Agnosticism - bit of a cop-out?

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I didn't mean you, I meant agnostics in general, me in particular ...
Would "agnostic" fit the description of what you have described?
I mean, the phrase "God only knows" could mean that nobody knows, yet it seems to imply that whatever it is that is under discussion is at least knowable, at least the speaker of the phrase seems to think so, since she ...[text shortened]... nostic about god, we are on somewhat shaky ground ...
Ah, confused again.
Merry New Year!

To make things easier, I'll call those people who believe that God only knows what people who believe we cannot determine whether "God exists" has meaning would be called, dottewells. If dottewells mean "God only knows" literally, they can't be agnostic. If dottewells use "God only knows" as a saying without actually believing there is a God, it cannot be determined whether they are agnostic about the existence of God. However, they are definitely not agnostic about who knows what people who believe we cannot etc. etc. would be called (literalist dottewells believe only God knows, non-literalist dottewells believe nobody knows). Someone who is agnostic about this as well as about the existence of God might say something like this, I guess: "If there is a God, he might or might not be the only one who knows what people who believe we cannot determine whether 'God exists' has meaning would be called."

Confused?

As for agnostics and confusion in general, I doubt agnostics are more confused than other people. Some people might confuse agnosticism with confusion, though.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Someone who is agnostic about this as well as about the existence of God might say something like this, I guess: "If there is a God, he might or might not be the only one who knows what people who believe we cannot determine whether 'God exists' has meaning would be called."

Yeah. We hate those people.

Originally posted by dottewell
Yeah. We hate those people.

Are they called dottebadlies? Or dotteunwells?

Originally posted by Nordlys
Are they called dottebadlies? Or dotteunwells?

We don't actually call them anything. We just beat them with special sticks.

Originally posted by stocken
Freaky? Are you making a theistical cop-out, here? How fascinating. Do continue... :

A cop-out? Unless the term is being used in a way I am not associating, no. Instead, I am using the agnostic's argument against the agnostic.
While it is true that most Christians hold to their faith with religious fervor, sans even superficial examination, many agnostics (and I purposefully ignore so-called atheists for their abject disingenuosity), reject said faith on the basis of its adherents' superficiality. 'Many' is used with reference toward agnostics, as some simply appropriate the designation, owing to its supposed air of astuteness. The remainder, those who have painstakingly studied historical trends, history itself, and all attendant fields, and yet cling to the meaningless label, are steadfastly obstinate.
For those in the first group, my 'cop-out' is to be applied.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Amazing the lengths to which the mind will go, to support the unsupportable. It will devise shadows, conclude foundations, invent conspiracies, imagine fragments, all to bolster its untenable suppositions. Almost religious-like, wouldn't you say?

Humility prevents me from responding properly to the absurd misrepresentations that you so eloquently inveigh in that post.
Suffice to say, I object to the heretics that think there's an orthodoxy in Christianity and that they are following it ,when in fact they are following Paul , not Christ. It's too bad that Christianity got all screwed-up by followers of the three stooge makers, that I mentioned before, 'tis a pity, that you and others have reified Paul into Christ and the book into your God.
Free your mind and actually read the book, but first toss away your prejudices, since they prevent you from seeing.

Originally posted by Nordlys
To make things easier, I'll call those people who believe that God only knows what people who believe we cannot determine whether "God exists" has meaning would be called, dottewells. If dottewells mean "God only knows" literally, they can't be agnostic. If dottewells use "God only knows" as a saying without actually believing there is a God, it cannot be de ...[text shortened]... sed than other people. Some people might confuse agnosticism with confusion, though.

The jury is still out.
Or, the state is undetermined on this, for some people.
"God only knows" could mean it is beyond human understanding, in which case the existence of God wouldn't matter one way or the other.

Originally posted by frogstomp

I object to the heretics that think there's an orthodoxy in Christianity and that they are following it
Well, I suppose if one is to inveigh misrepresentations, one may as well do so eloquently. Thanks, I think.
I must assume, therefore, that you are of the mindset that there was a replacement-apostle conspiracy?
And, sans Paul (can't seem to find any books in the Bible written by either of the other two, sorry for the slight), are you equally of the mindset that the Gospels are all that are required to live the Christian life?

Originally posted by no1marauder
As an agnostic, though a shaky one, I would say my belief in the possibility of a "Christian" God i.e. the one discussed in the Bible is near zero. As someone who sees order in the universe and who believes that, on the basis of what we know about the physical laws of the universe, that the possibility of them being so aligned as to make life possible is ...[text shortened]... of a Creator. That is absent some evidence of alternative universes or "Meta" physical laws.

I agree on the most part. I had a drunken conversation with my housemate some years ago about this stance and we came to the conclusion that the idea of Creators isn't quite such a massive pill to swallow. That said, you always have to ask the question how did they come into being, which brings you right back to the start again.

Whether you believe in God on not, you have to accept that at some point, life (whether it is our lives, or our Gods life) sprang into being spontaniously. It seems more than unlikely that anything springing into existence would be so perfect that it would be capable of creating the complexity that we see in our Universe. We are the way we are because the World has thrown challenges at us that we've either passed or failed. In order for such a being to evolve it would have taken Billions and billions of years. Maybe 100 billion more lifetimes than we have experienced on Earth. All the while this being exists somewhere (where would that be?). If you accept that a God can come into being out of nothing, why can't you accept that life itself came into being out of nothing?

With this reasoning i choose not to include this 'being' in my mussing over the staggeringly inprobable place we find ourselves in. If Evolutionary theory seems improbable, then a super 'being' being the first thing to ever exist is just completely impossible! Pure and simple.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A cop-out? Unless the term is being used in a way I am not associating, no. Instead, I am using the agnostic's argument against the agnostic.
While it is true that most Christians hold to their faith with religious fervor, sans even superficial examination, many agnostics (and I purposefully ignore so-called atheists for their abject disingenuosity), r ...[text shortened]... , are steadfastly obstinate.
For those in the first group, my 'cop-out' is to be applied.

Oh no, I think you're confused. It is not agnostics clinging to a meaningless label. It is some theists and atheists.

What you should ask yourself is this. Am I a theist/atheist because I believe or because I know what I'm talking about?

If you call yourself a theist because you "know" there is a God, then I will outright call you a liar. Why? Because you cannot possibly know this. It's impossible to know for sure there is a God. What you perceive as God can be anything really ("shadows on the wall playing you a trick", kind of thing).

If you call yourself an atheist because you "know" there is no God, then that's the same problem. We cannot possibly know one way or the other. We can only believe one or the other.

That's the argument agnostics use to show that any discussion on the matter can't be anything but amusing philosophical pondering. The one who says otherwise, clearly don't get it.

I responded to your post where you claimed that some men cling to fantasies (in short) and then you made the astonishing likeness with religion, per se. That fascinated me. You clearly get the fact that religion is usually upheld by make-believe and not facts. I take it you are a theist in the sense you don't know there is a God, but believe there is a God (which should be the proper meaning of the word, yes?). If you only believe there is a God, you are in fact supporting the agnostic argument, and if being agnostic is a sort of cop-out, then you just made one (from a theist point of view, of course).

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're being ridiculous and closed minded which are certainly not traits associated with science. Are the physical laws of the universe "speculation"? Isn't the undenialable fact that the various basic forces of the universe are bounded in narrow confines that make life possible at least some evidence that the universe was "designed" in some way to be life-friendly (absent any evidence of alternative universes or META laws?)?

It is speculation to associate them with theology. Actually, your reasoning is reminiscent of ID defenders.

Calling me ridiculous and close-minded works for you?

Originally posted by stocken
If you only believe there is a God, you are in fact supporting the agnostic argument, and if being agnostic is a sort of cop-out, then you just made one (from a theist point of view, of course).

That is incorrect. if he believes there is a God he is a theist, not an agnostic. 100% certainty is not a pre-requisite for being either atheist or theist.

Originally posted by Palynka
That is incorrect. if he believes there is a God he is a theist, not an agnostic. 100% certainty is not a pre-requisite for being either atheist or theist.

In that case, he is saying he doesn't know. And if you say you don't know, you're an agnostic by definition. The agnostic seem to be more realistic. Since I don't know, I couldn't say wether there is or there isn't a god or gods. I just don't know.

Like I said. To believe is another matter entirely. So to clearly define the terms:

An atheist believes that there are no such thing as a god or gods
A theist believes that there is a god or gods
An agnostic simply says he cannot know whether there is gods or not

Therefore, an agnostic is not somewhere in between atheist or theist. It's an entirely different thing. The agnostic can choose to believe in God or not. (S)he just recognizes the fact that it's impossible to know for sure whether or not there is a God.

Originally posted by stocken
An atheist believes that there are no such thing as a god or gods
A theist believes that there is a god or gods
An agnostic simply says he cannot know whether there is gods or not

What about a gnostic?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What about a gnostic?

That's what we call the sticks we use to beat those idiots Nordlys was talking about.