Are agnostics fence sitters?

[Thunderbird is the word]

I'm an agnostic, am I just a fence sitter that's too cowardly to take a side on the question of god?

[Antonio the Sixth]

No (agnostic)

[Türkisblau]

Agnosticism is a worthless blight on religious discourse.

[afleitch]

It's fairer to say you don't care rather than 'don't know' I find it strange to declare agnosticism on the god argument, but not on other manifestations of belief.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's fairer to say you don't care rather than 'don't know'

No, it's not. I for one am very interested in metaphysical ideas and discussions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because most other manifestations of belief can actually be assessed based on factual evidence? There is no such thing as a logically coherent "proof" of God's existence or nonexistence.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Where is the 'maybe' option?

[Alcon]

Agnosticism is a worthless blight on religious discourse.

How do you figure?

[afleitch]

It's fairer to say you don't care rather than 'don't know'

No, it's not. I for one am very interested in metaphysical ideas and discussions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because most other manifestations of belief can actually be assessed based on factual evidence? There is no such thing as a logically coherent "proof" of God's existence or nonexistence.

There is no such thing as logically coherent 'proof' of tarot, demons, fairy folk etc. But you're not agnostic towards them. You are not agnostic towards them as there aren't several billion people trying to advance them in public discourse. You are agnostic towards one theological concept because it has been elevated to a position of reverence.

The idea that ontology must be structured around the dichotomy of 'god v no god' is evidence of that. Thinking in the West from philosophy to sociology to concepts of the self and of justice consciously reflect this dichotomy. However, for a long time, isolated from the ebb and flow of what was flowing out of the middle east, China for example developed an ontology/metaphysics in which that dichotomy was essentially absent or not elevated to a 'base'. The same has been found even in undeveloped isolated groups/tribes; their stories and legends and song don't revolve around what Nietszche would categorise as 'God v Death of God'.

Part of the reason I am defined as a-theist, but in reality increasingly care less and less about god as a concept is that I'm conscious of that dichotomy and really think there are more interesting (to me) and more far reaching concepts to grapple with.

[°Leprechaun]

No, agnostic is the knowledge that you don't anything about the supernatural. It is logical.
Atheism is a better term for agnostic, however. "Do you believe in some supernatural all powerful being?" If the answer is no, you are an atheist (sometimes called an agnostic), if yes a theist.
That is better than asking "Is there a supernatural all powerful being?" you can say you don't know and call yourself an agnostic, but why not just get off that fence and call yourself an atheist, because it's really the same thing?

Problem solved.

[°Leprechaun]

It's fairer to say you don't care rather than 'don't know'

No, it's not. I for one am very interested in metaphysical ideas and discussions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because most other manifestations of belief can actually be assessed based on factual evidence? There is no such thing as a logically coherent "proof" of God's existence or nonexistence.

There is no such thing as logically coherent 'proof' of tarot, demons, fairy folk etc. But you're not agnostic towards them. You are not agnostic towards them as there aren't several billion people trying to advance them in public discourse. You are agnostic towards one theological concept because it has been elevated to a position of defferance.

"You are agnostic towards one theological concept because it has been elevated to a position of defferance"

In many countries Christianity is the most popular alternative to atheism. If one rejects their Christian upbringing it is logical to embrace atheism. Why replace one dogmatic religion with another? Theism doesn't have to be dogmatic per se, but it often (if not usually) is. Have the courage to say I believe what I believe because I believe it not because some scripture or some other person demands that you do. Believe something because YOU believe it
is reasonable and logical rather than because some book or some person tells you that you should. Simple?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's fairer to say you don't care rather than 'don't know'

No, it's not. I for one am very interested in metaphysical ideas and discussions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because most other manifestations of belief can actually be assessed based on factual evidence? There is no such thing as a logically coherent "proof" of God's existence or nonexistence.

There is no such thing as logically coherent 'proof' of tarot, demons, fairy folk etc. But you're not agnostic towards them. You are not agnostic towards them as there aren't several billion people trying to advance them in public discourse. You are agnostic towards one theological concept because it has been elevated to a position of reverence.

The idea that ontology must be structured around the dichotomy of 'god v no god' is evidence of that. Thinking in the West from philosophy to sociology to concepts of the self and of justice consciously reflect this dichotomy. However, for a long time, isolated from the ebb and flow of what was flowing out of the middle east, China for example developed an ontology/metaphysics in which that dichotomy was essentially absent or not elevated to a 'base'. The same has been found even in undeveloped isolated groups/tribes; their stories and legends and song don't revolve around what Nietszche would categorise as 'God v Death of God'.

Part of the reason I am defined as a-theist, but in reality increasingly care less and less about god as a concept is that I'm conscious of that dichotomy and really think there are more interesting (to me) and more far reaching concepts to grapple with.

The concept of God as envisioned in Abrahamic faiths is certainly historically and geographically specific. However, from what I've seen, the idea of deity in its purest form - that is, the belief that there is one or several entities that transcend the material world in some way or another - can be found among all societies. Hell, as a thread on this very board revealed to me, even a bunch of ultra-rationalists on the internet ended up coming up with their own AI tech-God.

The point is not that I believe there's a 50% chance that the Christian God exists exactly as the Bible says, versus a 50% chance that there is nothing. The point is simply that the entire realm of metaphysics is beyond the scope of demonstration based on factual evidence. I simply think it makes no sense to assess a metaphysical belief based on how plausible or "true" it is. I'm interested in judging beliefs in terms of how philosophically interesting and challenging they are, what their moral implications are, how they might shape human thought and culture, etc. Saying "lol dumb fairytales" denotes a fundamental lack of understanding of what makes metaphysics so interesting.

[Türkisblau]

Agnosticism is a worthless blight on religious discourse.

How do you figure?

I feel as if "I'm agnostic" is a get out of jail free card in a lot of discussions regarding religion, at least in my experience.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Agnosticism is a worthless blight on religious discourse.

How do you figure?

I feel as if "I'm agnostic" is a get out of jail free card in a lot of discussions regarding religion, at least in my experience.

Not all religious discussions have to revolve around the existence or non-existence of God... thank God.

[RINO Tom]

No, I respect agnostics.  Taking organized religion out of the question (for some reason nearly impossible for both atheistic and religious people alike), I find pondering whether or not our Universe formed out of nothing by chance and essentially created itself or it was created by an extra-dimensional intelligence of sorts completely worthwhile and most certainly fascinating.

[i4indyguy]

No.  Given how many important questions there are in the world, and how genuinely confusing the evidence for or against god can be to those who even bother to take a serious look at it, throwing your hands up in confusion and admitting 'I just don't know"  is a respectable stance.

I do prefer that people take a serious look at the existence/nature of god, given that it has such far reaching influence on ones worldview, but there are plenty who are simply struggling to keep their head above water in life, and grand esoteric mysteries needn't be a fixation for all humans.

Though I readily identify as an atheist to anyone who asks, by technical qualifications, I am actually agnostic myself.   NO, I am not and cannot ever be certain. But I am functionally atheist.  I live my life as though it weren't true, while maintaining persuadability.   

I'm technically Agnostic RE the lock ness monster. But functionally unbelieving. I would go for a swim without fear of being eaten, which is a good measure of whether you believe a dinosaur swims in that big lake.  And I readily accept Pascals  Wager.  Even if I end up being catastrophically wrong.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And I readily accept Pascals  Wager.  Even if I end up being catastrophically wrong.

I mean, Pascal's Wager is an utter joke and I'm pretty sure even the most proselyte Christian wouldn't dare bringing it up. It ranks just below the Ontological Argument among the worst possible ways to convince a nonbeliever to believe.

But yeah, I guess I'm mostly "functionally atheist" as well. To paraphrase Drumpf (uggggghhhh), you either have faith or you don't. That said, I think agnosticism allows for a sense of openness in the realm of metaphysics that's very enriching culturally and morally.

[Alcon]

Agnosticism is a worthless blight on religious discourse.

How do you figure?

I feel as if "I'm agnostic" is a get out of jail free card in a lot of discussions regarding religion, at least in my experience.

Isn't being uncertain a "get out of jail free" card for any conversation?  Does that mean uncertainty is a "worthless blight" on any discourse?  Uncertainty is oftentimes the most reasonable option.  It's especially defensible, I might argue, on the topic of metaphysics, which as Antonio says is almost definitionally outside the realm of conventional 'knowability.'

Also, how is intellectually unjustified certainty not a much worse blight on discourse than being over-cautious? 

[Why]

I do not think it is fair to call all agnostics fence sitters although some of them could be fence sitters.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No, plenty of them could be on the "it would be foolish to outright reject the possibility" justification.

[dax00]

I feel that it's acceptable to call yourself an agnostic if you don't claim to also be a member of a specific religion or atheism.

[RINO Tom]

Given the hypothetical nature of a "God" if one exists (a consciousness of sorts that created space and time), it seems agnosticism is the natural position for those who don't belief, rather than atheism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I do not think it is fair to call all agnostics fence sitters although some of them could be fence sitters.

What a fence-sitting position.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Agnostics are more fence-deniers than fence-sitters.

[Ronnie]

I don't agree with Penn Jilette on a whole lot, but I think he's in the right on this issue:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CTWlQaZ0DWo

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't agree with Penn Jilette on a whole lot, but I think he's in the right on this issue:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CTWlQaZ0DWo

Boy, that was tedious. 3 whole minutes to get to the point in a 9-minute video.

A point that's ultimately just a matter of semantics. Sure, by his definition I'm an atheist, why not. I think it's useful to distinguish absence of belief from belief in the absence - especially since the latter almost always comes in association with a whole philosophical framework I find myself disagreeing more and more with.

And sure, most atheists aren't dogmatic, just as most Christians aren't. In both cases however, the dogmatists form a sizable and sadly very vocal minority.