How can people unironically call themselves agnostic and pretend this to be a third position apart from theism and atheism?
The question "Do you believe in god?" is a question of yes or no. From a philosophical point of view you must know with certainty whether or not you believe. Sure your beliefs can change over time, but at any fixed time you are in one of two possible states of belief: either you do believe or you don't. So purely logically there is no such thing as an agnostic.
What if you just don't care and never really thought about it?
>from a philosophical point of view you must know whether or not you believe
Prove it.
>there is no such thing as agnostic
So how are we discussing it?
>>929639
Then the answer is no, you don't believe in god. Unless you do.
>>929639
As soon as you perceive the question being asked, your focus is shifted to the issue. You are being made aware of it, and inevitably your brain forces you into a state of belief or non-belief.
Maybe different peoples' minds work differently. Not everyone has autism you know.
>>929629
Ignosticism is the position that "Do you believe in God" doesn't mean anything, it's nonsense and as meaningful as asking "Do you like the taste of Tuesday?".
>>929639
>What if you just don't care and never really thought about it?
Then you're a fucking mong that doesn't even possess the introspection of a stoned 15 year old yolo/swagfag.
>>929677
That's not a thing.
>there is no such thing as agnostic
Agnostic theist: I believe there is a god but I'm not 100% certain
Agnostic atheist: I do not believe there is a god but I'm not 100% certain
>>929629
The answer is "I don't know."
It's because people don't understand what agnosticism actually means. It describes the belief that it is impossible to know with certainty whether or not god exists. Agnosticism or its opposite are completely compatible with atheism or theism.
Agnostic atheist= you cannot know that god does or doesn't exist and I believe that he doesnt.
Agnostic theism= you cannot know that god does or doesn't exist and I believe that he does.
You get the idea. One is a position of belief in god, the other is a position of belief in knowledge of certainty in God's existence.
It's possible to be ambivalent about whether or not you believe something. Think about instances where someone was possibly lying to you or told you a story that sounded fishy, or incredible. A lot of people, when confronted with such a scenario, will legitimately become confused or unsure about whether or not they believe it. And just because this never happened to you does not mean you can just go ahead and say it is impossible, as everyone's mind is wired differently.
>>929677
Then you're an atheist but only too edgy and pseudo-intellectual to admit it.
>>929688
Uncertainty doesn't changes the fact that you either do or don't believe.
>>929689
That's not an answer.
>>929629
>So purely logically there is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
>from a philosophical point of view you must know whether or not you believe
In what?
Karen Armstrong has reduced God to a 'God' is "merely a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence", a subjective subconscious feeling, and it is not entirely inconceivable that one may not know if he believes in this thing - a thing that atheist critics of her say that SHE IS SAYING it does not exist, and less liberal Christian agree that she's an atheist.
As for me, I'm a post-theist because all the goalpost moving and revisions of the definition of God have made a pointless discussion even more pointless somehow, and on top of that it's the new atheists and scientific divulgators saying things like: "We're made of star stuff!", and: "We're all connected", so I can't tell who the mystic priests are anymore.
>When Zilu asked him how a junzi should minister to the gods, he replied: “Till you have learned to serve men, how can you serve spirits?” And when Zilu persisted, and asked what the life of the ancestors was actually like, Confucius replied again: “Till you know about the living, how are you to know about the dead?”
>“I would much rather not have to talk,” he once complained. Zigong was distressed. “If our Master did not talk,” he objected, “how can we little ones teach others about him?” “Heaven does not speak,” Confucius replied, “yet the four seasons run their course by the command of Heaven, the hundred creatures, each after its own kind, are born thereby. Heaven does no speaking!”
>>929836
It certainly is a question though. Pretending to be retarded doesn't change this.
>>929824
Perhaps "Karen Armstrong" should have left philosophy to men and pursued a career that isn't just buzzword spouting?
>>929629
Is 3248239047023358701750795017560276207602763 a prime number?
>>929629
>From a philosophical point of view you must know with certainty whether or not you believe.
This is autism.
>>929904
No, it's divisible by 3.
I'm agnostic in the sense that I do not yet have an answer to "does God exist" but I'm working on it. I don't really have the intention to stay agnostic, it's an in between position
>>929629
>strong claims
>no well-reasoned prose to support your position
shoo shoo
>>929872
Buzzword is a fucking buzzword at this point. Fuck off you pillock
> The question "Do you believe in god?" is a question of yes or no.
Do you believe in riemann hypothesis is true? Most people doesn't even know what believing in it or believing that it isn't right means. They are agnostic in this case. But you can be agnostics from more complex point of view and say that we will never know should we believe in it or not. That is a legit position.
i don't care
>>930286
Not OP, but he's right.
"I don't know" is not an answer to the question whether you "believe" or not, since the question didn't ask you about knowledge but about belief.
>>930517
Being "agnostic" is not a matter of belief it's a matter of knowledge. You are agnostic towards the Riemann hypothesis in regards to you not knowing whether it's true or not. Whether you "believe" that it's true is a different matter however.
Certainly you might say: "I haven't given it a thought yet and I don't consider it important." - which is not an answer to the question however but understandable since not being a mathematician it is unlikely that there are direct implications in regards to the verity of the hypothesis.
When it comes to religion however things are different since the scripture says that the Christian god will torture you in hell for all eternity if you're unlucky. Given how long of a timespan eternity is, it's only reasonable to assume that everyone should consider the likelihood of the Christian god's existence and decide whether one believes in it or not. And if the prospect of an eternity of torture does not scare you enough to convert right away, then I'd say you're very likely to be an Atheist whether you admit to it or not.
>>929629
So if I just came up to you and said "DO YOU BELIEVE DONALD IS AN ATHLETE? YES OR NO?" Your first response wouldn't be "I don't fuckin' know"? Granted, that position would be a bit different from agnosticism, since that has to do with what you know, not what you're inclined to believe. But yes, you can absolutely be uncertain regarding beliefs.
When people say they're "agnostic" they usually mean they just haven't chosen what to believe yet after hearing all the arguments, or they haven't even heard the arguments yet. You can be an agnostic theist or atheist.
>>929644
>its impossible to discuss things that don't exist
>>929629
I only know that I don't know if there's a God.
Apparently not caring about the answer is impossible. We have such binary minds we humans.
Let's be real.
When the old ones awaken and subjugate this world it won't matter if we are athiest or believers
>>931905
The faithful will get eaten first though.
>>929629
It's more of a case of believing in the possibility of the existance of god.
Honestly outright refuting or outright accepting both seem presumptuous to me. Then again religious debates in themselves always turn to semantics in my experience.
I'm just not a very religious person.
>>930599
It is an answer. Unawareness of whether or not one believes, usually stemming from conflicting information/beliefs.
If you prefer a better-worded answer, "I'm undecided" would work better. However most people are simplistic and don't think about the meanings behind the words they use too much, so they will just say "I don't know."
>>929629
When asked if they believe god exists, the agnostic replies "no". If asked if they believe god does not exist, the agnostic replies "no". This is perfectly logically consistent
I don't understand the problem you have with it. If you're asking someone "do you believe in god" you're asking for information from that person's perspective. If that person doesn't know the answer, they can't say "yes" and they can't say "no". Am I missing something here?
>>929629
>it's impossible to be uncertain
That's literally what you're saying.
>>932007
If the agnostic considers it even remotely likely that the Christian god exists he's better off practising religion since otherwise he'll burn in hell for all eternity since obviously to him this is a significant threat.
If the agnostic does not do that, then he obviously doesn't consider the possibility all too likely and he's for all means and purposes an atheist who wants to play special snowflake on the internet.
>>929629
agnostics are just atheists that want to feel superior to other atheists
>>932029
?
you're asking for somebodies belief, not the answer to life, the universe, and everything
who the fuck doesn't know whether they believe in god or not
>>932052
The indecisive.
>>929692
THIS
>>929858
Just because it looks like a question doesn't make it into one. Just answer me this; is the colour blue above 3 kilometres long?
>>929629
I don't like agnostics, it's half-stepping if you ask me.
But since when are you not allowed to say "i don't know". No matter the question. Even if the question is about you.
>>929629
It's because it's now "LE FEDORA!" to call yourself an atheist.
I'm an agnostic atheist, but I just call myself an agnostic when asked.
>>929629
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuvbUK2ZmKw
>>929644
Are you really saying that it's possible to not know whether or not you believe in something?
>>929689
So you don't believe then, you're an atheist.
>>931893
Belief is an active thing, you've either got or you don't there's no third position. If you don't believe in god you're an atheist, this isn't fucking complicated, you're reasoning for why you don't believe in god is irrelevant, you're still an atheist if only a provisional one.
>>932046
/thread
They're to atheists what vegans are to vegetarians.
>>929629
Agnosticism just says that we dont know enough about the universe to say if deities exist or dont, or that arguments for both positions are/arent equally convincing. Therefore being theist or atheist wouldnt be able to be justified rationally.
>wah wah muh floating teapot
God (if he exists ) isnt a being among beings, he is the source of all Being and Order in the universe. Not some strawman pasta monster
>>929629
>>929629
There's multiple types of agnosticism
You can believe, or not believe and still be agnostic
>>929629
>You can only have blind faith
Fuck off retard
>>932489
Yes
>>929677
>>929836
>>929858
>>932138
Now, I now different people have different takes on these positions but as I've always used and described ignoscticism is that it's way less of a matter of a "stupid question" but one that needs SERIOUS refining.
What is Belief, and more importantly, what is God? Because across dozens of traditions, Source has different qualities, some of which are in common, some of which are unique to culture or tradition. Even then many traditions have weak definitions of God which are in need of, at minimum, theological, if not phenomenological, refining.
Taking an igtheist position is a great way of facilitating reflection in those who haven't spent much time coming to decisions w/r/t Source, but loses relevance w/ those who already have strong background and chains of reasoning for their stances on Source...though theological noncognitivism pops back up deep in the rabbit hole with mystical experiences with transcendental poetic/existential qualities.
>>929629
>Do you believe in God is a question of yes or no
That's true but agnosticism isn't about answering that question. It's about refusing to answer it. The only reason I identify as agnostic is because I sometimes go through periods of complete disbelief in God, and periods of a strong belief in God.
>>929629
>The question "Do you believe in god?" is a question of yes or no.
Not really, since what people mean by "god" varies from person to person. Do I believe in Shiva? No. Do I believe in Jebus? No. DO I believe in Zeus? No. But do I believe in "god"? Fuck if I know, what does that question even mean?
>>933020
>implying atheism is faith
>>929629
You may have a certain feeling one way or another, but it is an admission of the vast gulf of knowledge we lack to properly answer the question. You would not ask a mouse what his favorite Shakespeare play is.
>>933022
i dont think you know what the word 'believe' means
>>932183
so let the people know youre not a fedora retard by your actions instead letting some imbred shit ruin something for you
TL;DR
OP is a butthurt fedora that tries to pull a false dychotomy on the myriad answer variations on a really ancient philosphical issue, so he can go "no, you are actually an atheist, but you don't know that yet.".
>>933464
so youre saying that you actaull dont know what you believe?
>>933087
how the fuck is shiva or jesus different from 'god'?
>>933471
dude, i know what i believe.
But you are just cringy, and are just using shitty wordplay to force an issue.
>>929629
fuck this thread, op is a fucking child
>>933485
whats the wordplay here? if someone asks you 'do you believe in god' the answer is either yes (theist) or no (atheist) saying i dont know doesnt answer the question in any way unless you literally dont know what you believe
>>933510
You think and reason like a child. grow up
>>929629
I am an apartheist: meaning that whether or not god exists is not something I concern myself with nor thought about. For the sake of arguing, I'd say that I am an agnostic as I think that people who still do religion and take it serious should grow up and stop believing in a man in a sky castle watching them fap
>>933519
yeah youre free to point out wrong logic here, just saying that its wrong somehow doesnt make it wrong
>grow up fagget LELELELE XDXD
>top notch argument
>>933522
>I'd say that I am an agnostic as I think that people who still do religion and take it serious should grow up and stop believing in a man in a sky castle watching them fap
and thats different form atheism how?
>>933510
Repeating your dichotomy like a broken record, while refusing to engage in any meaningful dialogue, despite having some pretty interesting replies to start with, from fuzzy logic to math, a conversation does not make.
Sage
>>933529
You're the fucking idiot who fails to realize that people are genuinely apathetic to the topic.
I call you a child because you setup a false premise (another fallacy) that there can only be two cognitive positions. Then you ATTACK anyone who doesn't fall into your predespoticn.
It's like saying there are two kinds of people in the world, those who eat apples, and those who don't, you can't have a different position.
Clearly, people are APATHETIC to this topic, they don't give a shit. But that ethos, that worldview doesn't fit into your cookie cutter premise. Hence, why I said, grow the fuck up, the world doesn't revolve around your flawed reasoning.
>>933472
They're examples OF a god, they're not "god". What exactly people mean by "god" when they say they believe such a thing can be totally different from person to person. If I can disprove the historical existence of Shiva, this doesn't mean I have "disproven god", merely that I have disproven a particular claim about a particular idea of what "god" means. Even followers of Shiva could accept my disproof of his historicity without stopping their worship of him.
tl;dr- "god" is term too broad to hold a single position on.
>>933554
more like "those you love apples and those who don't"
>>933554
>there are two kinds of people in the world, those who eat apples, and those who don't
yeah and thats correct, those people can the divide themselves into "i fucking hate apple lets kill everyone who eats them" and "who the fuck gives a shit about apples?" both of them are still "no i dont eat apples" at the core
"do you belive in X" is not a fucking open question
>>933576
sure that works too
>>933552
>Repeating your dichotomy like a broken record
theres no dichotomy here, if i needed you to answer only yes or no to "does god exist" then yes it would be but since im asking for your preference it makes it a yes or no answer
>>933579
>"do you belive in X" is not a fucking open question
This. This right here!
This is your false dichotomy
If you can't understand this, your a lost cause kid.
Yeah.
sage
>>929629
This is undergrad logic.
Philosophy Professors would have fun trolling you in class.
>>933601
it isnt if you were aksed "do you think its true" or somehting then ou could answer what ver the fuck you want but if the specific question is "do you personally believe in something" then it stops being an open question
>>933613
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yca6UsllwYs
>>933613
Belief is complicated by the subjective interpretations people give. Yes/no questions only work with straightforward topics. Belief is never straightforward, so you will never obtain a straightforward answer except from the absolutely faithful/certain.
>>929629
Agnosticism makes atheists butthurt because it shows the irrationality of the atheist position.
"I don't know/we can't know" is a valid position.
>>929680
Don't be so harsh. I know many people who just don't give a fuck about god/religion/whatever and you can't just really apply any label on them, because they are just some guys that don't care, while still being some of the best, most level headed, pragmatical people i've met. Definetely better than pretentious theists/atheists/gnostics/agnostics who are obsessed with labeling anybody
>>933891
So after you've assessed that one group's position is irrational, you deny reason altogether?
Because that's very rational
