Religion

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

33. I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, but I do think they

Sun Jul 27, 2014, 06:10 AM

Jul 2014

can be independent.

Specifically, I think that one can be an agnostic and neither a theist nor an atheist.

I think most atheists are also agnostic, but many theists really think they know.

I am quite well, thanks. Long lazy days in a beautiful environment with side trips to fascinating places every other day or so. That plus my italian cooking getting better and better makes for a pretty blissful existence.

FWIW, my karma is good.

What are you doing up at this time of day??

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

117 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Agnostic atheism: a reasonable position on spiritual matters, or the only reasonable position... [View all] Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 OP

I think there are lots of perspectives that can be reasonably held. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #1

In my view agnosticism is a subset of atheism intaglio Jul 2014 #2

What if a hypothetical person defines "evidence" Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #3

Your problem there is that if a deity exists it is not supernatural intaglio Jul 2014 #6

That's still based on an assumption... Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #7

Wrong, it is saying that God's Word has an effect intaglio Jul 2014 #9

So for you, are "natural" and "universe" synonymous with Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #10

Let's use the word cosmos instead of universe intaglio Jul 2014 #13

I'm saying, at the very least, the cosmos itself is the effect. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #16

Now you are claiming that there is nothing supernatural about the creation intaglio Jul 2014 #17

And it is, we can measure the cosmos in all sorts of ways. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #18

But you have assigned a set of starting conditions to the cosmos intaglio Jul 2014 #20

Only if you have those others available for comparison. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #22

The point is that usually even our "supernatural" God is said to effect visible material things Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #27

Things only exist when we have the ability to detect them? Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #40

There is a difference between edhopper Jul 2014 #41

The argument only holds if you assume Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #42

Not what I am saying at all edhopper Jul 2014 #43

That's alright, it's gotten kind of unwieldy. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #44

Well you are right. There could be an itty bitty teeny weeny god. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #55

Everything is natural, including belief in the supernatural. Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #45

Nope gcomeau Jul 2014 #46

I did say that it was my view however ... intaglio Jul 2014 #58

Agnostic means... gcomeau Jul 2014 #61

It is always open to the deity to reveal themselves intaglio Jul 2014 #67

Agnosticism is the only reasonable position because no one knows. cbayer Jul 2014 #4

Do you see theism/atheism more as matters of identity Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #5

That is a great question and one I have thought about. cbayer Jul 2014 #8

That would seem to imply that when people shift positions, Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #11

Another good question. In that there may be a possibility of "evolving" cbayer Jul 2014 #12

It may be more a piece of exploring one's identity. Sexual identity and religious preference pinto Jul 2014 #15

I see. So are you saying that its wrong to call Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #19

No. I choose to let people call themselves whatever it is they prefer. And I'll follow their lead. pinto Jul 2014 #21

As a general rule, I agree that people's self-definitions should be respected. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #23

Aghh, Randall Terry. The Operation Rescue guy. Yeah, he was simply trolling. pinto Jul 2014 #24

Again, I don't mean to equate them, only to point out cbayer Jul 2014 #29

It is possible to show that most ideas of gods must be wrong Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #28

"No one. Anyone who says they do is full of it." AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #25

My statement was meant for both believers and non-believers. Sorry if that was not clear. cbayer Jul 2014 #26

There are many believers on DU who are certain god exists. trotsky Jul 2014 #35

I have not seen you express it adamantly toward believers here. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #38

You missed it, but that is not surprising. cbayer Jul 2014 #39

Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. longship Jul 2014 #32

I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, but I do think they cbayer Jul 2014 #33

Early to bed, early to rise... longship Jul 2014 #34

I think agnosticism is the default position. pinto Jul 2014 #14

I think that is an excellent way to put it. cbayer Jul 2014 #30

Sigh... gcomeau Jul 2014 #48

Sigh... cbayer Jul 2014 #57

Uh huh... gcomeau Jul 2014 #60

Uh huh... cbayer Jul 2014 #63

Actually, gcomeau Jul 2014 #66

No, but I can find you lots of definitions of agnosticism that sees it as a stand cbayer Jul 2014 #68

I'm certain you can. The error is amazingly popular. gcomeau Jul 2014 #69

Ok, keep up the good fight. cbayer Jul 2014 #70

Ok, and you keep refusing to make an argument... gcomeau Jul 2014 #71

Agreed - however you want to paint it works for me. cbayer Jul 2014 #72

How about not? gcomeau Jul 2014 #76

That works for me as well. It won't keep me from responding to your posts, but cbayer Jul 2014 #77

Or... gcomeau Jul 2014 #79

But I do that all the time. You just refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit into your cbayer Jul 2014 #82

I have yet to ever see you do anything of the kind. gcomeau Jul 2014 #85

I understand that. You, like most people, only see what you want to see. cbayer Jul 2014 #87

Sigh. gcomeau Jul 2014 #88

Step over this line!! I dare you. cbayer Jul 2014 #91

Prediction verified. gcomeau Jul 2014 #92

You made the best possible argument Alittleliberal Jul 2014 #78

That's right. I'm a lost cause. cbayer Jul 2014 #83

Agnosticism is a good default position. Until evidence begins to pile up against religion Brettongarcia Jul 2014 #31

Unfortunately Theism is the default in our world Lordquinton Jul 2014 #36

Default or just majority? cbayer Jul 2014 #37

assumed default Lordquinton Jul 2014 #100

I agree with that. cbayer Jul 2014 #109

It can't possibly be the default position. gcomeau Jul 2014 #47

I meant it in the sense of "I don't know". Which I think is a common default position. pinto Jul 2014 #49

Agnosticism does not mean "I dunno" in any legitimate philosophical context. gcomeau Jul 2014 #50

? Doesn't it mean "not knowing"? Or acknowledging doubt, uncertainty, or perhaps disinterest? pinto Jul 2014 #51

It means... gcomeau Jul 2014 #52

OK. pinto Jul 2014 #53

It's not at all pointless. gcomeau Jul 2014 #54

OK. I'm an agnostic, not out of ignorance or irrationality, but out of a reasoned point of view. pinto Jul 2014 #56

Again... gcomeau Jul 2014 #59

If you keep having the same outcome from this conversation, what do you cbayer Jul 2014 #64

I already stated what I conclude from that. gcomeau Jul 2014 #65

Some people are really invested in evading the question of whether or not god exists. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #73

And some people just don't know whether god exists or not. cbayer Jul 2014 #74

If they dont know, then they don't believe. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #75

This shit is hard and it is simply lazy to think otherwise. cbayer Jul 2014 #81

It's a boolean proposition. It is not 'lazy' to call it what it is. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #94

Exactly, and a boolean proposition has no place when discussing religion. cbayer Jul 2014 #95

There you go, mixing knowing and believing again. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #96

No, I'm not mixing them. They are entirely different things. cbayer Jul 2014 #97

Yes they are different things. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #99

Having faith is nothing like picking a weight up off the ground. cbayer Jul 2014 #108

My point about picking up a weight is that belief isn't automatic. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #110

While you can make the argument that atheism is just a passive non-position, the cbayer Jul 2014 #111

That's simply untrue. AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #113

Well good. I knew we had something in common. cbayer Jul 2014 #114

If I were Person 2 I would've walked away from Person 1 long before the end. Demit Jul 2014 #80

And this kind of badgering rarely if ever wins the battle. cbayer Jul 2014 #84

And it's possible to believe sometimes, and sometimes not. Demit Jul 2014 #90

You and I are on the same page with this. cbayer Jul 2014 #93

To me, the knowing would trump believing. Believing would be unnecessary if you knew. Demit Jul 2014 #98

That's why I think agnostic is the most reasonable position one can take. cbayer Jul 2014 #107

And when you believe you believe.. and when you don't you don't. gcomeau Jul 2014 #105

Oh really? gcomeau Jul 2014 #86

Pretty much everything Person 1 says after Person 2 said they don't know if they believe. Demit Jul 2014 #89

Perhaps you should stop making assumptions about tone in written text. gcomeau Jul 2014 #102

Utter bullshit. Demit Jul 2014 #103

Wow, substantive response. gcomeau Jul 2014 #104

Thank you! I believe in being substantive with as few words as possible. Demit Jul 2014 #112

Since you appear to share another posters insistence... gcomeau Jul 2014 #115

I don't agree with your premise, so there's nothing to address. Demit Jul 2014 #116

There's always something to address. gcomeau Jul 2014 #117

Fantastic post. n/t trotsky Jul 2014 #62

All I know is I get on a plane and say to myself "hope the plane dont crash" randys1 Jul 2014 #101

Context is important Act_of_Reparation Jul 2014 #106