Agnosticism Is A Way To Stay On The Fence, Until It Falls

originally posted by: introvert
To me, agnosticism is the most honest position because it relies on the individual coming to terms with the fact they simply do not know the truth.

This is about as spot-on as it can get--in my experience, it's often times much harder to say, "I don't know," than to take a stance and adhere to it and defend it from that point on. Too many things in life, and in science, change as time flies past, so being open to that change tends to lead one toward indecision (agnosticism) on many topics.

As far as the god debate, though, I can only take what is known and base a decision off of that, and as said time continues to fly past us, the older the religious doctrines and writings get, the more they just don't make sense to me.

originally posted by: introvert

To me, agnosticism is the most honest position because it relies on the individual coming to terms with the fact they simply do not know the truth.

What about people who do know?

You won't accept the personal experiences of others as evidence, but for those who have had such an experience the truth is indisputable.

To deny the existence of God would be, to such individuals, telling a lie.

Let me guess: they're insane, delusional, etc., right?

What evidence is there of that?

Can you prove your statements? I believe Kant said you can't.

It is much more honest and truthful to say "I don't know" instead of believing that you "know".

a reply to: deloprator20000

Just because you can't prove something happened doesn't mean it didn't happen.

a reply to: NthOther

...And because you believe something is true, but you can't prove it is true, doesn't make it true...

...This is like kindergarten...

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

I'm talking about knowledge, not belief.

I know I took a different route home from work last night. I can't prove it to anyone though.

Does that mean it didn't happen?

Good discussion. I am reminded of the old saying "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."

Very appropriate in today's political situation.

originally posted by: introvert
To me, agnosticism is the most honest position because it relies on the individual coming to terms with the fact they simply do not know the truth.

Is there a god? I don't know.

Is there not a god? I don't know.

Anyone that says there is or is not a god is only telling you what they believe, without knowing the complete truth.

You are doing a good job of misrepresenting Socrates' "All that I know is that I know nothing" argument. Admitting that "I cannot truly know anything with certainty" is not the same as using the argument "if I cannot know something, this is enough reason not to discuss what I already admitted I cannot know."

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well said.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: introvert

To me, agnosticism is the most honest position because it relies on the individual coming to terms with the fact they simply do not know the truth.

What about people who do know?

You won't accept the personal experiences of others as evidence, but for those who have had such an experience the truth is indisputable.

To deny the existence of God would be, to such individuals, telling a lie.

Let me guess: they're insane, delusional, etc., right?

What evidence is there of that?

I do not know why you are taking such a defensive and snarky tone. I've not said anyone is delusional or insane.

While people cannot persuade me based on their own personal experiences, I think we should still respect their beliefs and opinions. I'm agnostic. Not a militant atheist or outspoken believer. So I have no desire to persuade anyone to believe something different than what they already believe.

I expect the same in return.

a reply to: introvert

Fair enough. My apologies.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: introvert
To me, agnosticism is the most honest position because it relies on the individual coming to terms with the fact they simply do not know the truth.

Is there a god? I don't know.

Is there not a god? I don't know.

Anyone that says there is or is not a god is only telling you what they believe, without knowing the complete truth.

You are doing a good job of misrepresenting Socrates' "All that I know is that I know nothing" argument. Admitting that "I cannot truly know anything with certainty" is not the same as using the argument "if I cannot know something, this is enough reason not to discuss what I already admitted I cannot know."

I've not misrepresented anything, as I only gave you my personal opinion.

Agnosticism, in my opinion, is not the same as sitting the fence. To me, agnosticism is saying to one's self "I don't know. I don't care." There is no fence to have to sit upon because I/we are not waiting to figure out which side of the fence we want to fall towards.

a reply to: NthOther

Your arguments are weak.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Then refute them.

a reply to: NthOther

To refute anything in this place is really quite pointless.

Go argue with someone else.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

I'm talking about knowledge, not belief.

I know I took a different route home from work last night. I can't prove it to anyone though.

Does that mean it didn't happen?

If nobody including you ever observed an alternate route then it doesn't exist. The concept of existence requires observation.

Without observers reality does not exist. Reality is another concept which requires observation.

Reality without observation has no relevance to conscious observers.

Enter the necessary being or first cause argument.

A modern take may be once you take the alternate route the probability waveform collapses and brings the road into existence with observation.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

So you got nothing, then.

What a shock.

originally posted by: luthier

If nobody including you...

I didn't say that. I did observe it. I was the one who did it.

I'm not going back and forth with people here, as there is no point to it.

But people must understand that they think the way they are conditioned to think by others.

There is no original thought until one gets past the fact that they think no original thoughts that are not influenced by those who taught them how to think.

The student is supposed to surpass the teacher in the skills the teacher taught them.

Unfortunately, learning to think is way more complicated than learning, say, trigonometry.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

What about experience?

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Learning to think is very difficult. Reading and comprehending already argued subjects is even exhausing when you truly try and comprehend.

It took me months to read folks like Kant's moral philosophies and every year of my life comprehend more of what the meaning and it's relevance is.