Agnosticism

[TheComposer]

I'm agnostic. Some say that the big bang created the universe, but then what created the big bang? Then you could go back and say what created that. It's just an infinite cycle. I lean more towards there being a higher power, seeing as the universe couldn't have come from nowhere, but I can't say fully believe it since by that mindset, the higher power couldn't have come from nowhere either.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

[quote name='~ P O L A R I S ~' timestamp='1326700590' post='5766602']
Doesn't pantheism by principle claim the existence of God as everything in nature, a claim that one who recognizes their uncertainty has no place making? As much as combining the term for my beliefs on the matter with the term for Einsteins' might have a sexually appealing ring, it doesn't make sense.
[/quote]
Nope. The belief would be that if there were a God it would likely exert itself as all of existence itself and the process of reality, but that there is no way of certainly knowing. Just another variant of Agnostic Theism; the specific interpretation might align itself more with Pandeism, but I don't use that term because it's mixing Latin and Greek vernacular and Pantheism is ambiguous enough to include the interpretation anyways.

[Desu the Blue Nerd]

[color=#0000cd]I consider myself as being more agnostic. I don't take a strong side either way in the debate of whether or not god exists but I'm more or less just one of those "I don't care much for religion as a whole" kind of guys (a.k.a. lazy). I don't know if there's a specific thing for that though. When it actually comes down to it I do tend to think in a way that it hasn't been proven or disproven yet.[/color]

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

[quote name='~Coolio~' timestamp='1326756099' post='5767481']
Nope. The belief would be that if there were a God it would likely exert itself as all of existence itself and the process of reality, but that there is no way of certainly knowing. Just another variant of Agnostic Theism; the specific interpretation might align itself more with Pandeism, but I don't use that term because it's mixing Latin and Greek vernacular and Pantheism is ambiguous enough to include the interpretation anyways.
[/quote]

Believing you know for certain with regards to whether God exists or not is a prerequisite to being an atheist or theist. What you think "God would likely exert itself as" should be of no relevance in the determination of the label with which you're to be categorized so long as you acknowledge that you don't know whether or not God exists, as acknowledgment of uncertainty therein in of itself makes you an agnostic.

Just as a theist cannot be a theist simply by considering it more likely than not that at least one deity exists, you are not a pantheist if you think that "if there were a God it would likely exert itself as all of existence itself and the process of reality, but that there is no way of certainly knowing" as your uncertainty renders you unable to hold pantheism as your belief. On these grounds I reject "agnostic ____ist" terms as nonsense. One must choose between claiming knowledge or admitting uncertainty. Situations of uncertainty where certain possibilities are held to be more likely to be true than others are still situations of uncertainty.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Except believing you know for certain =/= believing.

[quote]When you say you do not believe in aliens you are saying that you have not been met with proper evidence for the existence of aliens. Thus, while your interpretation on the matter is indeed contradictory, the Agnostic Atheist response is that you are not denying the chance that there is evidence for aliens while, given that you haven't been met with evidence you find satisfactory, you currently hold no belief that there is. An Agnostic Theist holds the same essential viewpoint, only they err towards the possibility of a God under their certain convictions.
[/quote]
Look up the branches.

If you disagree with the concept of branches that only solidifies your position as a straight-up Agnostic, but it doesn't invalidate other means of approaching the topic many others have had simply because of a select definition you hold for the matter. Agnostic Pantheism is what works for me because it captures my viewpoints. I ultimately say there are no conclusions that can be made during this time in life, but hold some reasons as to why, if there were some sort of higher being, it would likely be in the pantheistic strain. So yes, that's still uncertainty as you have said and as such still Agnosticism, but it's a more specified blend. I'm going to use the more specific term because that's like a Christian referring to themselves as a theist when that leaves the field much more open than their actual denomination.

[Lunar Origins]

I am an agnostic-atheist. I lean (more or less) towards that there is no god, because there is no evidence. I can't know if I'm right, so I'll just go with the flow and let people get jiggy with their own thing.

[/derp]

[Just Crouton]

"Agnostic" just sounds like one of those word you use to make yourself look smarter than you really are.

I'm not a racist. I'm an AGNOSTIC disliker of minorities.
I'm not a liar. I'm an AGNOSTIC non-truth teller.
It's not delivery. It's not Dignorno. It's AGNOSTIC frozen pizza.
It's not butter. It's not Parkay. It's AGNOSTIC margarine.
Mom! Dad! This isn't a kids show! This is an AGNOSTIC drama!

A big word used to make something more intelligent to people who simply dismiss it.

[Tentacruel]

[quote name='~King Crouton~' timestamp='1326923856' post='5770502']
"Agnostic" just sounds like one of those word you use to make yourself look smarter than you really are.

I'm not a racist. I'm an AGNOSTIC disliker of minorities.
I'm not a liar. I'm an AGNOSTIC non-truth teller.
It's not delivery. It's not Dignorno. It's AGNOSTIC frozen pizza.
It's not butter. It's not Parkay. It's AGNOSTIC margarine.
Mom! Dad! This isn't a kids show! This is an AGNOSTIC drama!

A big word used to make something more intelligent to people who simply dismiss it.
[/quote]

Yes and no. It can be used like that but most of the time it is a specific definition for someone who just doesn't believe or disblieve in anything in particular.

[bury the year]

[quote name='Comrade Trollestia' timestamp='1326588558' post='5764622']
If there was concrete proof, religion wouldn't exist now would it?

That's actually odd of me to use that argument being a theist. 8D
[/quote]

If there were undeniable proof that God and everything He's promised exists, I think religion would be much more prominent than it is now, in that people would have no reason to doubt. So you got it backwards.

[Kirun Wolf]

Is there a word for someone who simply doesn't care to answer the question?

I don't really care whether God exists or not, as it would make no difference to me. I don't believe the question bares any value or importance. Could anyone find me a word for that?

I'm not going to talk about what I believe in or whether or not I believe in God... but I'd like to know what the term would be for someone who routinely answers:

"Don't know, don't care."

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Apatheism

[Tentacruel]

[quote name='Rinne' timestamp='1326928092' post='5770626']
If there were undeniable proof that God and everything He's promised exists, I think religion would be much more prominent than it is now, in that people would have no reason to doubt. So you got it backwards.
[/quote]
If everyone followed in and followed God due to evidence, it wouldn't be relgion, it would just be a part of nature for us. I'm speaking of a conditional universe.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

[quote name='~King Crouton~' timestamp='1326923856' post='5770502']
"Agnostic" just sounds like one of those word you use to make yourself look smarter than you really are.

I'm not a racist. I'm an AGNOSTIC disliker of minorities.
I'm not a liar. I'm an AGNOSTIC non-truth teller.
It's not delivery. It's not Dignorno. It's AGNOSTIC frozen pizza.
It's not butter. It's not Parkay. It's AGNOSTIC margarine.
Mom! Dad! This isn't a kids show! This is an AGNOSTIC drama!

A big word used to make something more intelligent to people who simply dismiss it.
[/quote]

It literally means "unsure". xD

[quote name='Corporal Atlas']
Except believing you know for certain =/= believing.[/quote]

Maybe. :j

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

As far as I view it, the difference is basically between a belief with conviction or faith and a belief without true certainty, more of a speculation.

but now im wondering if ignostic pantheism would work better for the case of pantheism than agnosticism would \(˚∆˚)/

[bury the year]

[quote name='Comrade Trollestia' timestamp='1326947190' post='5770973']
If everyone followed in and followed God due to evidence, it wouldn't be relgion, it would just be a part of nature for us. I'm speaking of a conditional universe.
[/quote]
I'm confused on what you're trying to argue.The basis of belief/acceptance a higher power would still be ingrained in our culture: "religion by a different name" if you please.

[quote name='~Coolio~' timestamp='1326955954' post='5771053']
As far as I view it, the difference is basically between a belief with conviction or faith and a belief without true certainty, more of a speculation.

but now im wondering if ignostic pantheism would work better for the case of pantheism than agnosticism would \(˚∆˚)/
[/quote]
Ignosticism is now going on my list of things to bring up in class tomorrow. tyty >8')

[BehindTheMask]

Agnosticism isn't sound reasoning because you can know the truth value for claims. For instance, the claim "I am thinking right now" can be verified by oneself, and thus, the truth value is known. If you are only agnostic about certain things, the separation of known claims from unknown would fall into an epistemic view point like Foundationalism or Coherentism

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

[quote name='Rinne' timestamp='1327012333' post='5771663']
Ignosticism is now going on my list of things to bring up in class tomorrow. tyty >8')
[/quote]
Definitely one of the best views few tend to reflect on too deeply. Before people argue about whether their God is plausible or not such a loose term should always be accurately defined. Would a being that had absolute dominion over our universe count as a God figure?

[Kirun Wolf]

[quote name='BehindTheMask' timestamp='1327019113' post='5771857']
Agnosticism isn't sound reasoning because you can know the truth value for claims. For instance, the claim "I am thinking right now" can be verified by oneself, and thus, the truth value is known. If you are only agnostic about certain things, the separation of known claims from unknown would fall into an epistemic view point like Foundationalism or Coherentism
[/quote]

Not true at all. Verify the truth value for the claim "God exists." First you must define terms. Defining "exists" is pretty straightforward, as there are definitions that most people agree on. Defining "God" is NOT straightforward.

After you gather all possible definitions of "God," you must then verify each individual claim.

For instance the definition: God is a single omnipresent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent being. This is a simple definition wrought with several problems but the most prominent is that this definition is effectively debunked (lol) by the existence of "evil" (as defined by a consensus, much like "exists"). If God is omniscient and omni-benevolent, why is there evil?

However, you quickly realize that you cannot possibly define and measure each individual definition of God. That would take an eternity and there are some definitions that are simply untestable. "God is a monkey, living in an alternate reality, pressing random buttons on a computer which generates our reality." There is simply no reliable way to measure that claim.

You messed up when you assumed that subjective terms can hold truth values. That's flawed logic.

[BehindTheMask]

[quote name='Kirun Wolf' timestamp='1327021490' post='5771916']
Not true at all. Verify the truth value for the claim "God exists." First you must define terms. Defining "exists" is pretty straightforward, as there are definitions that most people agree on. Defining "God" is NOT straightforward.

After you gather all possible definitions of "God," you must then verify each individual claim.

For instance the definition: God is a single omnipresent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent being. This is a simple definition wrought with several problems but the most prominent is that this definition is effectively debunked (lol) by the existence of "evil" (as defined by a consensus, much like "exists"). If God is omniscient and omni-benevolent, why is there evil?

However, you quickly realize that you cannot possibly define and measure each individual definition of God. That would take an eternity and there are some definitions that are simply untestable. "God is a monkey, living in an alternate reality, pressing random buttons on a computer which generates our reality." There is simply no reliable way to measure that claim.

You messed up when you assumed that subjective terms can hold truth values. That's flawed logic.
[/quote]

This is true, you do not have an infinite brain to do such a task. However, you can have a system of beliefs that allow you to turn beliefs into "fact." Let us take, for example the statement A "There exists a webpage "http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/273674-agnosticism/page__st__40."

1) Either A is true, or A is false.
2) Many pieces of evidence is shown that supports that A is true(such as there is browser history on my computer, etc etc)
3) Evidence that is aligned with reality is a form of justification of the truth.
4) A has evidence that is aligned with reality.
5) Therefore A must be true.

To attack your claim that since there is an infinite number of imaginable gods, I will use this logic.

Statement R: If a god exists, there must be evidence that is aligned with reality that proves his existence.
Statement T: I do not have evidence that is aligned with reality that proves the existence of this god.

Because T is true, therefore, R is false.

This can be applied to an infinite amount of gods, without the infinite mental analysis.

Now, you might argue "How do we know that evidence is aligned in reality?" That is to say that there must be an objective reality. We can non-doxastically know if our evidence is aligned with reality by using our senses with the outside independant world. For example, if I go outside and I see a tree, the tree objectively exists. I can use all of my senses to non-doxastically prove that the tree does exist.

An objection to the Outside independant world(OIW) is the evil demon problem. However, if there is an evil demon, and I am aware of the evil demon, then I know I cannot be justified in believing my sensory data. However, I am currently not aware of the evil demon, therefore, I am justified in making my believes that result from my sensory data, because they align with reality.

Its not whether or not you are correct regarding your beliefs. I can be totally wrong about the nature of reality, however, if I am using all the data and evidence allowed to me, then I am justified in my beliefs. This is where agnosticism fails, because although we cannot know for certain whether or not all truth claims can be known to be true or false, we can know certain claims can be true or false. Therefore, since we can know certain truth claims via evidence, we can make speculations of truth claims based on available evidence.

[Kirun Wolf]

[quote name='BehindTheMask' timestamp='1327027790' post='5772020']
This is true, you do not have an infinite brain to do such a task. However, you can have a system of beliefs that allow you to turn beliefs into "fact." Let us take, for example the statement A "There exists a webpage "http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/273674-agnosticism/page__st__40."

1) Either A is true, or A is false.
2) Many pieces of evidence is shown that supports that A is true(such as there is browser history on my computer, etc etc)
3) Evidence that is aligned with reality is a form of justification of the truth.
4) A has evidence that is aligned with reality.
5) Therefore A must be true.

To attack your claim that since there is an infinite number of imaginable gods, I will use this logic.

Statement R: If a god exists, there must be evidence that is aligned with reality that proves his existence.
Statement T: I do not have evidence that is aligned with reality that proves the existence of this god.

Because T is true, therefore, R is false.

This can be applied to an infinite amount of gods, without the infinite mental analysis.

Now, you might argue "How do we know that evidence is aligned in reality?" That is to say that there must be an objective reality. We can non-doxastically know if our evidence is aligned with reality by using our senses with the outside independant world. For example, if I go outside and I see a tree, the tree objectively exists. I can use all of my senses to non-doxastically prove that the tree does exist.

An objection to the Outside independant world(OIW) is the evil demon problem. However, if there is an evil demon, and I am aware of the evil demon, then I know I cannot be justified in believing my sensory data. However, I am currently not aware of the evil demon, therefore, I am justified in making my believes that result from my sensory data, because they align with reality.

Its not whether or not you are correct regarding your beliefs. I can be totally wrong about the nature of reality, however, if I am using all the data and evidence allowed to me, then I am justified in my beliefs. This is where agnosticism fails, because although we cannot know for certain whether or not all truth claims can be known to be true or false, we can know certain claims can be true or false. Therefore, since we can know certain truth claims via evidence, we can make speculations of truth claims based on available evidence.
[/quote]

I can attack your argument in two ways:

Logic argument: This argument posits that as long as something is "Logically Possible", it is impossible to rule out that there is evidence of it's existence somewhere in reality. Since I can imagine a "God" of variable definitions (the particular definition does not matter), then I cannot rule out its existence.

Your argument is bulls**t argument: Statement T in your argument is supposed to be "Statement NOT R". Therefore it should read:

Statement R: If a god exists, there must be evidence that is aligned with reality that proves his existence.
Statement T (Bullshit): I do not have evidence that is aligned with reality that proves the existence of this god.
[b]Statement T (revised using correct logic): There is no evidence aligned with reality that proves his existence.[/b]

While your statement T can be measured, it's simply a misnomer. The correct statement T is measurable, debatable, and subjective.

On to your next... tangential argument regarding objective reality and justification. First we have to simply agree that reality is objective. If we can't agree on that then there is absolutely no point in having a conversation. So we agree on that at least.

According to your Socratic definition of "Justified True Belief" (Knowledge), agnosticism fails because we can know certain claims' truth value. Agnosticism doesn't mean "everything is uncertain and unknowable." Agnosticism claims that "SOME, CERTAIN claims are unknowable and unmeasurable." You admitted to this in your post, so I'm not sure how you are debunking agnostics at all...

Another thing I do agree with you on: We must trust out sensory experience. We have to be satisfied with justified true belief; except in cases regarding history - then sometimes it is acceptable to simply absorb from an authority figure contextual knowledge. The "evil demon" argument is an argument against knowledge, and at least is guilty of "begging the question."