Is agnostic a nonesense position? Either you believe in something

>>9903725
No, agnostic just means "I don't believe I have enough information to know for sure one way or another". It makes perfect sense.

>>9903725
>By having a possibilty of believing, you admit there is something beyond your comprehension
No, by having a possibility of believing, you admit that there MIGHT be something, not that there IS. And the matter doesn't hinge on whether there is something beyond one's comprehension... pretty much everyone admits that there are things beyond our comprehension, the question is whether they are divine or not.

>>9903758
>No, by having a possibility of believing, you admit that there MIGHT be something, not that there IS.
This "might" already assumes that there are unknowns, otherwise we wouldn't need to ask if there is something.

>pretty much everyone admits that there are things beyond our comprehension, the question is whether they are divine or not.
The question is not necessary as they are both divine and not as they are both placed in the unknown.

>>9903725
Agnostics believe they don't have enough information to come to a proper decision, how is that not a belief?

>>9903747
>>9904220
sounds like a cop-out

File: door.png (2KB, 237x357px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 237x357px

>>9904756
What's behind this door?

>>9904756
Not everyone feels the need to participate and choose sides in every fight.

>>9903725

>either you believe in something or you don't

... Why? That sounds like a very egotistical false dilemma. If your belief in something doesn't affect it, why is it necessary?

If you don't believe in your neighbors, do they disappear?

>>9904756
You might just not really care.
I grew up without anyone talking to me about god, or religion. By 4, which is pretty much immediately, I recognized that "santa" is merely my neighbor.
Only thing I "believed' in as a kid was night terrors.
It's seems to be hard for many people to understand this.

Now in early 20s I've tried understanding/imagine god, but can't do it. I can't feel anything. Yet I understand why having a belief is most of the time good for you. So I entertain the idea that it could be possible.

>>9904768
nothing, it's a 2d image.

>>9904772
non-participation doesn't require a viewpoint

>>9904786
i don't see what this has to do with claiming agnosticism. maybe you can elaborate.

>>9904796
so you're baiting. okay.

>>9904804
op is baiting, i'm just answering your questions.

>>9904808
OP is genuinely troubled with his belief, hence trying to find answers through bait. It's not much different from Nazis on /pol/ wanting to debate the veracity of the Holocaust all the time

>>9904756
It's not

>>9904823
why not?

>>9904861
No reason to believe it is

Agnosticism is stupid since by the cosmological/ontological argument, God's existence is very obvious and well accepted as proven.

>>9904871
if someone is disinterested in religion or ontology, why subscribe to agnosticism? call it what it is, apathy.

>>9904891
People do use the label apatheists though and distinctly from agnosticism.

>>9903725
Theo tier list:
1. Theological noncognitivism
2. Theism
3. Agnosticism
4. Atheism

OP

The capacity to believe does not negate the capacity to comprehend and you have not provided any argument as to why I should metaphysically committ that there is a neccessarry inverse relationship between belief and comprehensive

Therefore I can believe in God and comprehend God through that very same belief because the comprehension of God is the basis for my comprehension [Descartes 3rd meditation]

>>9903747
The OP's question is regarding the possibility of a necessary negation or inverse relationship between the faculty of comprehension and the faculty of belief. It is not regard agnosticism as an epistemic standpoint, but as a standpoint that metaphysically cannot exist due to said negation or contradiction between belief and comprehension

>>9903758
The question regards a contradiction in terms between belief and comprehension, and therefore does not regard the agnostic as a state of ontological uncertainty

>>9903816
in re line 1
An unknown does not require that said unknowns neccessarrialy possess the potential of being divine unknowns. It is true that if one believed that for a set of all unknowns that some unknowns COULD be divine, that said person would committ themselves to the existence of God. However, in this case, the agnostic does not committ themselves to the belief that for a set of all unknowns some unknowns could be divine. On the contrary, the agnostic's perspective is characterized as not knowing whether in a set of all unknowns, that any unknowns are either divine nor not divine.
in re line 2
It is necessary not that they are considered "Divine and not", but that they are considered "divine OR not", considering that the epistemic perspective that a thing must either be divine OR not divine is fixed in the agnostic's mind before knowing whether the object is indeed divine or not. By this, I mean that the agnostic is not uncertain of whether objects are divine AND not divine at the same time, or whether they are only divine or only not divine. Rather, the agnostic already believes that an object is neccessarially divine or not divine. The agnostic's uncertainty only stems from whether there are real divine objects, again not whether said objects are also not divine.
>>9904872
The ontological argument regards the existence of God, not the existence of the agnostic as a causally possible phenomenological state.

>>9904756
Nothing wrong with a good ol cop out

>>9904916

Typos:

Reply 1:
any relationship between belief and comprehension*

Reply 2: is is not regarding* agnosticism

Reply 4: to clarify, the OP's actual quandry, as worded, regards whether an Agnostic can exist. The OP claims that an agnostic cannot exist, because there is necessarially an inverse relationship between belief and comprehension. I stopped here, however if OP did prove that there is an inverse relationship, OP would still be wrong, because I do not see how the agnostic would need to both comprehend and believe at the same time. Rather, we could still consider an agnostic to exist under the circumstance of only believing and not comprehending, and also an agnostic could exist under the circumstance of only believing and not comprehending. Therefore the OP's argument is flawed / ommitts necessary argumentation on two levels

>>9904796
Agnosticism is the default position.
My point was that god isn't a "concept" for me, or it wasn't until I started browsing youtube as a teenager.
If a kid, like I was, would never been told about religion, belief, or god. Then those things wouldn't exist as ideas or concepts, at all, to that person.
Not having a stand om the issue about god, is the real default position. Not Atheism, or theism.
>You can't say you like or dislike chocolate if you've never had it. And if you've never heard of it ...

>>9903725
>By having a possibilty of believing, you admit there is something beyond your comprehension, so you believe like a gnostic
That's actually a very good point I've never considered before.

>>9903747
It doesn't really though. As OP points out the agnostic position starts out that the subject is beyond comprehension. This implicitly assumes that there is something to not be comprehended. The reason this is nonsensical is because this implicit premise is totally at odds with the conclusion, that we cannot know if there is a god. If we assume agnostic premises then it would seem intuitive that actually is a god. But this just poses a new problem, that conclusion would be at odds with usual agnostic epistemology that requires some level of empirical evidence. And the evidence available to us i.e nothing whatsoever would suggest there is no god. Or in other words it is a total cop-out, it's a way to not dismiss your own unconscious cultural biases towards theism.

>>9905151
>Agnosticism is the default position.
That's not what agnosticism is, agnosticism isn't simply "I don't know" it is itself a positive claim - that we cannot know. You would have need to have thought about it at some point to reach that conclusion rather than everyone having it innately.

>>9905151
>If a kid, like I was, would never been told about religion, belief, or god. Then those things wouldn't exist as ideas or concepts, at all, to that person.
This isn't necessarily true. Those concepts came into use among humans at some point, so there's no reason to think they would not do so again.

no. and i'm sick of atheists insisting that you can only believe in something or not believe in it. i don't know what i believe. saying that because i don't know what i believe, i lack a positive belief in god and am therefore an atheist seems to confuse things.

according to them, there are only two positions in regard to belief (belief, nonbelief) and knowledge (you know, you don't know), and these are separate questions that can't intersect. but it seems to that this only works if they restate the position of agnostics in particular phraseology. for example, if you frame it as "i don't know if there is a god", then yes, that would be a separate question, and atheists could be agnostics, as could theists. but in addition to not knowing if there is a god, i would also say that i don't know if i believe there is a god. that's what they don't seem to get. there seems to me to be a key distinction between uncertainty about what someone knows and uncertainty about what they believe. in most cases, agnostics (such as myself) are expressing lack of knowledge, not merely about the existence of god, but also about whether they believe in him. and this seems to be the fundamental distinction between self-described agnostics and atheists, not some bit of pedantry.

unlike atheists, i don't put the existence of god on par with le flying spaghetti monster. the existence of the universe is a great mystery, and it seems to me that you have to be particularly unimaginative to be able to conceive of a universe that is eternal, or at least of physical laws preceding the existence of the universe that are eternal, and at the same time be incapable of conceivable of a being preceding their existence.

>>9905225
I see.

So agnostics are just brainlets that can't figure out what opinions they have. Very interesting.

>>9905225
Matt. 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

>>9905151
>If a kid, like I was, would never been told about religion, belief, or god. Then those things wouldn't exist as ideas or concepts

and if a kid was told nothing at all in some sort of language/social interaction deprivation experiment, what would they think? what would be their default position?

>>9905353
Supralapsarian Calvinism

>>9903725
>Either you believe in something or you don't.
t. brainlet

>>9904922
>Therefore I can believe in God and comprehend God through that very same belief because the comprehension of God is the basis for my comprehension [Descartes 3rd meditation]
Now we can discern the dual nature of identity and the unknown. Split occurs, identity becomes autonomous deciding what to believe in and how much to comprehend the moment he believes in his own comprehension.

>It is necessary not that they are considered "Divine and not", but that they are considered "divine OR not", considering that the epistemic perspective that a thing must either be divine OR not divine is fixed in the agnostic's mind before knowing whether the object is indeed divine or not. By this, I mean that the agnostic is not uncertain of whether objects are divine AND not divine at the same time, or whether they are only divine or only not divine. Rather, the agnostic already believes that an object is neccessarially divine or not divine. The agnostic's uncertainty only stems from whether there are real divine objects, again not whether said objects are also not divine.
Agnostic by def: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena". Note that it is not a question of whether it is divine or not, it's "anything beyond material phenomena". It becomes not a question of divine or not divine, divine and not divine, but of belief that they are both in the unknown. Agnostic comprehends his own lack of comprehension, that there is something beyond his knowledge and so full oneness of comprehension. In the same vein I said on my OP "even the revelation of God won't stop you from being an unbeliever because you fully comprehend it the moment it enters your knowledge." For such an unbeliever, a robot, things from beyond enters him to be comprehended. He is not aware there is a beyond at all.

What leaves us being either robots or gnostics.

>>9903725
>Obsessing about labels.

Let me make this nice and clear for you.
Do you know how the universe works? No? Okay then forming "beliefs" about it would be rather foolish.

>>9905870
So you are assuming he doesn't know about the universe then say he shouldn't question ideas that depends how you understand universe?

Next time be silent rather than shitpost whatever comes to mind

>>9905225
It is not about believing in something but believing in anything

>>9906094
Questions aren't beliefs.

>>9905353
I'm arguing against the idea religious people hold that belief in god is the default. Or that people go from blind belief to atheism. My point is you can grow up without either.
I didn't become "agnostic/atheist" nor do I choose to still be.

Agnosticism is a linguistic sleight-of-hand to continue trolling theists while shielding onesself from the same counter-trolling tactics that can be used on hard-core atheists.

You either believe or you don't.
Atheism and agnosticism is functionally the same exact fucking thing, it's just that one had (quite consciously) described itself in more sophisticated language to escape some of the more powerful arguments against nonbelievers.

>>9906166
No.
Atheism is the denial of God's existence. Active disbelief.

>>9904756
4u

>>9906173

Trying to create some distinction between "active" disbelief and "passive" disbelief is pure fucking autism. It's exactly the same thing.
Or if you like, the atheist says there is no God with his mouth, and the agnostic says it only in his heart. Anything else is pure dishonesty.

>>9905180
>starts out that the subject is beyond comprehension.
Or it starts out that the subject believes himself to not possess the information needed for a judgment, without necessarily thinking that that information can't be had.

>>9903725
It's not nonsense, it's a position on knowability that I feel is the most practical. But it is not necessarily a position on faith or religion. Saying "I can't know for sure" is an acknowledgement of limitation.

On the other hand when someone says they are theistic or atheistic it does not necessarily mean that they are gnostic. It is merely a position of faith. There are faithful people that doubt all the time, it is a part of the process of faith. There are those that never worship but won't say that a god is impossible.

The positions of "I know there's a god" or "I know there's no god" both have requirements of blind faith (and is a position that other sides use to build a strawman out of).

It's similar to scientism, accepting research results as an inerrant truth versus a scientist that accepts that the current consensus needs to be used but continually doubted and questioned in order for the field to grow.

>>9903725
"Agnostic" is basically just a nice word for "fence sitting faggot"

>>9906185
Nonsense. If I tell you I have a coin in my hand, you can believe I do, believe I don't, or not be sure.

>>9906262
As you have the choice of throwing the coin you fall into ontological dilemma where no matter what you choose, as long as you take action on this choice, choice coinciding action, you are acting in accordance with belief of the unknown.

>>9903725
>you admit there is something beyond your comprehension
You can reference something that isn't there, without implying its existence.

Read some Frege and work your way forwards up to formal logic.

Holy shit, this is like philosophy 101, folks.

It also works without comprehension, by the way.
"I'm wearing a blue shirt."
Do you believe me? Do you think I'm lying? Or do you just not know either way?

Not-knowing due to lack of information is a valid position to have.

>>9903725
By your logic being uncertain of anything would be nonsensical.
Most people are functionally agnostic, anybody who's actually certain there is or isn't a "god" is a liar and probably has issues.

>>9906977
>"I'm wearing a blue shirt."
Do you believe me? Do you think I'm lying? Or do you just not know either way?
You already give some level of comprehension. The individual necessarily determines the level of comprehension when you communicate with him, establish him as a sovereign part of the world.

The idea here is that referencing something is not about whether it will potentially exist or not, but that it is placed outside of your full comprehension as a lack with unknown potential. You have to believe in something that is outside your knowledge just to make a claim what it might be. Not believing in something would destroy the individual identity's of its awareness of the world as anything else but as him being the world itself, full comprehension of himself as such without an outside for him to reference. An ai in a video game, for example. From our perspective, it is a part of the game but from his he is the game itself.

>>9907066
>You already give some level of comprehension. The individual necessarily determines the level of comprehension when you communicate with him, establish him as a sovereign part of the world.
You didn't answer the question tho.
>You have to believe in something that is outside your knowledge just to make a claim what it might be.
Agnostics don't make claims tho. Agnosticism is exclusively the lack of opinion.
>Not believing in something would destroy the individual identity's of its awareness of the world as anything else but as him being the world itself,
No, because "your world" is nothing but what you manage to represent of it. That's the whole problem with truth-claims, m8.
>full comprehension of himself as such without an outside for him to reference.
The fuck you on about?

>An ai in a video game, for example. From our perspective, it is a part of the game but from his he is the game itself.
An AI has no perspective.
This is the weakest and shittiest attempts at misusing brain in the vat I've ever seen.

Bruh, I'm perfectly capable of NOT having opinions about things I don't know, things I don't comprehend, assertions without enough information or assertions that don't make sense.
Unless you want to go radical on the reference-possibilities. In which case you would assume any reference to anything "outside" als inherently false.
But that's a dumb thing to do.

By the by, you can also reference things you do not comprehend. Reference isn't determined by full comprehension or even belief in full comprehension.

>>9907115
If you lack basic logic save yourself from shitposting like an incel

>>9903725

Look at the etymology, fucktard. Agnostic means doesn't know. You can believe something is true without also believing that you know it. I mean, it would be dumb to do so but I've still pretty seriously deflated your argument.

More colloquially, agnostic means you don't assent to either the claim that God exists or that he doesn't. From a positivist position, an agnostic might think it's impossible to verify God's existence and thereby believe that the question "is there a God?" is in fact nonsense. You don't either believe or not believe nonsense.

I feel like you haven't read or thought about this very much.

Do you believe in the Ogbonga god from Somalia?

Never heard of it? So you don't believe it - you are an atheist in relation to it. You are not an agnostic.

I don't see how this is even a problem for so many people.

>>9906185
>Anyone who disagrees with me is being dishonest
Is this how you avoid challenging any of your beliefs?

>>9907189
Because a bunch of gnostics will try to slither their way out of it and imply that a) your notion of god is wrong and they mean something else b) god can't be comprehended so you "knowledge" or "facts" are not an argument or c) SURELY you believe in SOMETHING that might be called "god".

It boils down to actually atheist people being intimidated by the "But you can't DISPROVE it!" meme.

>>9907201
Yeah.
Believing in something is an action. Either you do or you don't.
It doesn't matter if you can prove it or not.

>>9903725
>you admit there is something beyond your comprehension
Why fill this supposedly ontological gap/vaccum with the abrahamic god?

fard on my dick

fard on my dick

fard on my dick

fard on my dick

fard on my dick