being, but that he also is capable of such anthropomorphic things as anger and jealousy and a definable gender, has made a special relationship with a small desert tribe on a tiny rock in the suburbs of a nondescript galaxy among billions, and as part of this relationship has demanded that they burn meat for him and cut off their foreskins. Ask the self identified agnostic if they really don't have an opinion about this possibility for the grand order of the universe and they will reveal themselves as atheists as you describe.

Conservative theologians really do make these teapot-in-the-sky sorts of literal claims.

In the context of liberal theology it gets much more muddled. The idea of a "God" really isn't all that well defined, in the sense of what properties a 'Supreme Being' actually has, or what it even means for such a 'being' to 'exist'. A liberal christian will say such things as 'Heaven is a state of being' and 'God is love', and if pressed for details may describe god as an abstract force, spirit of the universe, ideal, or even just a mystery. There is no concrete claim of anything that one can prove or disprove. The way I see it, they are actually reciting poetry about love, not staking any theological claims.

Instead of the statement "There is a tiny teapot orbiting the sun" we have some statement that is more equivalent to "How wondrous it is that the Earth orbits the Sun!". How does one know or not know if that is true?

People haven't needed an angry teapot to fear for a long time. But they do need love and compassion, and they need communities, songs, and stories to help them endeavor to love one another. I think people like Jesus and Siddhartha realized this, but framed their revelations in the theological framework of the time.

I like to use the term agnostic, as problematic as the term may be, as a designation that I simply don't think that the existence of the teapot really matters in the first place. Furthermore, it gives the connotation that I fundamentally don't understand what the actual working structure of the universe is, which is factually correct, since there is no unifying theory of quantum gravity, dark matter does not fit into the standard model of particle physics, and so on...

[Ugly Dougly]

What about: God may exist, but that doesn't mean that it can be known.

[Bob]

If you want to go all literal and shit, atheism simply means living without God. You can take that to any degree you wish, even add it to an agnostic cocktail.

Oh, and death to the Temple.

[JStep]

I agree with you 100% in the context of any reasonably conservative theology. Ask any self-identified agnostic if they are really open to the possibility that there not only is a glorious architect, dreamer, or what have you that conceived of and constructed the universe in all of its natural beauty - there is not only this amazing being, but that he also is capable of such anthropomorphic things as anger and jealousy and a definable gender, has made a special relationship with a small desert tribe on a tiny rock in the suburbs of a nondescript galaxy among billions, and as part of this relationship has demanded that they burn meat for him and cut off their foreskins. Ask the self identified agnostic if they really don't have an opinion about this possibility for the grand order of the universe and they will reveal themselves as atheists as you describe.

Doesn't matter what they reveal, the fact is they are atheist because this is what the word means, not because they reply a certain way.

Conservative theologians really do make these teapot-in-the-sky sorts of literal claims.

In the context of liberal theology it gets much more muddled. The idea of a "God" really isn't all that well defined, in the sense of what properties a 'Supreme Being' actually has, or what it even means for such a 'being' to 'exist'. A liberal christian will say such things as 'Heaven is a state of being' and 'God is love', and if pressed for details may describe god as an abstract force, spirit of the universe, ideal, or even just a mystery. There is no concrete claim of anything that one can prove or disprove. The way I see it, they are actually reciting poetry about love, not staking any theological claims.

I may agree, but it's immaterial. Arguing a point with someone who will continually change the definitions of the terms is pointless. They lose by default. We can go with the standard model of god, or we can have an amorphous un-defined thing that ultimately renders their own argument moot. Either way, I win.

Instead of the statement "There is a tiny teapot orbiting the sun" we have some statement that is more equivalent to "How wondrous it is that the Earth orbits the Sun!". How does one know or not know if that is true?

Well, again, now we've ventured off course from a defined statement, which is what religion or theism is, into a subjective opinion statement that would be a pointless debate. While I agree, as I have experience, that theists will continually use these tactics to avoid admitting that 1) there is no god and 2) if they were honest they'd admit that they already know this... Again, irrelevant to the claims of theism.

People haven't needed an angry teapot to fear for a long time. But they do need love and compassion, and they need communities, songs, and stories to help them endeavor to love one another. I think people like Jesus and Siddhartha realized this, but framed their revelations in the theological framework of the time.

I like to use the term agnostic, as problematic as the term may be, as a designation that I simply don't think that the existence of the teapot really matters in the first place. Furthermore, it gives the connotation that I fundamentally don't understand what the actual working structure of the universe is, which is factually correct, since there is no unifying theory of quantum gravity, dark matter does not fit into the standard model of particle physics, and so on...

[/quote]
Well, here's where we probably differ fundamentally. I think delusions that convince people to commit the most heinous acts imaginable *do* matter. Admitting one doesn't know all the answers to every function of the universe is simply honest, real, scientific, factual, right, etc. It doesn't fundamentally change the meaning of the words we're using here. People are afraid of the term atheist because of (right or wrong) their imagined ideas of what atheism is, so they use the kinder, gentler term agnostic instead. The problematic part is that they are simply using the words wrongly.

"Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings." ~Richard Dawkins

[JStep]

If you want to go all literal and shit, atheism simply means living without God. You can take that to any degree you wish, even add it to an agnostic cocktail.

Oh, and death to the Temple.

Hmmm, no. Atheism means non-belief in a god or gods. This is the very problem with the terms atheist and agnostic; people want to misuse the words to protect their standing in society or family but they are doing a disservice to themselves and the greater world to continue believing in these incorrect definitions and using them as such.

[Bob]

With all due respect, your dic is severely abridged. Atheism was coined half a millennium ago by religious authorities to describe godlessness or ungodliness, and later to describe *disbelief*, rather than the more specific belief that God does not exist. Only recently has its usage become as doctrinaire as you assume, but it still doesn't preclude simply not caring about the question of God.

[theCryptofishist]

[(... I don't collect stamps, but I'm not an astampcollectorist.)

You're an aphilatelist.

[Elderberry]

[(... I don't collect stamps, but I'm not an astampcollectorist.)

You're an aphilatelist.

LOL

[thisisthatwhichis]

Agnosticism in no way states an equivalence of merit between the position that something for which there is no evidence still exists despite all evidence and logical thought vs the position that the world is rationally explained by the evidence we have without need to create the existence of something that we have no evidence for to answer questions we have that we simply haven't discovered the answer to yet. (How's that for a run-on sentence!)

I vote we put this as a *sticky* in the First Class Gibberish thread.........

That was fantastic, Jstep!!!!.....

[wh..sh]

Ok, that IS it! I want whatever JStep is smoking

[Ugly Dougly]

Then, it seems that some atheists are calling themselves agnostics just to avoid getting in arguments. Dad gummit.

edit: How the fuck can anyone be sure? You got a xerox of God's photo ID or something?

[wh..sh]

[(... I don't collect stamps, but I'm not an astampcollectorist.)

You're an aphilatelist.

fishy... you brilliant one

[Zhust]

Acutally, the final stage in hinduism is to understand that there is no god except within ourselves.

If God falls in the forest but there are no conscious beings to acknowledge God's existence, does God really exist?

[theCryptofishist]

Acutally, the final stage in hinduism is to understand that there is no god except within ourselves.

If God falls in the forest but there are no conscious beings to acknowledge God's existence, does God really exist?

It depends what the word "forest" means.

[TomServo]

my favorite entry in the devil's dictionary..FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

[Ugly Dougly]

Another definition I heard was faith is the opposite of fear.

[theCryptofishist]

That could make is synonamous with drunkeness...

[TomServo]

Another definition I heard was faith is the opposite of fear.

RELIGION, n.
A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
"What is your religion my son?" inquired the Archbishop of Rheims.

"Pardon, monseigneur," replied Rochebriant; "I am ashamed of it."

"Then why do you not become an atheist?"

"Impossible! I should be ashamed of atheism."

"In that case, monsieur, you should join the Protestants."