Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:53 am**

Im interested in getting a general idea as to where Philosophy Now forum members stand in relation the their beliefs...sorry but it is on a scale 1 to 5...sorry if i cant pigeon hole you correctly.

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:08 pm**

Your five grade scale is not bad as far as such things go.

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:26 pm**

Wot Notvacka sed.
Any bets on the outcome?
I'll guess we'll have two in the atheist/agnostic pair of options for every one in the theist/agnostic pair. And the least popular will be the exactly middle position..
As long as people vote before reading this post, cos there's some awkward bastards that would vote against their own beliefs just to prove a smart-arse wrong.

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:03 pm**

Your categories are not logical nor are they exclusive.

You can't be agnostic towards atheism because there is no belief to be unsure of.
Why not be agnostic towards agnosticism?

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:23 pm**

chaz wyman wrote:You can't be agnostic towards atheism because there is no belief to be unsure of.

I interpret that choice as "agnostic about God but leaning towards atheism", which makes sense.

chaz wyman wrote:Why not be agnostic towards agnosticism?

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:27 pm**

Notvacka wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:You can't be agnostic towards atheism because there is no belief to be unsure of.
I interpret that choice as "agnostic about God but leaning towards atheism", which makes sense.

THen why have a separate category for agnosticism?
Surely the simple fact that you are agnostic, is most commonly a category of atheism.
How many people seriously are agnostic but lean towards theism?
That would mean you are unsure about the thing you are leaning towards.

Then once you actually embrace the true (designated) meaning of agnosticism you have to accept that it is a explanation of atheism. Huxley was an atheist as he said that knowledge of god had to logically entail agnosticism, the impossibility of knowledge of god.

chaz wyman wrote:Why not be agnostic towards agnosticism?

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:01 pm**

chaz wyman wrote:How many people seriously are agnostic but lean towards theism?

I can only speak for myself here. But I don't think I'm all that exceptional.

chaz wyman wrote:That would mean you are unsure about the thing you are leaning towards.

Of course! If I was certain about something, then I would not be leaning towards it, I would embrace it fully or outright reject it.

chaz wyman wrote:Then once you actually embrace the true (designated) meaning of agnosticism you have to accept that it is a explanation of atheism.

To me, agnosticism doesn't explain anything. It's just humbly stating the obvious, that knowledge of God is impossible.

chaz wyman wrote:Huxley was an atheist as he said that knowledge of god had to logically entail agnosticism, the impossibility of knowledge of god.

That doesn't make sense to me. How can one thing entail its own impossibility?

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:24 pm**

Notvacka wrote:

To me, agnosticism doesn't explain anything. It's just humbly stating the obvious, that knowledge of God is impossible.

I think that it is precisely this established impossibility of knowledge that undoes agnosticism. If knowledge of something is not available to us we can either believe it exists or not believe (where 'not believing' does not equate to 'believing-not - i.e. that believing that something does not exist is not the same as not having any belief in the first place). What we cannot do is retain an ambivalence towards it.

An agnostic is always also an atheist or a theist. Agnosticism is a purely epistemological position (although, as far as it infers or admits that the being of God is such that nothing can be known of 'Him' it is also ontological) while atheism and theism involve a 'putting into practice' of a conviction and, as such, cannot be reduced to the epistemological terms of agnosticism. An athiest is not necessarily an agnostic; however, unless the latter maintains that faith alone can establish the existence of God they are necessarily an atheist.

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:39 pm**

chaz wyman wrote:
Notvacka wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:You can't be agnostic towards atheism because there is no belief to be unsure of.
I interpret that choice as "agnostic about God but leaning towards atheism", which makes sense.

THen why have a separate category for agnosticism?
Surely the simple fact that you are agnostic, is most commonly a category of atheism.
How many people seriously are agnostic but lean towards theism?
That would mean you are unsure about the thing you are leaning towards.
This assumes where you're coming from and where you're going to.

Then once you actually embrace the true (designated) meaning of agnosticism you have to accept that it is a explanation of atheism. Huxley was an atheist as he said that knowledge of god had to logically entail agnosticism, the impossibility of knowledge of god.

chaz wyman wrote:Why not be agnostic towards agnosticism?

Posted: **Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:52 pm**

I also think you did a good job in creating 5 categories.

It would seem that I'm right in the middle, as I believe that one can't possibly 'know' either way. I see that there are things that (here comes improper phrase usage) "beg the questions" as to both ways of thinking.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:00 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I also think you did a good job in creating 5 categories.

It would seem that I'm right in the middle, as I believe that one can't possibly 'know' either way. I see that there are things that (here comes improper phrase usage) "beg the questions" as to both ways of thinking.

Are you talking to me now?

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:17 am**

chaz wyman wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I also think you did a good job in creating 5 categories.

It would seem that I'm right in the middle, as I believe that one can't possibly 'know' either way. I see that there are things that (here comes improper phrase usage) "beg the questions" as to both ways of thinking.
Are you talking to me now?

Case by case, as I see you master control, and I would expect no less.

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:06 pm**

We stand in his or our own shoes.
God is One

=

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:41 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I also think you did a good job in creating 5 categories.

It would seem that I'm right in the middle, as I believe that one can't possibly 'know' either way. I see that there are things that (here comes improper phrase usage) "beg the questions" as to both ways of thinking.
Are you talking to me now?
Case by case, as I see you master control, and I would expect no less.

I have, and always will talk to you exactly as I want.
If you ain't listening then that is your loss.

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:51 am**

chaz wyman wrote:I have, and always will talk to you exactly as I want. If you ain't listening then that is your loss.

I'd say if someone's not listening, he'll maintain his grip on reality.

Philosophy Now Forum

Where do we stand in relation to God?

Where do we stand in relation to God?

Re: Where do we stand in relation to God?

Re: Where do we stand in relation to God?

Re: Where do we stand in relation to God?

Re: Where do we stand in relation to God?

Re: Where do we stand in relation to God?

Re: Where do we stand in relation to God?

Re: Where do we stand in relation to God?

Re: Where do we stand in relation to God?

Re: Where do we stand in relation to God?

Re: Where do we stand in relation to God?

Re: Where do we stand in relation to God?

Re: Where do we stand in relation to God?

Re: Where do we stand in relation to God?

Re: Where do we stand in relation to God?