Agnosticism is Dishonesty

[DepricatedZero]

Agnosticism is an assertion on the properties of knowledge. At it's root, it is the position that a body of knowledge, aside from not being known, is unknowable. It takes the lack of knowledge a step further and says "we can't know." Agnosticism has nothing to do with theism in any regard, except that some people use it to make the assertion that their god is unknowable. They use that as "weak atheist" or "weak theist" stance, in a craven and morally bankrupt attempt to create a golden mean.

The traits of theism are boolean - you either are a theist or you aren't. Your reasoning is irrelevant. To say that you're not an atheist, and you're not a theist, because you're agnostic, is cowardice. The only conceivable reason to do this is to try and avoid conflict by searching for a middle ground that isn't there.

I propose revamping the weak/strong a/theist model that relies so heavily on assertions one way or the other and offer a third category to each: Atheist/Theist.

Weak Atheist - I believe we can never know, but god probably doesn't exist
Atheist - god probably doesn't exist
Strong Atheist - I know god doesn't exist

Weak Theist - I believe we can never know, but god probably exists
Theist - god probably exists
Strong Theist - I know god exists

Agnosticism forces an assertion one way or another on the body of knowledge to which it is applied - either that it is Unknowable, or that it is for certainty knowable. I assert that I do not know what can and cannot be known.

Attempting to label a body of knowledge as unknowable is easily as dishonest as attempting to explain it away with the magic words "god did it." People who attempt to claim agnosticism on any subject at all are guilty of the same atrocities of ignorance.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Well... only for a certain definition of "agnosticism", and also for a certain usage of the word. It can mean "unknown" or "unknowable" and the second one is dishonest.

And as you said, when people claim to be an "agnostic" as something apart from both theism and atheism, they are being a lying shit weasel, or are profoundly ignorant of what they are claiming. If you believe in a god, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. "I don't know" isn't a proper answer, and points towards atheism. If you believe in some vague god, you have a vague theistic belief.

 

[Andiferous]

But it seems obvious that Agnosticism is an important stage to either position, so that alone makes it a perfectly valid position, in my opinion. That said, the jump from Agnosticism to Atheism/Theism seems kinda like a choice. Even accusing them of being weasles or cowards implies that they have not declared loyalty either way. But how does loyalty mix with critical thinking?

I dunno. Is belef a choice? Is non-belief a choice? How can you force belief? Do people truly believe in any position with 100% certaintly, or have they merely proclaimed their loyalties? And have they just decided to stop thinking about it?

I think Agnostics in some ways, are the most honest of all. I've got high regard for Agnostics. I occasionally call myself one (although I'm radically variable). I think it's unfair to say that stuff.

I respect people who have not made up their mind.

They're open to thinking about stuff.

 

[lrkun]

agnostic (ag|nos,¦tic)
Pronunciation:/agˈnɒstɪk/
noun

*
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

adjective

*
relating to agnostics or agnosticism
*
(in a non-religious context) having a doubtful or non-committal attitude towards something:until now I've been fairly agnostic about electoral reform

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic

nothing is known is different from can be known.

There are two scenarios involved.

It's pretty honest with it's definition. ^-^

Scenario one:

1. Nothing is known about god.

2. Nothing can be known about god.

Therefore If one believes that nothing is known about god, it follows that he is an agnostic.

Therefore if one believes that nonthing can be known about god, it follows that he is an agnostic.

I hope these clears things up. (Your own definitions are okay to, if we apply that then it's also true, nevertheless, in general that is not the case)

 

[Yfelsung]

Someone claiming their philosophical position is agnosticism is the equivalent of a person saying "human" when you ask them their ethnic background.

Everyone is agnostic, as in "without knowledge", but everyone usually makes the conscious decision to choose what they do and do not believe, regardless of what actual knowledge they have.

The agnostics who claim "we can never know" I always feel are just trying to placate both sides.

If a god exists, it will have a physical presence we can quantify.

If a god or gods exist outside of reality, they don't exist, for if we're going to let stuff exist outside of reality than I demand you all heed my warnings about the multi-phasic cheese beast that stalks me every second of every day but can never catch me because he is out of phase with this reality.

If you believe in one thing outside of reality, you must believe in all possible things outside of reality, else you're being intellectually dishonest.

If someone wants to be agnostic to the existence of god, they better damn well be agnostic to every fantasy creature we've ever invented as a species.

 

[lrkun]

Someone claiming their philosophical position is agnosticism is the equivalent of a person saying "human" when you ask them their ethnic background.

Everyone is agnostic, as in "without knowledge", but everyone usually makes the conscious decision to choose what they do and do not believe, regardless of what actual knowledge they have.

The agnostics who claim "we can never know" I always feel are just trying to placate both sides.

If a god exists, it will have a physical presence we can quantify.

If a god or gods exist outside of reality, they don't exist, for if we're going to let stuff exist outside of reality than I demand you all heed my warnings about the multi-phasic cheese beast that stalks me every second of every day but can never catch me because he is out of phase with this reality.

If you believe in one thing outside of reality, you must believe in all possible things outside of reality, else you're being intellectually dishonest.

If someone wants to be agnostic to the existence of god, they better damn well be agnostic to every fantasy creature we've ever invented as a species.

Here's a good example of a hasty generalization.

 

[Yfelsung]

Here's a good example of a hasty generalization.

So you believe it not intellectually dishonest to be agnostic about god and not agnostic about unicorns?

This is the problem. People elevate gods to a place they should not be elevated to.

God, dragon, unicorn, manticore.

Same thing.

 

[lrkun]

Here's a good example of a hasty generalization.

So you believe it not intellectually dishonest to be agnostic about god and not agnostic about unicorns?

This is the problem. People elevate gods to a place they should not be elevated to.

God, dragon, unicorn, manticore.

Same thing.

I agree with you. It's just you assume that it must be so. Therefore it's not really about being agnostic.

-oOo-

Nevertheless I am of the opinion that being agnostic is honest. Unless, it is maintaining the position of being agnostic despite a plathora of evidence which support the claim.

Ex. If there is nothing known about god. An agnostic can claim that he or she believes that nothing is known about god. However, if proof is provided and he or she still maintains nothing is known about god, then he or she is being dishonest.

If there nothing can be known about god. An agnostic can claim that he or she believes that nothing can be known about god. However, if proof is provided and he or she still maintains such position, then he or she is being dishonest in an intellectual point of view.

 

[RichardMNixon]

God, dragon, unicorn, manticore.

I would put god more on the same plane as the Graviton. If something exists which could be described as god, I'm as certain as I am of anything else in life (the nonexistence of unicorns for instance) that this god will not resemble any current depictions of god. It could however be something we do not yet fully understand and could reasonably describe as god.

_____

I think apatheism is a more neutral position than agnosticism, but even the former leans towards irreligion since it's really just leads to secularism. That's why I would argue agnosticism/atheism isn't that important of a distinction. I am an atheist because I am agnostic. I have no reliable, verifiable knowledge of god. I cannot make decisions based on no knowledge. It is not in any way useful for me to consider god's existence since without knowledge, I cannot rationally decide how its existence would change my behavior. How should I act with respect to a complete unknown? I simply cannot; therefore, I do not; therefore, I am an atheist.

 

[Yfelsung]

True, but since we're dealing with unknowns anything is possible.

What if the graviton is a tiny unicorn?

What if god IS a dragon?

 

[lrkun]

True, but since we're dealing with unknowns anything is possible.

What if the graviton is a tiny unicorn?

What if god IS a dragon?

Well, assuming you are correct, then we'll deal with the situation accordingly, depending on the circumstances. (that's the problem with assumptions.)

 

[Yfelsung]

True, but since we're dealing with unknowns anything is possible.

What if the graviton is a tiny unicorn?

What if god IS a dragon?

Well, assuming you are correct, then we'll deal with the situation accordingly, depending on the circumstances. (that's the problem with assumptions.)

True, I was just making the point that god doesn't deserve a higher place than dragons or unicorns.

 

[lrkun]

True, I was just making the point that god doesn't deserve a higher place than dragons or unicorns.

Why does god not deserve a higher place than dragons or unicorns?

 

[Yfelsung]

True, I was just making the point that god doesn't deserve a higher place than dragons or unicorns.

Why does god not deserve a higher place than dragons or unicorns?

because the existence of god is no more or less likely than the existence of dragons and unicorns.

Many cultures have concepts for both god and dragons.

Every culture has mythical beasts, many of which are included in texts and stories.

The Pegasus is as much a part of Greek myth as Zeus is, they are not separate from each other in their plausibility.

If someone is agnostic to the existence of god, they should be agnostic to the existence of any possible mythical creature.

The problem is that gods have this special shiny coating that somehow makes belief in them more socially acceptable than believing in a manitcore or a centaur.

I mean, technically, at least unicorns are physically possible. We have horses, we have mammals that grow single, central horns, the possible mutation in a horse to allow it to grow a horn is feasible.

There was even physical evidence for unicorns. Sure, it was some sneaky Scandinavians pawning off narwhal horns as unicorn horns, but at least it was physical, you know?

In my mind, the existence of a god is several steps below a few perfectly plausible fantasy creatures.

 

[lrkun]

because the existence of god is no more or less likely than the existence of dragons and unicorns.

Many cultures have concepts for both god and dragons.

Every culture has mythical beasts, many of which are included in texts and stories.

The Pegasus is as much a part of Greek myth as Zeus is, they are not separate from each other in their plausibility.

If someone is agnostic to the existence of god, they should be agnostic to the existence of any possible mythical creature.

The problem is that gods have this special shiny coating that somehow makes belief in them more socially acceptable than believing in a manitcore or a centaur.

I mean, technically, at least unicorns are physically possible. We have horses, we have mammals that grow single, central horns, the possible mutation in a horse to allow it to grow a horn is feasible.

There was even physical evidence for unicorns. Sure, it was some sneaky Scandinavians pawning off narwhal horns as unicorn horns, but at least it was physical, you know?

In my mind, the existence of a god is several steps below a few perfectly plausible fantasy creatures.

I see. I think one big problem is with respect to the definition of god. How does one make a concrete definition of it? Maybe that's one reason for it being difficult to experiment on.

Now if we consider god as zeus, then there is a nice and concrete mythical god which we can test. Of course if such a god were to be tested, then it fails to be proven, because we already know what causes lightning.

u.u Oh well. Maybe the best definition for god is unknown.

 

[Yfelsung]

Or maybe we should define god as "an all powerful being" and anything that doesn't fall into that we should redefine more accurately?

Maybe we should define Zeus as an Olympian and figure out what attributes all the Olympians held in common and shape the definition to fit accordingly.

We should call Thor an Aesir and figure out what attributes all Aesir share.

We already got a word for unknown, it's unknown.

God has become a bit too much of a catch-all term.

 

[lrkun]

God has become a bit too much of a catch-all term.

Well, that is what it is. Remember, some claim that it has many names, but it refers to the same thing. Therefore, there is a necessity to concretely define what it is.

The problem that may arise is what definition would people agree with.

-oOo-

On the issue of Agnosticism. It's honest. ^-^

-oOo-

Yeah, this is off topic, that's why the above statement ought to keep things on track.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Being agnostic is honest, but taking the stance of Agnosticism in lieu of Theism or Atheism is not.

You're either a theist or an atheist. What I mean to say is that attempting to take it in place of atheism or theism is dishonest. It's lying to yourself and anyone you attempt to discuss the topic with.

 

[lrkun]

Being agnostic is honest, but taking the stance of Agnosticism in lieu of Theism or Atheism is not.

You're either a theist or an atheist. What I mean to say is that attempting to take it in place of atheism or theism is dishonest. It's lying to yourself and anyone you attempt to discuss the topic with.

I don't understand. Could you illustrate it or give an example of how it is dishonest?

 

[Nautyskin]

I don't understand. Could you illustrate it or give an example of how it is dishonest?

Ask someone who calls themself an agnostic (in place of theist/atheist) if they hold a belief in the existence of a god.

Their answer will most often (if not always) be a very clear attempt to avoid answering the question, simply because they know the answer will define what they do/don't actually believe.

This lack of candor in the face of a direct question is dishonest.