NationStates Jolt Archive

Made at the behest of Hydesland on the 'Religion of Homosexuality' thread.

In my view it is; one could argue that you have reached the conclusion that the existence of God cannot be proven or even, possibly, decided upon based on current evidence.

Strong agnosticism, yes. It says "we can't know if God exists, so trying to prove one way or another is impossible". Weak agnosticism, on the other hand, says that we don't know if God exists right now, but it is possible that we may experience something or discover evidence that pushes us one way or another in the future.

In other words, one concludes that we can't know and the other is just sitting on the sidelines watching to see if anything comes up.

Is the state of agnosticism a conclusion?Yes. And can we now get on with something more, um, unexplored?

Made at the behest of Hydesland on the 'Religion of Homosexuality' thread.

In my view it is; one could argue that you have reached the conclusion that the existence of God cannot be proven or even, possibly, decided upon based on current evidence.

I also don't see, with the current information we currently have, how you could hold positions which are anything different from agnosticism, implicit atheism or implicit theism.

Yes. And can we now get on with something more, um, unexplored?

Oh come on, it's not like the other threads havn't been done to death already.

Yes. And can we now get on with something more, um, unexplored?

I propose we move on to which hand we masturbate with...no one has explored that yet...right?

I propose we move on to which hand we masturbate with...no one has explored that yet...right?

Every post is a repost of a repost.

so we have chosen to conclude not to come to any conclusion :confused:

I prefer referring to myself as not caring or possibly too lazy to do any thought on the matter beyond "LOL @ un/religious folk" :)

Strong agnosticism, yes. It says "we can't know if God exists, so trying to prove one way or another is impossible". Weak agnosticism, on the other hand, says that we don't know if God exists right now, but it is possible that we may experience something or discover evidence that pushes us one way or another in the future.

In other words, one concludes that we can't know and the other is just sitting on the sidelines watching to see if anything comes up.

Weak agnosticism does reach a conclusion: that of "with our current information, it is impossible to make a confirmed judgement".

Weak agnosticism does reach a conclusion: that of "with our current information, it is impossible to make a confirmed judgement".

Semantically, yes. But not every conclusion is equal; an explicit conclusion is much stronger than an implicit one.

so we have chosen to conclude not to come to any conclusion :confused:

I prefer referring to myself as not caring or possibly too lazy to do any thought on the matter beyond "LOL @ un/religious folk" :)

So you havn't come to a conclusion. Thus making you a weak agnostic in some ways, a weak atheist in other ways.... just trying to pin down what you are...

(man i'm bored)

In other words, one concludes that we can't know and the other is just sitting on the sidelines watching to see if anything comes up.Or one has made a judgement call based upon an opinion that hasn't been rigorously tested and the other more correctly follows the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experimentation and theory.

I like spin.

Semantically, yes. But not every conclusion is equal; an explicit conclusion is much stronger than an implicit one.

But I wouldn't describe it as intellectually lazy.

Every post is a repost of a repost.

oh I noticed...perhaps we can start our own international incident to liven things up?...Perhaps you and I can paint the white house blue? Or pants the Queen of England?

Strong agnosticism, yes. It says "we can't know if God exists, so trying to prove one way or another is impossible". Weak agnosticism, on the other hand, says that we don't know if God exists right now, but it is possible that we may experience something or discover evidence that pushes us one way or another in the future.

In other words, one concludes that we can't know and the other is just sitting on the sidelines watching to see if anything comes up.

And of course, the voice of reason and common sense enters.
Seriously though, Vetalia, if there is a God then I'd imagine that He'd be like you.

Yes. And can we now get on with something more, um, unexplored?

Blame Hydesland.

I also don't see, with the current information we currently have, how you could hold positions which are anything different from agnosticism, implicit atheism or implicit theism.

Some people claim to have information that others don't, though, in that they claim personal experience. This cannot, however, be proven, but then again neither can a scientific theory.

In my view it is; one could argue that you have reached the conclusion that the existence of God cannot be proven or even, possibly, decided upon based on current evidence.

It most certainly is, through a series of logical deductions about the nature of knowledge.

Some people claim to have information that others don't, though, in that they claim personal experience. This cannot, however, be proven, but then again neither can a scientific theory.

But these religious experiences can only logically conclude to implicit, or weak theism.

no, it's the product of a decision not to search for a conclusion.

But I wouldn't describe it as intellectually lazy.

Well, of course not. Depending on your own stance, having an explicit position could in fact be more intellectually lazy than an implicit one, since it places total confidence in your own knowledge and perception of the way things are.

Every post is a repost of a repost.

That's a postitively intriguing postulate. Impostibly so, I might postit. Did you use copy and poste?

no, it's the product of a decision not to search for a conclusion.

Theres nothing about agnosticism which says you can't search for a decision. Well not implicit agnosticism anyway, it just means that with our current info no verified judgement can be made.

Well, of course not. Depending on your own stance, having an explicit position could in fact be more intellectually lazy than an implicit one, since it places total confidence in your own knowledge and perception of the way things are.

Yup.

Btw, are you an agnostic yourself?

no, it's the product of a decision not to search for a conclusion.

Not necessarily. One could certainly feel that it is impossible to reach a conclusion with certainty, while still searching for or even coming to a conclusion. It just wouldn't be one of certainty.

Theres nothing about agnosticism which says you can't search for a decision. Well not implicit agnosticism anyway, it just means that with our current info no verified judgement can be made.

well if the majority of agnostics are philosophers of theology that might hold some weight. i don't know that that is the case though. i would imagine that most people who decide not to state a definite postion on the existence or non-existence of deities really couldn't give a fuck at the end of the day. i'd go further to suggest that most agnostics don't even conciously identify as agnostics simply because they don't even consider the dilemma. and why should they, after all?

Btw, are you an agnostic yourself?

Not really. I personally tend towards more of a polytheistic spirituality myself, but I'm more or less agnostic on the particulars of that belief system at this point in time.

I propose we move on to which hand we masturbate with...no one has explored that yet...right?

What if I use my feet? :D

just trying to pin down what you are...

I'd say apathetic Agnostic kind of like someone who doesn't care about politics or possibly snooker

only for religion of course

*waffles even more nonsense that makes sense only to those who write it*

(man i'm bored)

considering I'm talking religion. on an internet forum. in which I'm saying how I'm just don't really care.

I can assure you that you are certainty not alone

What if I use my feet? :D

I would like to become your apprentice...

What if I use my feet? :D

But that would just be an outright lie! Wouldn't it?

well if the majority of agnostics are philosophers of theology that might hold some weight. i don't know that that is the case though. i would imagine that most people who decide not to state a definite postion on the existence or non-existence of deities really couldn't give a fuck at the end of the day. i'd go further to suggest that most agnostics don't even conciously identify as agnostics simply because they don't even consider the dilemma. and why should they, after all?

The same could be said of many religious followers that identify as Christian or Buddhist or Jew or whatever simply because that is the default choice due to upbringing, family environment, etc. Maybe a new category for Apathetics?

Blame Hydesland.Yeah. I keep doing that. :p

True agnosticism is an epistemological decision to cease theological exploration. So in a way it is a conclusion, but in a way the word conclusion doesn't even apply.