agnosticism

[jasonc]

while i don't pretend to a master apologist. i do have some idea of the basic arguments and positions.

1) agnosticism, the greek for ignorance. a(lack) gnosis.knowledge.

most agnostics sadly are choosing to be ignorant. currently im agnostic on mma, but i am seeking the knowledge to be more knowledgeable on that. it has been my experience that most agnostics aren't wanting to learn but to sharpen arguments. however, we should in the case i said be able to answer the honest ones. others may listen, as was the case with my situation.

 

[jeff77]

while i don't pretend to a master apologist. i do have some idea of the basic arguments and positions.

1) agnosticism, the greek for ignorance. a(lack) gnosis.knowledge.

most agnostics sadly are choosing to be ignorant. currently im agnostic on mma, but i am seeking the knowledge to be more knowledgeable on that. it has been my experience that most agnostics aren't wanting to learn but to sharpen arguments. however, we should in the case i said be able to answer the honest ones. others may listen, as was the case with my situation.

What's mma?

 

[jasonc]

What's mma?

mixed martial arts. i used that as an example. i thought i knew a lot and when i started with the gym im at. i was told i don't know. thus ignorant. which in koine greek is agnostic. it literally means to have no knowledge. but its used often for the arguments about is there a god.

 

[jeff77]

mixed martial arts. i used that as an example. i thought i knew a lot and when i started with the gym im at. i was told i don't know. thus ignorant. which in koine greek is agnostic. it literally means to have no knowledge. but its used often for the arguments about is there a god.

Oh, ok. Yeah a lot of people use that word to mean that they they think their is some kind of god but they usually never make much of an effort to figure out who god is. Or they believe god has far more important things on his mind than us humans

 

[OzSpen]

while i don't pretend to a master apologist. i do have some idea of the basic arguments and positions.

1) agnosticism, the greek for ignorance. a(lack) gnosis.knowledge.

most agnostics sadly are choosing to be ignorant. currently im agnostic on mma, but i am seeking the knowledge to be more knowledgeable on that. it has been my experience that most agnostics aren't wanting to learn but to sharpen arguments. however, we should in the case i said be able to answer the honest ones. others may listen, as was the case with my situation.

In discussions with agnostics, one of the greatest challenges for me has been to get them talking. They are often disinterested or uncertain about the question of God, so they are fence sitters. To get them talking, I often use a couple open-ended questions like Paul did on the Areopagus (Acts 17:22ff):

• 'Who is God in your understanding?' Often the reply is something like: (1) 'I don't give a [expletive] damn'; (2) 'I'm not the slightest bit interested'.
• To response (1), I could say, 'What you don't give a damn about, I'd like to share with you three reasons why you should be damned interested. What say we discuss some reasons for you to think about the damnable?'
• Response to (2), 'What causes you to move from 'not the slightest bit interested' to 'I better do something about it' with a tyre on your car?

 

[jasonc]

Oh, ok. Yeah a lot of people use that word to mean that they they think their is some kind of god but they usually never make much of an effort to figure out who god is. Or they believe god has far more important things on his mind than us humans

that would be diesm. god exists and just tinkers with the universe to ensure it stays running but doesn't care for the people on the earth.

 

[jasonc]

In discussions with agnostics, one of the greatest challenges for me has been to get them talking. They are often disinterested or uncertain about the question of God, so they are fence sitters. To get them talking, I often use a couple open-ended questions like Paul did on the Areopagus (Acts 17:22ff):

• 'Who is God in your understanding?' Often the reply is something like: (1) 'I don't give a [expletive] damn'; (2) 'I'm not the slightest bit interested'.
• To response (1), I could say, 'What you don't give a damn about, I'd like to share with you three reasons why you should be damned interested. What say we discuss some reasons for you to think about the damnable?'
• Response to (2), 'What causes you to move from 'not the slightest bit interested' to 'I better do something about it' with a tyre on your car?

i forgot that you all spell tyre that way. we spell it as tire.

 

[DRS81]

I'm an anti-intellectualist.

 

[OzSpen]

i forgot that you all spell tyre that way. we spell it as tire.

We spell tyre of the car that way to avoid confusing it with, 'I tire of some of the arguments given by agnostics'.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm an anti-intellectualist.

How does that line up with thinking about Christianity and the requirement of having a renewed mind?

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect (Rom 12:2 ESV).

How does anti-intellectual integrate with 'renewal of your mind' or 'think on these things' (Phil 4:8)?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

while i don't pretend to a master apologist. i do have some idea of the basic arguments and positions.

1) agnosticism, the greek for ignorance. a(lack) gnosis.knowledge.

most agnostics sadly are choosing to be ignorant. currently im agnostic on mma, but i am seeking the knowledge to be more knowledgeable on that. it has been my experience that most agnostics aren't wanting to learn but to sharpen arguments. however, we should in the case i said be able to answer the honest ones. others may listen, as was the case with my situation.

I wouldn't necessarily say this is an accurate description. An agnostic is not someone who is simply "ignorant," but rather they claim that the knowledge of God's existence or non-existence is not possible to attain. It's possible to be an Agnostic Atheist, someone who lacks a belief in God and believes that definitive knowledge of the divine is impossible. Or it is also possible for there to be an Agnostic Theist, such as Soren Kierkegaard, who believes in God but sees it as a leap of faith.

So there is a difference between someone who is ignorant, yet believes that the knowledge of the divine is possible. Rather than someone who is agnostic, and believes that knowledge on the matter is not possible. In this instance we can describe knowledge as "justifiable belief."

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I'm an anti-intellectualist.

Why?

 

[DRS81]

How does that line up with thinking about Christianity and the requirement of having a renewed mind?

How does anti-intellectual integrate with 'renewal of your mind' or 'think on these things' (Phil 4:8)?

Computers do that for you.

 

[OzSpen]

Computers do that for you.

So do you think that you can blame computers for the glitch, blockage, barrier or snarl-up in our renewing of the Christian mind?

I know that being a newbie on a Christian forum finding the intricacies of how it works is an IT challenge to this older bloke.

But seriously, are computers instrumental in causing us to become anti-intellectual or anti-renewing of the mind?

Why don't you share with us as to what is influencing you to become an anti-intellectualist?

 

[jasonc]

I wouldn't necessarily say this is an accurate description. An agnostic is not someone who is simply "ignorant," but rather they claim that the knowledge of God's existence or non-existence is not possible to attain. It's possible to be an Agnostic Atheist, someone who lacks a belief in God and believes that definitive knowledge of the divine is impossible. Or it is also possible for there to be an Agnostic Theist, such as Soren Kierkegaard, who believes in God but sees it as a leap of faith.

So there is a difference between someone who is ignorant, yet believes that the knowledge of the divine is possible. Rather than someone who is agnostic, and believes that knowledge on the matter is not possible. In this instance we can describe knowledge as "justifiable belief."

uhm ok, the definition of agnostic atheist isn't acceptable in philoshy, i know of a doctorate in that field whom said that isn't honest. why? how does the universe have rule and order that comes from chance and science that or the study of philosophy that says that isn't possible to obtain and science that tries to study the past and determine how we came. i call that a dishonest position.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

uhm ok, the definition of agnostic atheist isn't acceptable in philoshy, i know of a doctorate in that field whom said that isn't honest. why?

I just demonstrated that it is, and I can find loads of other doctorates who would disagree. Hence your friend who has a doctorate would tell you it is not a valid argument to simply appeal to an authority.

There are different types of Agnostics, and Atheists also are on a spectrum of their own. Formerly being an Agnostic Atheist myself, I would think I know a thing or two about it. :P

how does the universe have rule and order that comes from chance and science that or the study of philosophy that says that isn't possible to obtain and science that tries to study the past and determine how we came. i call that a dishonest position.

I'm confused by your statement. Let me show you how it's not dishonest.

An agnostic person is not someone who is ignorant, but claims that knowledge of God is impossible. Therefore on this basis, they refuse to believe in a higher power. They may acknowledge mystery, and acknowledge the advancement of science, but still recognize that science cannot disprove or prove God and therefore consign to not being completely sure.

 

[jasonc]

I just demonstrated that it is, and I can find loads of other doctorates who would disagree. Hence your friend who has a doctorate would tell you it is not a valid argument to simply appeal to an authority.

There are different types of Agnostics, and Atheists also are on a spectrum of their own. Formerly being an Agnostic Atheist myself, I would think I know a thing or two about it. :P


I'm confused by your statement. Let me show you how it's not dishonest.

An agnostic person is not someone who is ignorant, but claims that knowledge of God is impossible. Therefore on this basis, they refuse to believe in a higher power. They may acknowledge mystery, and acknowledge the advancement of science, but still recognize that science cannot disprove or prove God and therefore consign to .

again why have philosophy if we cant actually find the truth? if that is true then why bother asking and seeking we will NEVER know.if YOU believe you couldn't know or ever find out why bother? i wouldn't. i want to fly. i cant grow wings. so do i waste time trying to grow wings to fly? or not bother that problem? didn't a pair of brothers solve that problem and didn't take no as answer.

again what does not being completely sure mean? they don't know

ig·no·rant
[ig-ner-uhnt] Show IPA

adjective
1.
lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.

2.
lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.

3.
uninformed; unaware.

4.
due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

one can choose to be ignorant willingly , if one is honest. i choose some areas that i don't care to learn about, say cars at one time then as time changed i decided to learn. that is an honest assessment. a person says i don't know if a diety exists but at this time i don't care. i know one who i mentioned who says that. i know another who is an agnostic and doesn't believe in evolution and sees a form intelligent design. he doesn't at present believe in god, because he is mad at god. he was the only person i have met that has been that honest.

 

[OzSpen]

uhm ok, the definition of agnostic atheist isn't acceptable in philoshy, i know of a doctorate in that field whom said that isn't honest. why? how does the universe have rule and order that comes from chance and science that or the study of philosophy that says that isn't possible to obtain and science that tries to study the past and determine how we came. i call that a dishonest position.

The UK newspaper and online, Daily Mail, had the heading on 25 Feb 2012, "'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic".

Parts of this article state:

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.

The country's foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury....

He said: 'On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six.' Professor Dawkins went on to say he believed was a '6.9', stating: 'That doesn't mean I'm absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don't.'

The Online Etymology Dictionary gives this definition of 'agnostic':

agnostic (n.)
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895), supposedly in September 1869, from Greek agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic). Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. [T.H. Huxley, "Science and Christian Tradition," 1889] The adjective is first recorded 1870.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

again why have philosophy if we cant actually find the truth?

They are simply claiming that the truth is that we can't really know anything about the divine, in any justifiable way.

if that is true then why bother asking and seeking we will NEVER know.

Well, that is how some Agnostics respond.

if YOU believe you couldn't know or ever find out why bother? i wouldn't. i want to fly. i cant grow wings. so do i waste time trying to grow wings to fly? or not bother that problem? didn't a pair of brothers solve that problem and didn't take no as answer.

again what does not being completely sure mean? they don't know

Not sure why you stressed the "you," I am not an Agnostic. I am formerly an Agnostic Atheist.

one can choose to be ignorant willingly , if one is honest. i choose some areas that i don't care to learn about,

I still don't think you're understanding the difference. Agnostics believe that knowledge of God is impossible, and since that knowledge is impossible it is impossible to be ignorant, as the attainment of knowledge isn't possible.

say cars at one time then as time changed i decided to learn. that is an honest assessment. a person says i don't know if a diety exists but at this time i don't care.

You're confusing Agnosticism with indifference. An Agnostic is someone who tried to justify their belief that knowledge of God is impossible, not just someone who says, "meh, not interested in even looking."

i know another who is an agnostic and doesn't believe in evolution and sees a form intelligent design. he doesn't at present believe in god, because he is mad at god. he was the only person i have met that has been that honest.

Having once been an Agnostic Atheist I have to disagree, I was very open and honest about my beliefs at the time, and I ended up questioning them tirelessly. Hence I am a Christian now.

To simply say that all these people are dishonest on account of your opinion/personal experience, is ill advised. Especially if you want to evangelize to these people, if you would have told me I was dishonest, I wouldn't have had anything to do with you.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The UK newspaper and online, Daily Mail, had the heading on 25 Feb 2012, "'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic".

Parts of this article state:
The Online Etymology Dictionary gives this definition of 'agnostic':

Richard Dawkins would claim that he is Agnostic Atheist. If one does not believe in God, then they are an atheist, the confidence of that belief doesn't change the fact.