A question for Agnostics...

I am going to use this wiki summary of types of Agnostics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Types[edit]
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."[29][30][31]
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."[29][30][31]
Apathetic agnosticism
The view that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest. An apathetic agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deity exists or not, and I don't care if any deity exists or not."[32][33][failed verification][34]

Which describes your view, and by what criteria regarding this topic might we decide what is or is not 'knowable' now or Knowable ever.

 

Thomas Henry Huxley’s Agnostic Philosophy of Science
by Jiwon Byun
M.A., The University of Chicago, 2009
B.A., The University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2007

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF Doctor of Philosophy
in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Philosophy)

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)

August 2017​

​

His intention behind agnosticism was to establish and maintain epistemic merit of
science without any unknowable, metaphysical or theological, apparatus.

Science is the practice of agnosticism, and for this reason, our best way to knowledge.

Although agnosticism is commonly regarded as a religious position on the existence of God, the
coiner of the term, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), had more to say.

This dissertation presents a more comprehensive understanding of agnosticism and its bearings on the conception of science by examining Huxley’s underappreciated philosophical works.

The most salient feature of agnostic position would be, ironically, refusal to take a position regarding the truth value of a given proposition. This shows that the mere absence of a belief or opinion does not sufficiently capture the state of being agnostic because it suggests that the state involves refusing.3 Consider, for example, the issue of the existence of a god, since agnosticism is most commonly thought of as a religious position. Holding an agnostic position about this issue means refusing to take both positions that a god exists and that a god does not exist.

Agnostics neither affirm nor deny the existence of a god; they are not those who simply lack a belief, opinion or interest regarding the issue.


https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/download/pdf/24/1.0354412/4&usg=AOvVaw0oJtkEgtrDEly_h63g-5Qe



I am an agnostic, and I run with the most highest scholarly version as presented by its originator.​

 

Grammarly does a great job explaining the 'meaning' of agnostic for those with insufficient grammar abilities:

What Does Agnosticism Mean?

In the religious sense of the word, agnosticism means neither believing in nor disbelieving the existence of God.
Which means take a neutral position, choose neither side.

In the general, non-religious sense, agnosticism means being undecided or uncommitted to a particular side of a debate or disagreement.
Undecided and uncommitted means take a neutral position, choose neither side.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/what-is-agnosticism/

 

Non responsive to the OP. LOL, I thought you said you were an agnostic. I guess that is only as long as it takes for you to post your propaganda piece.

 

None of those depict an agnostic. Those guys use nothing more than hypothetical conjecture, or IOW they simply made up stories to play a mental game. Lots of people write books, very few people write good books.

Agnostic does not focus on whats knowable, it focuses on scientific method to come to knowledge, how you logically accumulate knowledge you can depend on to be accurate.

Huxley created the word agnostic, he is with any doubt 'the best source' on its 'intended' meaning.

Thomas Huxley was openly skeptical, as the biographer Janet Browne describes:

Huxley was rampaging on miracles and the existence of the soul. A few months later, he was to coin the word "agnostic" to describe his own position as neither a believer nor a disbeliever, but one who considered himself free to inquire rationally into the basis of knowledge, a philosopher of pure reason [...]

The basis of knowledge is how its obtained not what is knowable from its first introduction Huxley examines how knowledge is aquired, NOT what is knowable s your authors claim. Then the one dood defaults to okhams razor, a fallback position that portrays too lazy deal with details.

Huxley was sincere in his rejection of the charge of outright atheism against himself.
He refused to be "a liar".

The agnostic argument:
I do not myself know of any argument for the existence of God which I find convincing; in all of them I think I can find flaws. Equally, I do not know of any argument against the existence of God which is totally convincing; in the arguments I know against the existence of God I can equally find flaws. So that my own position on the existence of God is agnostic. Huxley

Huxley summarily rejects both theism and atheism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

I reject both atheism and theism as having insufficient evidence for me to accept either premise, hence I reject both theism and atheism.

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. ["Christianity and Agnosticism," 1889]

Its wrong to claim a position and agnostic.

He went on to assert “…that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts: and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.” A bit later in the article Huxley stated: “I do not much care to speak of anything as “unknowable.” Huxley clarified the agnostic principle.

Knowledge was not the focus, method of gaining knowledge was and still is the focus, Huxley invented the scientific method everyone uses today.

In the decades after T.H. Huxley, different interpretations of the word agnosticism and of its principles had begun to change some of the tenets of the philosophy. It began to diversify into many categories, and in the present day, people who embrace several different types of doubt call themselves agnostics. Today, its definition, appears, according to Aaron Holland, “… [agnosticism] to have reached the pinnacle of ambiguity in the philosophy of religion.”

Such ambiguity is for the most part accepted by agnostics and some atheists in the general population. In fact, it appears to be what Holland terms “cognitive lethargy,”
Critics have pointed out that such intellectually lazy people have no right to call themselves anything at all.

 

Sorry none of those guys describe me in fact their version of agnostic is so blurred you cant even claim its agnostic. I thought I would help you by posting crystal clear version of what agnostic means and is.

what you know only serves to the extend to make your decision which position to choose, and in the case of an agnostic your choice has to be 'neither', otherwise you are atheist or theist deist whatever, but you are no longer agnostic at that point, agnostic cannot be conjoined.

In the senate and house you are agnostic regarding a bill if you abstain from voting yes or no. Works the same way with theist and atheist. If you voted yes or no, then you cannot be agnostic, hence agnostic-atheist cannot logically exist.

 

Stop spamming my threads please. there are already several threads for your anti atheist propaganda, one where you were just pushing this crap moments before. So get out of this one and keep feeding your fantasy war against 'neo-atheism' in that one. your divide and conquer tactics have sooo many battlefields on PF, please let agnostics alone in this one to discuss agnosticism in here.

 

Im not spamming your thread friend. Im agnostic.

Please consider the following in your OP

Agnostic deals with the question does God exist, which brings into the thread atheism and theism.

I gave you my criteria in a few posts! What did you expect?
You cant be agnostic without also looking at and including atheism or theism and you cant understand the extents of obtainable knowledge without also examining both atheist and theist believes?
Can you?

You gave your definitions and references, and I thank you for that, few do that, anyway I also gave mine which of course differ from yours.

Maybe you should elaborate a little more clearly what you expect to see in your thread if not a discussion on the extents of possible knowledge which has to include discussions about atheist and theist beliefs and has to include the apropriate methods to achieve this lofty goal? Thought I was helping.

Anyway have a wonderful day!

 

I assume you mean "without"?

I think to understand your position, we need a much better view of what you think determines what a word means. What makes something the best source on what a word means? If you appeal to Huxley's authority because he originated it, do you also think that words like "awful" and "you" hold older meanings than most people today ("awful" used to mean awesome, "you" used to mean only the plural)?

And as always, we want a direct answer to the question (for quotability, clarity, etc), not just an elaboration which you think is sufficient to deduce the answer from. The question of what makes something the best source is a general question, not only confined to atheists/agnostics/similar, so it should be possible to answer it without leaning on a bunch of other words that we already don't agree on.

 

My Agnosticism is of the: "Is there a God or isn't there a God? If there is a God whose God? That Hindu bathing in the Ganges? That Muslim praying with his face towards Mecca? That Christian having a sip of wine on Sunday morning?" variety. I'm coming around to the possibility that our "God", such as it is, is the hyperdimensional equivalent of a 6th grader, and we're his/hers/its science project.

 

That would explain a lot.

 

yes, without
you will need to take this to a different thread or make a new one, he only wants people that will sing chorus with him. I am not one of those people and neither is the direction you want to take this.

 

The answer to your question is very simple, empiricism. If you dont understand what that means I highly recommend reading Kants discourse on pure reason, practical reason, and several others that discuss this, the original work is a difficult read for most people, but that is where you will find your answer gwasshopper, though after seeing how poorly you handled an easy read HERE, best of luck with that. Otherwise he will definitely answer your question.

 

eeehhhh .. definititly recomment you stay off the existentialist train regardless of source.

 

Doesn't seem to have stopped you on other topics in this thread. Personally, I reckon the fact that you don't answer straight questions is one of the main points that turn what could be reasonable discussion into the "propaganda" that bt identifies.

 

You already lost this battle a few times in my thread HERE, still licking your wounds in denial I see.

Sorry but your sop tactics of throwing an endless barrage of **** at the wall to duck and dodge 'convention' cant by any definition qualify to be a 'reasonable' debate stategy, then the side kick that doesnt even know the difference between 3+1 and 2+2 incessantly shits all over the threads with his pathetic nonsense, that frankly I ignore most of the time, makes for a wonderful read.

We all know that 'projection' and accusing others of the ddt neoatheists commit when they get their asses handed to them is SOP for neoatheists and their apologists.

I gave you the chance to make your argument elsewhere, instead you respond with whining.

The OP should be thanking me.

 

Yet again with the dodging by lashing out and talking down to everyone. You prove their point.

 

right on Q!

Making a counter point that destroys your BS nonsense is not "lashing" out, only a drama queen would describe it as such.

Your constant false characterizations and misrepresentations of me and what I post in fact does prove my point. Thanks!

 

As a Christian, I view agnosticism as the suspension of judgment on the matter, neutrality. So your "strong agnostic" is to me an Atheist because they are closed off to the concept of God.

Oddly, I see all three main groups(theist,atheist,agnostic) as possessing a measure of justifiable rationale. It is also apparent that theists can be ungodly, while Atheists and Agnostics can practice godliness every day of their lives to one degree or another.

It seems to boil down to perspective. Theists see the nature of life as a miracle, wrought by a higher hand, to be discovered thru prayer. Atheists see the miracle of life as nature, wrapped within itself, its secrets to be discovered thru scientific exploration and research. Agnostics see it all valid but inconclusive. So they carry on.

Unlike the sun, moon, stars, and natural world, God remains hidden. So only he can reveal himself to man. And that would depend upon the individuals state of heart and mind. We are spiritual beings in a physical world. Everything we do is a matter of conscience and love, which are spiritual and cannot be discovered, defined, or measured by science. We take it for granted like it is part of nature. But it isn't. Our higher spiritual nature is part or a remnant of God.

So this is the path thru which he works and traverses....the path not comprehended or measured by science. Therefore, to one degree or another, he is already with us. But we are cut off from heaven and grafted into the natural world. So we practice our origin in our quest for justice and in the manipulating and stirrings of our humanity thru reflection, words and appeal, in the hope of recreating the fullness of such.

We are pitiful Gods....vagabonds and beggars, scratching out a living like common creatures. Even the wealthy are cut off, atop their treasures like a bird on its nest or a goat on a mountains side. What is anyone to the excellence of God. We try mightily to rise above our nature with satellites, rockets, and planetary explorations. Yet for all the advance, we remain the same.

 

You think I lost, I think you lost, just stating that back and forth doesn't do anything for me.

But I see you still can't provide answers. Ok.

 

Talk about arrogance, I am not going to dignify your nonsense baiting with a response.

Yes according to convention you absolutely did lose, you think you can invent and demand your own protocol, well sorry you cant, and I tire of the constant nonsense you demand answers for because you dont or you pretend that you dont comprehend conventional protocol. I no longer care.

I gave you the opportunity to find another thread or make a new one, if thats not acceptable, have a nice day.

 

Let's see, another three paragraphs, still no answer. Ok.

I want to discuss the actual arguments, but you seem not to want to bring anything there.

 

You already did, too late you stand fully debunked HERE and I am not willing to start from the beginning only to wind up debunking you again. I suggest wading through all the bird and rereading the thread a few times and also better educating yourself on convention lol

You are disrupting the OP's thread.

 

There may be a divine creator, or there may not be. I don't care either way. Just be a halfway decent person and help people out when you can. You don't shove your beliefs down my throat, and I won't shove my beliefs (or lack thereof) down yours. Live and let live. We agnostics are willing to do that. Believers, however, are not...

 

Weak agnosticism fits me. As for as for the criteria I use to assess knowledge. When it comes to a claimed deity I look at the corroborating evidence. Sadly the evidence is weak and wide open to interpretation. If a belief in a deity relies upon my ability to interpret things then it is faith and not knowledge. Facts are not open to interpretation and knowledge should be based upon facts whenever possible. Knowledge based upon things other than facts tend to be speculative at best.