• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Your thoughts on Agnostics

devildavid said:
That is not knowledge. It is fictional story which reflects in its characters actions the views of the author. You may disagree with the points the author is attempting to make. But the behavior of fictional characters is not a lesson of how to behave in life. It may reflect values the author would like us to have. But it does not demonstrate that these behaviors will have the same effect in real life. It's a simple morality tale, which one can choose to think is valid or not.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think you can learn lessons that can be applied to your life from stories, fictional or not.

With regard to religious stories, the larger religions give us billions of people who are (supposedly) applying those lessons to their own lives. That presents some evidence as to the efficacy of those stories as life lessons. Results seem very mixed - ranging from from seemingly good to demonstrably horrible. From that, logic tells me that it's likely up to the person and is not story dependent.
 
Dragonfly said:
Some people will, at times, use the term "agnostic" in a derisive fashion.

Why is that?

When you hear someone claim to be agnostic what's your reaction to that, and why?
Click to expand...

If they want to claim this, fine. As with any other belief, just try to force it on others. It does no harm and as far as I can see does no good, so what is the problem?
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes, that is the common view. A kind of: YES/NO/DON'T KNOW

But it's not

An Agnostic is someone who has yet to make a personal connection with god.
Click to expand...

The other half of this statement would be he is also someone who has yet to totally deny this god.

At least level the field when arguing this, don't make it one size fits all.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I disagree. I think you can learn lessons that can be applied to your life from stories, fictional or not.

With regard to religious stories, the larger religions give us billions of people who are (supposedly) applying those lessons to their own lives. That presents some evidence as to the efficacy of those stories as life lessons. Results seem very mixed - ranging from from seemingly good to demonstrably horrible. From that, logic tells me that it's likely up to the person and is not story dependent.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you happen to like or agree with the point being made in the fiction. But the fiction is not real life, even if the author bases it on real life. The fiction is not knowledge of real life, it is a fictionalized version in which the characters act as the author wants them to. The only knowledge is a fictional knowledge in a fictional setting.
 
devildavid said:
Yes, if you happen to like or agree with the point being made in the fiction. But the fiction is not real life, even if the author bases it on real life. The fiction is not knowledge of real life, it is a fictionalized version in which the characters act as the author wants them to. The only knowledge is a fictional knowledge in a fictional setting.
Click to expand...

None of that is relevant when it comes to the possible utility of the lesson(s) or message(s) being conveyed.
 
Arjay81 said:
The other half of this statement would be he is also someone who has yet to totally deny this god.

At least level the field when arguing this, don't make it one size fits all.
Click to expand...



No problem, I'm OK with what you said.


An Atheist is, IMO, someone who doesn't believe in god and has reconciled himself/herself with the fact that god probably doesn't exist and death is the end of their existence.


An Agnostic, IMO, is someone who again doesn't believe in god but who has yet to give up (deny if you wish) on god's existence.
In other words an Agnostic is someone who doesn't believe in god due to lack of evidence/personal connection...BUT who dearly wants to believe.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
None of that is relevant when it comes to the possible utility of the lesson(s) or message(s) being conveyed.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between "I found utility in this story" and "this story is true".
 
<alt>doxygen said:
None of that is relevant when it comes to the possible utility of the lesson(s) or message(s) being conveyed.
Click to expand...

Anything can have utility, including delusions. Utility is not the same as knowledge.
 
Rich2018 said:
No problem, I'm OK with what you said.


An Atheist is, IMO, someone who doesn't believe in god and has reconciled himself/herself with the fact that god probably doesn't exist and death is the end of their existence.


An Agnostic, IMO, is someone who again doesn't believe in god but who has yet to give up (deny if you wish) on god's existence.
In other words an Agnostic is someone who doesn't believe in god due to lack of evidence/personal connection...BUT who dearly wants to believe.
Click to expand...

An agnostic does not dearly want to believe in god. Agnosticism is about what we can know about god, not what we can believe.
 
gfm7175 said:
There are no "necessary qualifiers" he needs to add, Quag... Those tales are a SOURCE of his knowledge, not part of what he has knowledge about... The subject matter (God, sea otters, penguins, Buddha, etc...) is what he has knowledge about...

He doesn't have to say "I have knowledge of sea otters according to 'Book A' or 'Video B'" ... If pressed, he can provide his sources, but either way, he has knowledge about sea otters.
Click to expand...

Are they fictional sea otters?
 
devildavid said:
An agnostic does not dearly want to believe in god. Agnosticism is about what we can know about god, not what we can believe.
Click to expand...


Belief in god doesn't come into it.


An Agnostic doesn't want to simply believe in god the same way a church going Christian does. He/she wants to KNOW that god exists and the only way to do this (assuming that god does in fact exist) is to interact with him.


So an Agnostic seeks to know that god exists. The belief of certainty is what they seek.


In short they want to become Gnostics.
 
Rich2018 said:
Belief in god doesn't come into it.


An Agnostic doesn't want to simply believe in god the same way a church going Christian does. He/she wants to KNOW that god exists and the only way to do this (assuming that god does in fact exist) is to interact with him.


So an Agnostic seeks to know that god exists. The belief of certainty is what they seek.


In short they want to become Gnostics.
Click to expand...

They don't want to become anything. They say that knowledge of god is impossible, one way or the other. Agnosticism does not describe a desire to know, but an admission that knowledge is not possible.
 
devildavid said:
They don't want to become anything....
Click to expand...

And which ones, when you asked them, told you this ?


...they say that knowledge of god is impossible...
Click to expand...


On the assumption that god does in fact exist, then of course you can have knowledge of god....in the same way that you can have knowledge of any human who exists.



...Agnosticism does not describe a desire to know, but an admission that knowledge is not possible.
Click to expand...


Since Agnostics are aware of Gnostics and of the concept of god, then no, they do not admit that it is impossible to know god. They only admit to not yet possessing that knowledge.


What you say doesn't really make sense. You say Agnostics are merely aware of the concept of god but accept there's no way they can ever know for sure.
What's the difference between their position and an Atheist who is also aware of the concept of god but deems that no convincing case has been made for his existence ?
 
Rich2018 said:
And which ones, when you asked them, told you this ?





On the assumption that god does in fact exist, then of course you can have knowledge of god....in the same way that you can have knowledge of any human who exists.






Since Agnostics are aware of Gnostics and of the concept of god, then no, they do not admit that it is impossible to know god. They only admit to not yet possessing that knowledge.


What you say doesn't really make sense. You say Agnostics are merely aware of the concept of god but accept there's no way they can ever know for sure.
What's the difference between their position and an Atheist who is also aware of the concept of god but deems that no convincing case has been made for his existence ?
Click to expand...

The definition of agnosticism told me that.

An agnostic is not addressing belief; only knowledge. An atheist lacks the belief of a theist. An atheist does not address knowledge at all.
 
devildavid said:
The definition of agnosticism told me that....
Click to expand...


The definitions we have for Gnosticism show you are wrong. There is no universally accepted definition of an Agnostic.


A Gnostic has knowledge of god
An Agnostic lacks that knowledge...guess what so do Atheists. So what's the difference ?


...An agnostic is not addressing belief; only knowledge....an atheist lacks the belief of a theist...
Click to expand...

Exactly !

An Agnostic is still looking for that knowledge, for that contact with god.

The Agnostic doesn't believe in god (he/she lacks the belief of a Theist), but wants to believe (otherwise why would he/she still be looking?).


And if they're not still looking, then they've reconciled themselves to the fact that god probably doesn't exist, in which case they're Atheists.



...an atheist does not address knowledge at all.
Click to expand...


Correct.
 
Dragonfly said:
Some people will, at times, use the term "agnostic" in a derisive fashion.

Why is that?

When you hear someone claim to be agnostic what's your reaction to that, and why?
Click to expand...

I am neither here nor there
 
Rich2018 said:
The definitions we have for Gnosticism show you are wrong. There is no universally accepted definition of an Agnostic.


A Gnostic has knowledge of god
An Agnostic lacks that knowledge...guess what so do Atheists. So what's the difference ?




Exactly !

An Agnostic is still looking for that knowledge, for that contact with god.

The Agnostic doesn't believe in god (he/she lacks the belief of a Theist), but wants to believe (otherwise why would he/she still be looking?).


And if they're not still looking, then they've reconciled themselves to the fact that god probably doesn't exist, in which case they're Atheists.






Correct.
Click to expand...

An agnostic is not looking for knowledge. They are stating it is not possible to gain that knowledge and that is the end of it.
 
Rich2018 said:
Not true.

If it were, what differentiates them from Atheists ?
Click to expand...

Well, there are some that beleive in god.. and some that don't.. .. so it is in the knowledge/lack of knowledge axis. rather the belief/lack of belief axis.
 
devildavid said:
That is not knowledge. It is fictional story which reflects in its characters actions the views of the author. You may disagree with the points the author is attempting to make. But the behavior of fictional characters is not a lesson of how to behave in life. It may reflect values the author would like us to have. But it does not demonstrate that these behaviors will have the same effect in real life. It's a simple morality tale, which one can choose to think is valid or not.
Click to expand...

It is indeed a source of knowledge, as I had so aptly demonstrated. :)


OM
 
devildavid said:
Yes, if you happen to like or agree with the point being made in the fiction. But the fiction is not real life, even if the author bases it on real life. The fiction is not knowledge of real life, it is a fictionalized version in which the characters act as the author wants them to. The only knowledge is a fictional knowledge in a fictional setting.
Click to expand...

Again, you keep injecting "real" into the equation. Knowledge is not exclusive to, nor confined to that which is "real". As I have so aptly demonstrated, fiction too can be a source of knowledge.


OM
 
Cephus said:
There is a big difference between "I found utility in this story" and "this story is true".
Click to expand...

And nobody is saying anything about something being "true" (why does that keep getting repeated?); only that it is a source of knowledge.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
Again, you keep injecting "real" into the equation. Knowledge is not exclusive to, nor confined to that which is "real". As I have so aptly demonstrated, fiction too can be a source of knowledge.


OM
Click to expand...

This discussion stems from claims of personal knowledge of god due to internal thoughts. That is not knowledge at all, it is imagination. Fiction contains fiction, and reading a work of fiction is not the same as the claim of personal knowledge of something. My reading comic books does not give me knowledge. But I do have knowledge of what is contained in comic books. This is semantics and is making no distinction between claims of personal knowledge and reading a work of fiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom