• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is agnosticism a tenable position, if so how?

William Rea said:
Agnostic superiority complex strawman bullcrap.

That is the only response that this post and it's lack of any kind of nuance deserves.
Click to expand...

Well that's an incredibly arrogant and condescending thing to say.

What gives you the right to say that?

There is a clear difference in saying something does/doesn't exist, and saying that it's possible something does/doesn't exist.

Why is that so hard to understand?
 
Dragonfly said:
Well that's an incredibly arrogant and condescending thing to say.

What gives you the right to say that?

There is a clear difference in saying something does/doesn't exist, and saying that it's possible something does/doesn't exist.

Why is that so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

No, it is a truthful thing to say.

In my experience, people that claim to be agnostic but that use that kind of language have always been trying to assert that agnostic is some kind of superior position to take. I'd rather interact with theists who will have a conversation than that specific kind of agnostic.
 
William Rea said:
No, it is a truthful thing to say.

In my experience, people that claim to be agnostic but that use that kind of language have always been trying to assert that agnostic is some kind of superior position to take. I'd rather interact with theists who will have a conversation than that specific kind of agnostic.
Click to expand...

Is your complaint that those agnostics won't have a discussion with you about the existence or non-existence of God?
 
Cephus said:
I can't have an anti-god agenda any more than I can have an anti-Bigfoot agenda. There's no reason to think gods are real. If anything, I am anti-religion because of the demonstrable harm that religion can do and has done to this planet.
Click to expand...
You believe in ghosts? Why or why not? Global warming? Why or why not?
 
Centrehalf said:
Is your complaint that those agnostics won't have a discussion with you about the existence or non-existence of God?
Click to expand...

I have met plenty of extremely reasonable and clearly well educated agnostics that have sincere and well thought out reasons for their position. I respect that totally and they are generally not that rare because to come to an agnostic position requires a certain kind of thinking.

What I don't respect are fundagelical agnostics that strawman atheism and try to remove any nuance whatsoever from the argument.
 
William Rea said:
I have met plenty of extremely reasonable and clearly well educated agnostics that have sincere and well thought out reasons for their position. I respect that totally and they are generally not that rare because to come to an agnostic position requires a certain kind of thinking.

What I don't respect are fundagelical agnostics that strawman atheism and try to remove any nuance whatsoever from the argument.
Click to expand...

An agnostic is not engaged in the argument. It sounds to me like you have an internal problem with other atheists who don't think just like you.
 
cabse5 said:
You believe in ghosts? Why or why not? Global warming? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

I don't accept the evidence for ghosts as commonly described, it is anecdotal and there are far more credible explanations for ghosts that do not involve the supernatural, I lack a belief in ghosts.

There is evidence for global warming, I do not fully understand it and would never claim to, I give some credence to it but accept that there could be explanations other than human interaction with the environment. I do not accept that there is a science conspiracy theory.
 
Centrehalf said:
An agnostic is not engaged in the argument. It sounds to me like you have an internal problem with other atheists who don't think just like you.
Click to expand...

If Winchester is an agnostic/athiest/theist I'm sure that he/she will come in here and tell me, you chose to put yourself between our posts, not me.
 
William Rea said:
If Winchester is an agnostic/athiest/theist I'm sure that he/she will come in here and tell me, you chose to put yourself between our posts, not me.
Click to expand...

You quoted me first so don't complain. Then you quoted me again and talked about nuance. At that point we have a conversation so don't drag another poster into this. You didn't even complain about the position of those so-called agnostics, you complained about their attitude and their lack of understanding regarding your nuanced view. Explain the nuance you display when discussing a thumbs up/thumbs down topic.
 
Cephus said:
I can't have an anti-god agenda any more than I can have an anti-Bigfoot agenda. There's no reason to think gods are real. If anything, I am anti-religion because of the demonstrable harm that religion can do and has done to this planet.
Click to expand...
First, read your last sentence, again. Second, an agnostic would neither deny nor affirm the existence of Big Foot with no real evidence of the Yeti and also with no real way to demonstrate how man was created - a believer in evolution as the creator would absolutely believe in Big Foot because the yeti would be the missing link -. The belief in Big Foot would, IMO, be showing the atheist bias.

If you don't believe in gods and also don't believe in Big Foot, how was the universe created? You believe in ghosts? Why or why not? Global warming? Why or why not?
 
Last edited:
free_think said:
For this discussion, to avoid getting tangled up in definitions, let's use the relevant Marion Webster definitions of the two terms.

Atheism: 2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Agnosticism: 1 : a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not.

full: 1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

Atheism | Definition of Atheism by Merriam-Webster
Agnostic | Definition of Agnostic by Merriam-Webster

What I'm wondering is why we insist on separating these two terms, and why and to whom this separation matters.

To put it very simply, how is "not committed to believing" any different than "disbelief"?

From the point of view of the traditional theist, both parties are equally damned as unbelievers.

From the point of view of the agnostic or the atheist, both of them are unbelievers as opposed to the theist.

Why the need to separate two sides of an argument into three when the practical results of doing so do not fundamentally change the results on any side.

If you think they do change the results, how?

I have further clarifications on this thought, but perhaps they'll get fleshed out in discussion.
Click to expand...

Others have made fine points on this.
To explain my reasoning, an example.

Prove god exists, prove god doesn't exist.
I can't.
 
Cephus said:
Agnosticism is not some middle ground between atheism and theism. It is an entirely different position. Everyone, whether they like it or not, is either an atheist or a theist. It is a binary proposition. If you believe in a god, you are a theist. Anything else and you are an atheist. Atheism is the lack of theism.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has no clue what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

And this is a position of ownership over other's beliefs.
Anyone who says differently doesn't know what THEY are talking about. :)

I think we should stop asking why the agnostic finds the term "agnostic" so important and start asking the more important question why its so important to theists and atheists that there be no agnostics.
It basically boils down to people not being able to accept that no I'm not for or against you, I simply don't have a dog in your holy war. I don't know is hardly a third side to any argument. And the lines that people feel they need to draw in the sand actually astounds me. Why do you care so much? Why not just live and let live?

Agnostics also don't feel it very important to "defend" their position so much (typically speaking). Theists want to call us confused we shrug it off, atheists want to call us "Negative Atheist" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean), we shrug it off. Trying to defend "I simply don't know and on most days don't care" is really kind of futile.
However tenable that is is up to you. No skin off my teeth until they outlaw agnosticism.
 
Last edited:
William Rea said:
No, atheism is grounded in a lack of belief, it is in no way religious, there are no beliefs, creeds or rituals involved in it. Oh, and if you dig down deep enough and listen to the nuances, practically all atheists when you actually have a discussion with them will cite a lack of evidence, in other words a lack of belief in the absence of evidence.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree that atheism is not a religion.

But to say that atheism is "grounded in a lack of belief"...is incorrect. And to say that "there are no beliefs" is just as incorrect.

Here in DP...we have several atheists who state without equivocation, "There are no gods." There are some who indicate that it is not even possible for gods to exist.

To suggest, as you do here, William, that there are no "beliefs" involved in atheism...

...is incorrect.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I certainly agree that atheism is not a religion.

But to say that atheism is "grounded in a lack of belief"...is incorrect. And to say that "there are no beliefs" is just as incorrect.

Here in DP...we have several atheists who state without equivocation, "There are no gods." There are some who indicate that it is not even possible for gods to exist.

To suggest, as you do here, William, that there are no "beliefs" involved in atheism...

...is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Atheists BELIEVE there is no god.
 
Dragonfly said:
Atheists BELIEVE there is no god.
Click to expand...

Many of them do, Dragonfly...perhaps most of them. But not all of them.

Some come from an agnostic position...but just don't use the descriptor "agnostic" because they fear the scorn many of their fellow atheists have toward the word.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Many of them do, Dragonfly...perhaps most of them. But not all of them.

Some come from an agnostic position...but just don't use the descriptor "agnostic" because they fear the scorn many of their fellow atheists have toward the word.
Click to expand...

Christians, Agnostics, Atheists are not a problem. Fanatics are.
 
William Rea said:
Agnostic superiority complex strawman bullcrap.

That is the only response that this post and it's lack of any kind of nuance deserves.
Click to expand...

You're reading way too much into my post. It is to be read dispassionately with no superiority complex in it as I see no one POV as being superior to the other. And no there is no nuance in it, there wasn't meant to be, just my stripped down version of how I fundamentally see the 3 groups.
 
Centrehalf said:
You quoted me first so don't complain. Then you quoted me again and talked about nuance. At that point we have a conversation so don't drag another poster into this. You didn't even complain about the position of those so-called agnostics, you complained about their attitude and their lack of understanding regarding your nuanced view. Explain the nuance you display when discussing a thumbs up/thumbs down topic.
Click to expand...

**** off you prick. I quoted Winchester and responded to his post here, this was my first post in the thread...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...-tenable-position-if-so-5.html#post1065659453

Dragonfly responded to me here...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...-tenable-position-if-so-6.html#post1065659498

I responded to Dragonfly here...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...-tenable-position-if-so-6.html#post1065659521

Then you stuck your ****ing nose in the trough here...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...-tenable-position-if-so-6.html#post1065659530

and the string of the thread of posts went on from there, I originally quoted Winchester, I never quoted you first in that string of posts!

Start from here and follow the string of quotes back...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...-tenable-position-if-so-6.html#post1065659596

I swear it is getting more ****ing mental around here every day, is there a ****ing retard convention going on?
 
William Rea said:
**** off you prick. I quoted Winchester and responded to his post here, this was my first post in the thread...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...-tenable-position-if-so-5.html#post1065659453

Dragonfly responded to me here...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...-tenable-position-if-so-6.html#post1065659498

I responded to Dragonfly here...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...-tenable-position-if-so-6.html#post1065659521

Then you stuck your ****ing nose in the trough here...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...-tenable-position-if-so-6.html#post1065659530

and the string of the thread of posts went on from there, I originally quoted Winchester, I never quoted you first in that string of posts!

Start from here and follow the string of quotes back...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...-tenable-position-if-so-6.html#post1065659596

I swear it is getting more ****ing mental around here every day, is there a ****ing retard convention going on?
Click to expand...

My first post in this thread was #47, I quoted free_think. So you can Eff off. After reading the rest of your tantrum now I understand your problem, everyone else sees you the way I do and the ridicule you receive has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You tell yourself it does of course but it doesn't, they're just making fun of you.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I certainly agree that atheism is not a religion.

But to say that atheism is "grounded in a lack of belief"...is incorrect. And to say that "there are no beliefs" is just as incorrect.

Here in DP...we have several atheists who state without equivocation, "There are no gods." There are some who indicate that it is not even possible for gods to exist.

To suggest, as you do here, William, that there are no "beliefs" involved in atheism...

...is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Like I care what any fundagelical agnostic has to say about, well, anything.
 
Winchester said:
You're reading way too much into my post. It is to be read dispassionately with no superiority complex in it as I see no one POV as being superior to the other. And no there is no nuance in it, there wasn't meant to be, just my stripped down version of how I fundamentally see the 3 groups.
Click to expand...

It is not a topic that you can strip down. The fundagelical agnostics and theists will always try to strawman it that way. I accept that there was no mendacity in your posts but, I could not leave it there unchallenged. I have no axe to grind with you in that case Winchester.
 
Centrehalf said:
My first post in this thread was #47, I quoted free_think. So you can Eff off. After reading the rest of your tantrum now I understand your problem, everyone else sees you the way I do and the ridicule you receive has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You tell yourself it does of course but it doesn't, they're just making fun of you.
Click to expand...

NO, my problem is that I try to carefully follow thread traffic and the origin of the thread of posts was Winchester and his assertion. It's not a tantrum, it's assholes jumping into threads shouting, me, me, me' that is the problem. You put yourself in there, not me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom