Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Isn't Agnosticism Redundant?

Since neither theist nor atheist knows.
Emjay · 18-21, F
An extremely small percentage of atheists know how prove the non-existence of God and I'm one of them. Agnosticism is certainly worth mentioning in that they are more patient with the provision of proof one way or another.
BibleData · M
@Emjay [quote]An extremely small percentage of atheists know how prove the non-existence of God and I'm one of them.[/quote]

Let's see it, then. @HollyW tends to delete and run as I recall.
@Abstraction Indeed, it wasn't. Makes it all the more surprising you didn't understand it.
Emjay · 18-21, F
@BibleData Why are you directing me to a thread I had no part in? And why are you coming to the defense of a know-it-all troll? Is it because he reminds you of yourself? Maybe you should take the basic knowledge test I proposed to him. I bet you would miserably fail it too.
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@Emosaur (I have to post here because she did run.)
No, I do understand it. And for the record I think your argument is a very good argument around the problem of pain and you argue it well. I respect you for it. It's rational, logical and presents a central dilemma.
My point of disagreement rationally is only that it isn't watertight, it doesn't constitute proof of the non-existence of God, in the sense that there are other possible explanations that counter your arguments. The problem of pain is wrestled with head-on in Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, philosophy... for thousands of years and they provide answers which are in the public domain. So it doesn't invalidate the idea of God.
You don't have to agree with them - the question is - are they rational responses? I don't agree with your view but I affirm the logic. It certainly invalidates [i]some [/i] unsophisticated views of God.
So my own belief addresses this topic head on and is not invalidated by it - and I'm given to honest examination of evidence and rational argument.. I probably first wrestled with it reading CS Lewis' Problem of Pain which deals with it very well if you want an example - he's an exceptional thinker and writer. So... your thesis is a great argument against the existence of God, but not 'proof' that God doesn't exist or that belief in God is irrational.
@Abstraction [quote]there are other possible explanations that counter your arguments.[/quote]

If that really is so then I've never heard of them before, because I've been able to debunk all counter arguments to this I've ever heard.
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
Agnostics merely say they don't know for sure if there is a god/goddess or not; uncertainty is not redundancy.
Abstraction · 61-69, M
No because it describes the belief position of the person.
JestAJester · 31-35, M
'A' in atheist and agnostic means 'without'. Gnostic means knowledge and theist means "belief in god or gods". So literally "without knowledge" and "without belief in God or Gods". So I would be an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in them but I also don't know if they exist.
DunningKruger · 61-69, M
They don't know, but they think they do. Or I should say we think we do, because I'm an atheist.

An agnostic doesn't know, and doesn't think that he knows. It's an honest but somewhat cowardly position.
@DunningKruger How is it cowardly to still have questions ? 🤔
Spoken like a true agnostic
Oh yeah…faith…snort.
No, because the others believe that they [b]do[/b] know.
BibleData · M
@bijouxbroussard [quote]No, because the others believe that they do know.[/quote]

I suppose that's the best answer to my question. I think of the term personally as being redundant because it's archaic. When it was coined people thought in different terms. It was then dogmatic beyond practical application.
I wouldn't say it's redundant. Agnostics choose not to speculate on whether there is or isn't an afterlife, and whether there are or are not any gods. They feel it's worthless and useless to consider the question.
BibleData · M
@LordShadowfire I understand that, but really, it's just willful ignorance. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm willfully ignorant of many things, for example, evolution for the same reason.
@BibleData I don't think that's the same reason at all. We've got mountains of evidence for evolution, literally.
BibleData · M
@LordShadowfire It isn't different because evidence doesn't matter. Having evidence doesn't mean that you know something. There is evidence for virtually anything. There aren't that many things that we can know.
FeetAreFantastic · 41-45, MVIP
Oh many theists and atheists claim they really DO know.
I don't see agnosticism as separate from theism or atheism as one can be an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.
BibleData · M
@Emosaur [quote]I don't see agnosticism as separate from theism or atheism as one can be an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.[/quote]

If you don't see them as separate wouldn't it be redundant? One has no choice but be an agnostic in both, that's why i think it redundant.

The problem is that terms like that can vary in their use. You can say that theism isn't exclusive to Judeo-Christian, atheism is without theism (allegedly) and agnostic is without knowledge, but completely without knowledge and if not what specifically is the knowledge they are without. That neither know for certain whether or not "God" exists.

Post Comment
144 people following
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Associated Forums Topic Members