Do Agnostics Tend To Be Perceivers?

[Blackmail!]

huh, maybe if i knew about that earlier i wouldn't be craving pizza...

Well... Georg Christoph Lichtenberg was German. So you should be happy not to crave about Sauerkraut and Spätzle instead...

By the way, but I think you already guessed it, but I'm an atheist as well.

It doesn't mean I "believe" that God doesn't exist. Or else, the lack of sugar in coffee would be a taste (a "belief" in that case), if you see what I mean. Or in logical/mathematical terms: Non-A is not equivalent to A.
And as subjective as this rant would seem to be, but I tend to think that ramblings about Agnosticism are just hypocrisy, or that true Agnosticism is very rare.

-----

Now, I'm not certain if Atheism or Agnosticism is related to J/P preference. That's why I asked first to make a serious poll, and see the pattern (if any).
(Scientific method, you know...)

 

[/DG/]

And as subjective as this rant would seem to be, but I tend to think that ramblings about Agnosticism are just hypocrisy, or that true Agnosticism is very rare.

On this subject...I think true agnosticism is very real and very common. It's just that it's often a transitional state.

 

[Kayness]

I hear this tired explanation every time someone dares to use the word "agnostic." Agnostic is also used colloquially as a state of being neither a theist nor an atheist. Some argue that this is just implicit atheism (as in a newborn baby). It can be, but I'd argue that this is not always so. It's similar to apatheism (someone who just doesn't care), but not quite. Someone who considers himself or herself an agnostic likely has given much thought on the issue, but feels he or she does not have enough information to take a stance on the issue. Consider the issue of the death penalty. You hear both sides of the argument, but can't decide whether you're for or against the death penalty. You are "agnostic" (note the quotes) in this situation.

I agree it is not the best word to describe the situation, but there is a reason people use it this way.


Funny enough, this tends to be the conclusion we arrive in many of these threads asking if X type is more likely to do Y.

You have an different understanding of what atheism is. To me, atheism can be divided into 'soft' atheism and 'hard' atheism, which I know quite a simplification. 'Soft' atheism is a disbelief that god exists, which can be arrived from a view that the existence of deity is unknowable...but unlikely, versus 'hard' atheism is a belief that god doesn't exist. I would say that the former is an agnostic atheist and the latter is not. I don't see how this can be construed as 'undecided'. The difference between a baby being agnostic an adult being agnostic is that a baby doesn't have the capacity to give the issue a thought and follow that to a conclusion, so it's as much an argument as saying that rocks are agnostic :/. I don't think the debate on the issue of death penalty is a good comparison because everything you need to know in order to make an informed decision on where to stand on the issue is a lot more comprehensible than the issue of the existence of god. I wouldn't say what I did if I hadn't given it a reasonable amount of thought and came to the conclusion that I did it makes sense as far as my ability to deduce allows me to.

 

[Blackmail!]

On this subject...I think true agnosticism is very real and very common. It's just that it's often a transitional state.

It's just that I've almost never witnessed this so-called "transitional state" for real in my entire life. But believers or politically correct thinkers often prefer to imagine Agnosticism is rather common. Guess why!

 

[/DG/]

You have an different understanding of what atheism is. To me, atheism can be divided into 'soft' atheism and 'hard' atheism, which I know quite a simplification. 'Soft' atheism is a disbelief that god exists, which can be arrived from a view that the existence of deity is unknowable...but unlikely, versus 'hard' atheism is a belief that god doesn't exist. I would say that the former is an agnostic atheist and the latter is not. I don't see how this can be construed as 'undecided'. The difference between a baby being agnostic an adult being agnostic is that a baby doesn't have the capacity to give the issue a thought and follow that to a conclusion, so it's as much an argument as saying that rocks are agnostic :/. I don't think the debate on the issue of death penalty is a good comparison because everything you need to know in order to make an informed decision on where to stand on the issue is a lot more comprehensible than the issue of the existence of god. I wouldn't say what I did if I hadn't given it a reasonable amount of thought and came to the conclusion that I did it makes sense as far as my ability to deduce allows me to.

I will try to explain what I am trying to say, but bear with me. I am not the best at this. Please let me know if I need to clarify or if I have misinterpreted. There are a lot of silly words for us to go through.

I acknowledge the difference between your "soft" and "hard" atheism. To me, your descriptions of these sound like agnostic atheism (soft) and gnostic atheism (hard). Agnostic atheism says there is probably no god, but we don't know for sure. Gnostic atheism states that there definitely is no god, and we know for sure. My baby example is not meant to show that these beliefs require a certain level of cognition. Rather, think of a person who grows up not knowing the concept of a god. Or you can even think of someone today who has never been religious or spiritual. They may never even think about the concept of god, but they do not actively believe in one. This is implicit atheism because these people do not actively state or even think that they do not believe in a god. In contrast, people who you see on the Internet that actively talk about their atheism are explicit atheists. They have given thought to the matter and can take an active position on the matter. (People who express explicit atheism can either be agnostic or gnostic.) There is a bit of a debate on whether or not a person who defines as "agnostic" can actually have a truly neutral stance or if they are actually just implicit atheists. IMO, there can be a truly neutral state. The difference between implicit atheism and "true agnosticism" is that implicit atheism requires no thought on the matter while "true agnosticism" does.

If you are unsatisfied with my death penalty example, I will attempt to create another example.

Let's pretend there is a plot of land somewhere. Bob and Joe begin talking about the plot of land, but they have never seen it. Bob believes there to be a house on the plot. He shows Joe some papers he has found of blueprints for a house on that very plot of land. Joe looks at Bob's blueprint, but he disagrees. The blueprint is quite old--it's possible that the house may have never been built, the house might have been knocked down by now, or it may even be misinterpreted to be for a different plot. Bob is the "theist"--he believes the house exist. Joe is the "atheist"--he does not believe the house exist. Now along comes Fred. Fred listens to both Bob and Joe's arguments, but he cannot decide who is right. You could technically call him an implicit atheist, but I would argue that because he has put thought into the matter without being able to reach a conclusion, he is actually simply "agnostic."

As you see, the concept is much simpler here. Is there a house? Yes or no.

Dawkins also seems to believe there is a truly neutral position, but I do not know what he calls it. There is only a short Wikipedia article on it, unfortunately. I wish there were more.

It's just that I've almost never witnessed this so-called "transitional state" for real in my entire life. But believers or politically correct thinkers often prefer to imagine Agnosticism is rather common. Guess why!

I am an atheist and have been for some time now. This doesn't mean that there wasn't a time in my life where I truly had no idea what I thought of either side. From my experience with teh Internets, this is a fairly common, yet often short lived state.

 

[Rail Tracer]

I hear this tired explanation every time someone dares to use the word "agnostic." Agnostic is also used colloquially as a state of being neither a theist nor an atheist. Some argue that this is just implicit atheism (as in a newborn baby). It can be, but I'd argue that this is not always so. It's similar to apatheism (someone who just doesn't care), but not quite. Someone who considers himself or herself an agnostic likely has given much thought on the issue, but feels he or she does not have enough information to take a stance on the issue. Consider the issue of the death penalty. You hear both sides of the argument, but can't decide whether you're for or against the death penalty. You are "agnostic" (note the quotes) in this situation.

I agree it is not the best word to describe the situation, but there is a reason people use it this way.

Unfortunately, I'm not colloquial in speech when it comes to agnosticism. I am also not colloquial in speech when it comes to atheism and theism which are both a belief system of/pertaining a deity or lack of one.

So, God doesn't exist? (does not need to be by the book.) Prove it.

Ohh? God does exist? Prove it.

You are the accuser and the accused. I am the jury who sits by while you fight about who is right without absolute knowledge of god.

Not colloquially, being unsure of the death penalty is morality, not agnosticism.

 

[/DG/]

Unfortunately, I'm not colloquial in speech when it comes to agnosticism. I am also not colloquial in speech when it comes to atheism and theism which are both a belief system of/pertaining a deity or lack of one.

So, God doesn't exist? (does not need to be by the book.) Prove it.

Ohh? God does exist? Prove it.

You are the accuser and the accused. I am the jury who sits by while you fight about who is right without absolute knowledge of god.

Sorry, I am confused as to what you are arguing. Can you clarify your position? Do you consider yourself "agnostic?"

 

[Rail Tracer]

Sorry, I am confused as to what you are arguing. Can you clarify your position? Do you consider yourself "agnostic?"

LOL, I went to a conclusion and thought you said it was between atheism and theism. Nevermind, continue.

Still your idea of being unsure about the death penalty being agnostic is a wrong assumption. As it is also colloquially seen that being unsure about the the death penalty isn't even agnosticism, it is just being unsure of the death penalty.

If it isn't pertaining to the knowledge of a god, a deity, or a type of spirituality, it isn't agnosticism.

 

[/DG/]

LOL, I went to a conclusion and thought you said it was between atheism and theism. Nevermind, continue.

My God I am terrible at online conversations. I don't know what is happening.

I am arguing that the juror can consider himself "agnostic" because he is in an impartial condition. One might prefer the term "apatheist" in this case if he just doesn't give a rat's behind.

Still your idea of being unsure about the death penalty being agnostic is a wrong assumption. As it is also colloquially seen that being unsure about the the death penalty isn't even agnosticism, it is just being unsure of the death penalty.

Right. But we don't really have a word for being "unsure." I suppose you could just use the word "unsure," but people like to have an actual name for things. Thus the term "agnostic" is often colloquially used as this unsure, neutral ground.

 

[The Ü™]

Agnostic.

 

[Blackmail!]

So, God doesn't exist? (does not need to be by the book.) Prove it.

You can't prove the non existence of something. But you can prove if something truly exists. That's why I wrote that "non-A is not equivalent to A", according to mathematics. The absence of a phenomena is not related to its hypothetical presence.

The absence of sugar in coffee is not a taste.

 

[Society]

So, God doesn't exist? (does not need to be by the book.) Prove it.

prove to me that the tooth fairy doesn't exist - on the planet Toothia, in the pixiedust dimension.

Ohh? God does exist? Prove it.

why? every reason to think he doesn't just provoke further the need to have faith to believe that he does, which is clearly his plan.

 

[Rail Tracer]

You can't prove the non existence of something. But you can prove if something exists or not. That's why I wrote that "non-A is not equivalent to A", according to mathematics. The absence of a phenomena is not related to its hypothetical presence.

The absence of sugar in coffee is not a taste.

What was that saying? A theory is only the most probable evidence we have until proven false? It isn't definitive, but only likely.

What is this "non existence" you are talking about. You can't prove the non-existence of something if you haven't met it, especially if it is something that could of made the universe. *cough* the many theories being spun around about the creation of the universe. *cough*

It is like saying the earth is flat only until later that you find that it is spherical (even this definition is incorrect) as it is more of an oblong like shape.

 

[Rail Tracer]

prove to me that the tooth fairy doesn't exist - on the planet Toothia, in the pixiedust dimension.



why? every reason to think he doesn't just provoke further the need to have faith to believe that he does, which is clearly his plan.

I'm the one asking the question here, as I am an agnostic seeking knowledge.

You, however, believe that you have the knowledge.

The evidence rest in your hands, not mines. It is your idea to prove that the tooth fairy on the planet Toothia in the pixeldust dimension doesn't exist. YOU are the one exerting the assumption here. As many scientists learn, they learn to prove their theory and bring it to everyone else in the scientific community to follow. I wouldn't suggest you go proving it in a scientific way, however.

Ohh, and by the way, have you heard of the many theories being made about multi-dimensions - fascinating.

 

[Society]

I'm the one asking the question here, as I am an agnostic seeking knowledge.

You, however, believe that you have the knowledge..

hrm? i answered that a few posts ago. do you need me to go into the distinction between tea pot agnostic and atheist?

 

[Mole]

the term "agnostic" is often colloquially used as this unsure, neutral ground.

I would have thought 'agnostic' means not knowing, not knowing whether deities exist or not knowing whether deities don't exist.

Commonly it is said, we can't prove a particular god exists and we can't prove a particular god doesn't exist.

And this is quite separate from the probability of particular god's existence.

So we can't prove that Poseidon, the god of the sea, does or doesn't exist, but most of us think the existence of Poseidon is improbable, and the same probability exists for all the other gods

 

[Mole]

Agnosticism and Imagination

I think it is very important to emphasise that agnosticism allows us to suspend our disbelief in gods, art and movies.

The suspension of disbelief is known as imagination. And our very culture is based on imagination.

So agnosticism and imagination are great mates.

 

[Rail Tracer]

hrm? i answered that a few posts ago. do you need me to go into the distinction between tea pot agnostic and atheist?

Does not prove a thing. As a teapot is different from a god.

As an orbiting teapot from out of space can be extracted, a god (in this case, a Christian god) cannot be extracted easily. You are trying to equate something that is purely physical to something that could be physical as much as non-physical. That analogy falls flat.

There are things that are quantifiable, yes, the age of earth. What is still left to debate is how the universe is created, and a theory is still a theory on how it was created.

 

[/DG/]

I would have thought 'agnostic' means not knowing, not knowing whether deities exist or not knowing whether deities don't exist.

Commonly it is said, we can't prove a particular god exists and we can't prove a particular god doesn't exist.

Right.

And this is quite separate from the probability of particular god's existence.

Thing is, some people use the word "agnostic" (incorrectly) to define this middle position of probability. Some take issue with this as it is not using the word the correct way. However, I don't see anything wrong with it. Words can change meaning over time. The word "gay" used to simply mean "happy," but it now mainly means "homosexual." Just let people use the words the way they do or come up with a one we can all agree on.

So we can't prove that Poseidon, the god of the sea, does or doesn't exist, but most of us think the existence of Poseidon is improbable, and the same probability exists for all the other gods

And thus we make the jump to atheism. I agree with this logic, but the question was not really directed at me. I don't think agnosticism is related to perceiving types, but I could see why one would think that.

 

[Society]

Does not prove a thing. As a teapot is different from a god.

As an orbiting teapot from out of space can be extracted, a god (in this case, a Christian god) cannot be extracted easily. You are trying to equate something that is purely physical to something that could be physical as much as non-physical. That analogy falls flat.

There are things that are quantifiable, yes, the age of earth. What is still left to debate is how the universe is created, and a theory is still a theory on how it was created.

3rd time? ok...
...go on reading...
...there's more there...