Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Poll: Refer to the question in the OP
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes
37.50%
3 37.50%
No
25.00%
2 25.00%
Sharply spiked dildo in my bum
37.50%
3 37.50%
Total 8 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A question for agnostics
#1

A question for agnostics
Are you as agnostic in relation to the existence of dragons and unicorns as you are to the existence of god(s)?
The following 4 users Like Phaedrus's post:
  • Minimalist, Aegon, brewerb, Tres Leches
Reply
#2

A question for agnostics
This is exactly why I dislike label of agnostic.
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.

Socrates.
The following 1 user Likes Szuchow's post:
  • Tres Leches
Reply
#3

A question for agnostics
Not agnostic, so I was forced to go for the dildo option.
Reply
#4

A question for agnostics
(02-26-2020, 04:28 AM)Phaedrus Wrote: Are you as agnostic in relation to the existence of dragons and unicorns as you are to the existence of god(s)?

No. Animals with feet leave footprints. Alleged spiritual beings, not so much, I suppose.
Reply
#5

A question for agnostics
I don't think it's a contest. I don't even know what being "more agnostic" would mean.
[Image: afo-sig-009%20copy.jpg]
Reply
#6

A question for agnostics
My vote is technically "yes," in the sense that the impossibility of absolute certainty prevents me from completely ruling out the existence of any fantastical and/or supernatural being, but I still regard the probability of any deity's existence to be as negligible as that of dragons, fairies, etc.  However, the very question highlights what I view as a major problem with reflexively distinguishing agnosticism from atheism in self-identification, as many non-theists do.  If you're interested, I've articulated my reasoning here and, perhaps most comprehensively, here.  The Cliff Notes version is that, since we don't routinely mince our terms in this way with respect to any other fantastical claim (e.g. ghosts, fairies), doing so with respect to a deity implicitly grants that the deity belongs in a different category (conveniently one that lowers epistemological and evidential standards), and I'm not so sure we should be making that concession, even if only for the sake of argument.  Insisting on the atheist/agnostic distinction is, in my opinion, another example of the quasi-instinctive walking-on-eggshells that even many secular people participate in due to theism's long-ingrained societal privilege.
The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. - Carl Sagan
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν τῇ φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις. - Κᾱ́ρολος Σήγανος


The following 3 users Like Glossophile's post:
  • Bucky Ball, Alan V, possibletarian
Reply
#7

A question for agnostics
(02-26-2020, 04:28 AM)Phaedrus Wrote: Are you as agnostic in relation to the existence of dragons and unicorns as you are to the existence of god(s)?

I'm agnostic about dragons and unicorns, which may exist on other planets.  I am confident no supernatural beings exist anywhere.
Reply
#8

A question for agnostics
In my experience as an ex-christian people rarely go directly from theism to atheism, agnostic is kind of a half-way house.

For me it went like this when i gave up my theism in favour of thinking there is a small possibility there could be a being of some type one could call a god, but i'm certain the Christian god does not exist. This could be some of the reasons , some of which Glossophile alluded to, there may have been some things that sounded so familiar and safe that i didn't want to give up completely, there were certainly people in my friendship circle that i thought by saying i was agnostic would not be as hard for them. (Christians view agnostics as hopefuls or convince-able )

Over time and after many steps that became 'I'm as sure as I can possibly be there is no supernatural or gods' an atheist. I now say that I don't describe myself as a Christian or theist anymore, this leaves room for discussion which i actually enjoy.

If i had to represent this in percentages I would say I'm 99.5% sure there are no supernatural beings and 99.99% sure the Christian god (or that of any theism I've learnt about) exists.
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply
#9

A question for agnostics
In a sense, everyone is an agnostic. I mean, no one has proof in any way. So the term is meaningless. I am on the "theist, prove your claim or shut the hell up".
Theists disbelieve in all deities but one.  I just disbelieve in one less.
Reply
#10

A question for agnostics
I'm ignostic, so I'm buying up big on very thick lube.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#11

A question for agnostics
(02-28-2020, 07:42 PM)SYZ Wrote: I'm ignostic, so I'm buying up big on very thick lube.

OK, Huh?
Theists disbelieve in all deities but one.  I just disbelieve in one less.
Reply
#12

A question for agnostics
(02-28-2020, 07:44 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(02-28-2020, 07:42 PM)SYZ Wrote: I'm ignostic, so I'm buying up big on very thick lube.

OK, Huh?

Will hopefully ease the passing of those sharp spikes LOL.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#13

A question for agnostics
(02-28-2020, 07:46 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(02-28-2020, 07:44 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(02-28-2020, 07:42 PM)SYZ Wrote: I'm ignostic, so I'm buying up big on very thick lube.

OK, Huh?

Will hopefully ease the passing of those sharp spikes LOL.

If that is a kidney stone joke, I've never had one. Though my sympathies to any who have...
Theists disbelieve in all deities but one.  I just disbelieve in one less.
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • c172
Reply
#14

A question for agnostics
(02-28-2020, 07:27 PM)Cavebear Wrote: In a sense, everyone is an agnostic.  I mean, no one has proof in any way. 

I've never met such a confident agnostic.   hobo

We have lots of proofs against God.
Reply
#15

A question for agnostics
What I find interesting about agnosticism, is that the "practical" position of agnosticism is the same, when it comes down to it, as Chinese Tao Mysticism, and (European) Christian mystics : "The Dark Night of the Soul" (John of the Cross, Teresa Avila) some of the Cistercian writers on *mystical contemplation*, and the anonymous author of "The Cloud of Unknowing". I think some of them realized it was all bullshit, but didn't know how to talk about it in their religious world. But the practical implications for their real daily lives are the same. If they are standing before a "cloud" where they can't know anything, or in a Dark Night" where no guidance is received ... they have the same thing as agnostics have.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#16

A question for agnostics
(02-26-2020, 04:28 AM)Phaedrus Wrote: Are you as agnostic in relation to the existence of dragons and unicorns as you are to the existence of god(s)?

I'll need to sit here on my fence and think about it. Ask me again tomorrow.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 1 user Likes brewerb's post:
  • Phaedrus
Reply
#17

A question for agnostics
(02-26-2020, 04:28 AM)Phaedrus Wrote: Are you as agnostic in relation to the existence of dragons and unicorns as you are to the existence of god(s)?


To the degree that the existence of dragons and unicorns are as centrally important to others as gods are to many, yes I'd be agnostic about their existence.  Clearly whatever it is they mean by any of these things it can't be something empirically demonstrable; the 'supernatural' is not a viable alternative to reality.  But gods at least are things which apparently can be experienced in the first person subjective experience of people who are raised in certain kinds of culture.  I don't know if dragons and unicorns are possible recurring motifs in anyone's subjective experience or not.

But in saying I am agnostic about gods, I'm not wavering because of any degree of uncertainty whether gods have any empirical reality.  I don't believe they do, period.  What I really mean by my own my agnosticism is that I don't know that  people who claim to have experience of "God's presence" and so on must be mistaken or liars.  I do believe they misinterpret what their god actually is if they think it has any independent existence apart from their subjective experience, but that wouldn't make them mistaken or liars about the phenomenology of their subjective experience.  Regarding that I am agnostic.

Many prefer things more cut and dry.  To my mind that is another kind of delusion that I don't choose for myself.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 1 user Likes Mark's post:
  • Tres Leches
Reply
#18

A question for agnostics
(02-26-2020, 04:28 AM)Phaedrus Wrote: Are you as agnostic in relation to the existence of dragons and unicorns as you are to the existence of god(s)?

No. We've had things that were very close to unicorns evolve and we could probably concoct a dragon with a decent research program.

Gods are a whole other kettle of fish. I'd have to wire your speech centers up with WiFi for a start.
The following 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post:
  • Chas
Reply
#19

A question for agnostics
Given that agnosticism is about 'knowing', I'd need a more thorough understanding of what that means to begin to even approach the subject. I suspect there are multiple plausible interpretations.

Ultimately this seems to be more about the utility of the label than understanding similarities and differences. Labels, by their nature, are crude and imprecise. They're an aid to understanding. There are certainly similarities to how I approach the proposition of Gods and that of mythological beasts, but there are also important differences as well. If your point is to suggest that because they are similar then they should be treated the same, then I think you are ignoring the differences to make a polemical point that isn't really valid.
[Image: afo-sig-009%20copy.jpg]
Reply
#20

A question for agnostics
(02-29-2020, 01:15 PM)Dānu Wrote: Ultimately this seems to be more about the utility of the label than understanding similarities and differences.  Labels, by their nature, are crude and imprecise.  They're an aid to understanding.  There are certainly similarities to how I approach the proposition of Gods and that of mythological beasts, but there are also important differences as well.  If your point is to suggest that because they are similar then they should be treated the same, then I think you are ignoring the differences to make a polemical point that isn't really valid.

But do those differences justify the uniquely careful terminology that many use regarding deities as opposed to ghosts, fairies, Bigfoot, etc?  What other mythical being do we have a special word like "agnostic(ism)" for?
The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. - Carl Sagan
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν τῇ φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις. - Κᾱ́ρολος Σήγανος


Reply
#21

A question for agnostics
(02-26-2020, 04:44 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-26-2020, 04:28 AM)Phaedrus Wrote: Are you as agnostic in relation to the existence of dragons and unicorns as you are to the existence of god(s)?

No. Animals with feet leave footprints. Alleged spiritual beings, not so much, I suppose.

I always wondered if the mythical god of the bible wears clothes. And if he does, why?   Is it because he's cold or is he covering up his genitals?  In most cultures the gods wear the styles of their upper class.  Funny, that.  The Greek gods were frequently naked though, but they thought the human body was beautiful to look at, so there's that.    Most Hindu gods are clothed but some are animals so they don't wear clothes because they're animals and animals don't wear clothes....well except for some modern day dogs in the US and Europe.  A lot of ghosts wear clothes. Casper the Friendly Ghost is in a white sheet.  Wonder what's under that sheet? Maybe I wouldn't want to know.

Ok, I'm just rambling on here.
                                                         T4618
The following 2 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Tres Leches
Reply
#22

A question for agnostics
(02-29-2020, 04:10 PM)Glossophile Wrote:
(02-29-2020, 01:15 PM)Dānu Wrote: Ultimately this seems to be more about the utility of the label than understanding similarities and differences.  Labels, by their nature, are crude and imprecise.  They're an aid to understanding.  There are certainly similarities to how I approach the proposition of Gods and that of mythological beasts, but there are also important differences as well.  If your point is to suggest that because they are similar then they should be treated the same, then I think you are ignoring the differences to make a polemical point that isn't really valid.

But do those differences justify the uniquely careful terminology that many use regarding deities as opposed to ghosts, fairies, Bigfoot, etc?  What other mythical being do we have a special word like "agnostic(ism)" for?

The point is to appeal to the facts rather than worrying about the utility of the label. The label itself doesn't seem to serve any essential role here except to plaster over that inaccuracy. Why?

For example:

Some use Santa Claus as an analogy for God arguing that belief in God is similar to belief in Santa Claus.

If you remain at the level of the labels, you have two options:
1. Ignore the differences and employ an analogy which is likely invalid or false;
2. Abandon the analogy as inapt, and ignore the actual similarities which do exist and may say something meaningful.

Neither option is particularly attractive. The third option is to get underneath the analogy and deal with the underlying substance. Thus you can make meaningful points without endangering the validity of your conclusions. Similarly with the question about various forms of agnosticism. Whitewashing the differences doesn't seem to serve any ethical role here.
[Image: afo-sig-009%20copy.jpg]
Reply
#23

A question for agnostics
(02-29-2020, 05:20 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: I always wondered if the mythical god of the bible wears clothes. And if he does, why?   Is it because he's cold or is he covering up his genitals?

If Yahweh has genitals they must be purely for decorative purpose.   He can't use them to pleasure himself because that's a sin.  Even when he knocked up Mary he didn't need them because he sent Holy Ghost to do the deed.
No gods necessary
Reply
#24

A question for agnostics
(02-29-2020, 05:20 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote:
(02-26-2020, 04:44 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(02-26-2020, 04:28 AM)Phaedrus Wrote: Are you as agnostic in relation to the existence of dragons and unicorns as you are to the existence of god(s)?

No. Animals with feet leave footprints. Alleged spiritual beings, not so much, I suppose.

I always wondered if the mythical god of the bible wears clothes. And if he does, why?   Is it because he's cold or is he covering up his genitals?  In most cultures the gods wear the styles of their upper class.  Funny, that.  The Greek gods were frequently naked though, but they thought the human body was beautiful to look at, so there's that.    Most Hindu gods are clothed but some are animals so they don't wear clothes because they're animals and animals don't wear clothes....well except for some modern day dogs in the US and Europe.  A lot of ghosts wear clothes. Casper the Friendly Ghost is in a white sheet.  Wonder what's under that sheet? Maybe I wouldn't want to know.

Ok, I'm just rambling on here.

Biblical god is depicted as genocidal tyrant so if he wore any kind of clothes then I think that they look like ones shown below:

[Image: 220px-Himmler_portrait.jpg]
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.

Socrates.
The following 1 user Likes Szuchow's post:
  • Glossophile
Reply
#25

A question for agnostics
(03-01-2020, 07:34 AM)Szuchow Wrote: Biblical god is depicted as genocidal tyrant so if he wore any kind of clothes then I think that they look like ones shown below:

[Image: 220px-Himmler_portrait.jpg]

Why, Yahweh, I've never seen you look so natural!  Frankly, the whole robe-and-beard look just wasn't you.
The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. - Carl Sagan
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν τῇ φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις. - Κᾱ́ρολος Σήγανος


Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)