Pick an Agnostic's Brain

[Timothy Leary]

:sigh:

"Hit me with your best shot... fire awayyyyy!"

Agnostic w/ Deistic influences here, reporting for duty!

[Duder]

:sigh:

"Hit me with your best shot... fire awayyyyy!"

Agnostic w/ Deistic influences here, reporting for duty!

Easy duty, agnostic dude! All you gotta say is "I dunno".

[Ryokan]

That's why I'm on the team. I have a little tape recorder that says it for me.

[Rusty T]

At least his answer will be the most truthful.

[James Peter]

What colour does cheese taste like?

[Timothy Leary]

What colour does cheese taste like?

Green.

[Timothy Leary]

Easy duty, agnostic dude! All you gotta say is "I dunno".

I slightly disagree. If you're a lazy agnostic (and I'm not referring to the user here by that name) then you could do that. But I like to know why I say that I don't know, or that I can't come to a conclusion.

[Menachem]

:sigh:

"Hit me with your best shot... fire awayyyyy!"

Agnostic w/ Deistic influences here, reporting for duty!


A Ger turned agnostic...such a waste of talent.....lol..... Oh well! I still think you're cool :teeth:

[Duder]

I slightly disagree. If you're a lazy agnostic (and I'm not referring to the user here by that name) then you could do that. But I like to know why I say that I don't know, or that I can't come to a conclusion.

Sorry - it was a cheap bid for a giggle. . . . sort of.

Agnosticism is something every intelligent person should do. Agnosticism is the high art of skepticism. It recognizes how the human mind is incapabale of knowing whether or not the objects of its thought really exist "out there" - and if they do exist, whether or not they exist exactly as they are conceived. The agnostic art is a good thing to develop and nurture - because without it we could never change our minds and aquire better ideas.

The problem comes in when agnosticism goes from "something that you do" to "something that you are". If you shy away from affirming any proposition that you do not or cannot know to be certainly true, because you refuse to risk error, then you will never affirm anything, because every proposition (with a single exception) is susceptible to doubt.

Now, if you do affirm things in the sense that you hold them as provisional truths or working hypotheses, then I would say you have moved beyond mere agnosticism. For example, if your actions are based on the theory that God does not exist, then I would call you an atheist because you have put your money on the table, even when you are not sure you made the right bet. In the same way, if you assume for practical purposes that God does exist, then I'd call you a theist.

A person who is an agnostic is sitting on the fence. Fences are very uncomfortable perches, and you don't get much done sitting on one. Even if it is necessary to climb up there now and then, why stay for long periods of time? Surely something can be found that is more pursuasive or more aesthetic on one side than on the other. Why not jump down and hang with the homies for a while? But keep your laddar handy in case you need to go back up.

[Timothy Leary]

A Ger turned agnostic...such a waste of talent.....lol..... Oh well! I still think you're cool :teeth:

Too many bad run ins with idiotic charedim and one stalker sorta gave a shock. (Even though I've abandoned all but this account, they still find me somehow - see the comments in my last blog post (http://www.deadhobbit.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=24&blogId=1#comments) to see what I mean).

I'm reevaluating my opinions on everything right now , and taking it slow (I'm going to take at least a year before I decide for sure). If I get married, I'll probably stay where I'm at (due to the influence of that potential significant other). If not, who knows where I'll end up.

[mentored1]

Hey Duder... Sorry to interject but I found a few of your points enlightening and a few that I wanted some elaboration on... I can't pass on such thought treats.... :teeth:


The problem comes in when agnosticism goes from "something that you do" to "something that you are".

I've been contemplating human identity lately so this is amazing to grab on to and discuss for me... It seems to me that this is exactly what we do when we try to determine or figure or whatever we do to get our identity. That we become something that we do. A habit, hobby, behavior, whatever becomes who we are - becomes incorporated into our personality, our identity. When I analyze my identity and those close to me this appears - inasfar as I can tell in my unprofessional knowledge - to be a composition of "things that we do". Not that it isn't a problem - but that it is the method by which we cobble together identities.

If you shy away from affirming any proposition that you do not or cannot know to be certainly true, because you refuse to risk error, then you will never affirm anything, because every proposition (with a single exception) is susceptible to doubt.

I think you've captured it well here. Refusing to affirm anything also implies that you will not affirm to refuse anything either (I know, sad play with words) so nothing becomes true nor does it becoem false - as far as one knows it just is. The values and meanings, definitions, et al appear to be results of refusal or affirmation anyway don't they? What do the things that we refuse or affirm have in and of themselves without our conscious assent? This, for me, is the inherent emptiness that appears in everything until I define it - or work with the standard definition as it is.

Now, if you do affirm things in the sense that you hold them as provisional truths or working hypotheses, then I would say you have moved beyond mere agnosticism. For example, if your actions are based on the theory that God does not exist, then I would call you an atheist because you have put your money on the table, even when you are not sure you made the right bet. In the same way, if you assume for practical purposes that God does exist, then I'd call you a theist.

Succinctly put - more or less what I was rambling about in my last reply. I appreciate that you can express such ideas without resorting to 'isms' or structures of word-phrases so high the tower of babel is put to shame. Muchos Gracias :thumb:

A person who is an agnostic is sitting on the fence. Fences are very uncomfortable perches, and you don't get much done sitting on one. Even if it is necessary to climb up there now and then, why stay for long periods of time? Surely something can be found that is more pursuasive or more aesthetic on one side than on the other. Why not jump down and hang with the homies for a while? But keep your laddar handy in case you need to go back up.

Again well said - plainly and effectively. It is imperative to come down if only for the purposes of discussion. Most people have chosen something in the form of refusal or affirmation so to have a debate or discussion requires a true agnostic to assume - for argument's sake - something that will spur the conversation on; or to at least ask the questions from the other side.

It's the affirmation or refusal of what is being discussed that a true agnostic avoids. I think even one's identity can be considered part of what mentioned as "out there" that agnostics cannot confirm or deny as reality.

Especially when identity is seen as a collection of traits, habits, mannerisms, etc collected in one's life: they all become pieces, components of the identity that can be viewed from 'behind glass' as it were. In that sense even one's identity cannot be confirmed or denied as real.

:shrug: Thus the nonsense ends!

Take care - enjoyed the brain food.

[Timothy Leary]

Now, if you do affirm things in the sense that you hold them as provisional truths or working hypotheses, then I would say you have moved beyond mere agnosticism. For example, if your actions are based on the theory that God does not exist, then I would call you an atheist because you have put your money on the table, even when you are not sure you made the right bet. In the same way, if you assume for practical purposes that God does exist, then I'd call you a theist.

OK, then what would you call a person who is apathetic to the question?

Why not jump down and hang with the homies for a while?

Because I don't like either side. Most atheists I know are rabidly so, and have basically become Southern Baptist Atheists if you know what I mean. On the other hand, I feel equally (perhaps more so) uncomfortable in a Christian church because of my Judaic leanings. The only "homies" I feel comfortable with are the Daoists, but I don't think I would say I agree with Daoist philosophy yet. I've hardly studied it.

[PeanutButter]

[QUOTE=dead.hobbit]
Because I don't like either side. Most atheists I know are rabidly so, and have basically become Southern Baptist Atheists if you know what I mean. QUOTE]

Very true. It's confusing. I get the same doubt and skepticism when I discuss things with an atheist as if I am discussing something with a Jew or Christian. Some days I'm more of a theist, other days I'm more of an atheist. To be honest, it's rather frustrating. I wish I could have the kind of conviction, to have that much faith and certainty in my beliefs.

[Ryokan]

Sorry - it was a cheap bid for a giggle. . . . sort of.

Agnosticism is something every intelligent person should do. Agnosticism is the high art of skepticism. It recognizes how the human mind is incapabale of knowing whether or not the objects of its thought really exist "out there" - and if they do exist, whether or not they exist exactly as they are conceived. The agnostic art is a good thing to develop and nurture - because without it we could never change our minds and aquire better ideas.

The problem comes in when agnosticism goes from "something that you do" to "something that you are". If you shy away from affirming any proposition that you do not or cannot know to be certainly true, because you refuse to risk error, then you will never affirm anything, because every proposition (with a single exception) is susceptible to doubt.

Now, if you do affirm things in the sense that you hold them as provisional truths or working hypotheses, then I would say you have moved beyond mere agnosticism. For example, if your actions are based on the theory that God does not exist, then I would call you an atheist because you have put your money on the table, even when you are not sure you made the right bet. In the same way, if you assume for practical purposes that God does exist, then I'd call you a theist.

A person who is an agnostic is sitting on the fence. Fences are very uncomfortable perches, and you don't get much done sitting on one. Even if it is necessary to climb up there now and then, why stay for long periods of time? Surely something can be found that is more pursuasive or more aesthetic on one side than on the other. Why not jump down and hang with the homies for a while? But keep your laddar handy in case you need to go back up.
What if your agnostic believes their is no way of knowing?

[Duder]

OK, then what would you call a person who is apathetic to the question?



Because I don't like either side. Most atheists I know are rabidly so, and have basically become Southern Baptist Atheists if you know what I mean. On the other hand, I feel equally (perhaps more so) uncomfortable in a Christian church because of my Judaic leanings. The only "homies" I feel comfortable with are the Daoists, but I don't think I would say I agree with Daoist philosophy yet. I've hardly studied it.

I've always spelled it "Tao", but maybe that's an old fashioned spelling.

Have you had the chance to read Lau Tzu's ancient book Toa Te Ching? There are several good online versions, with varying translations that yield varied and interesting ideas. Give it a look.

The essential Taoist insight is one which I value very much. The Taoist affirms that the one real, true reality is never known by the mind, but rather, it is touched directly and immediately in the act of experience itself. The moment you think about the experience, it is gone. When you try to say what the experience is of, it becomes a dead fossil. Thus, the opening line in Lau Tzu's book says "The Tao that can be defined is not the true Tao...".

As one story goes, Confusious sent one of his followers to visit Lau Tzu, to figure out what Lau Tzu was teaching and to report back to Confusious. The student went to Lau Tzu and stayed with him for a very long time to try and understand his doctrine.

One day, Lau Tzu invited this student for a walk in the mountains. As they wandered through the woods, the student said, "Master, I have tried for many months to comprehend your teaching but it is most difficult. Why do you hide your wisdom from me so?"

Lau Tzu pointed with his old finger at a bush beside the path, and asked "Look here! Do you see this?"

"Yes, I see it, master", replied the student.

"There!" said Lau Tzu, striking the student with his staff. "I have nothing to hide from you."

The student was immediately enlightened and never returned to report to Confuscious.

[Truthdigger]

:sigh:

"Hit me with your best shot... fire awayyyyy!"

Agnostic w/ Deistic influences here, reporting for duty!

What prompts you from total agnosticism to deism? Is it a gut feeling, or are you trying to cover your bases?

[Menachem]

Too many bad run ins with idiotic charedim and one stalker sorta gave a shock. (Even though I've abandoned all but this account, they still find me somehow - see the comments in my last blog post (http://www.deadhobbit.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=24&blogId=1#comments) to see what I mean).

I see what you mean. Just show up at his doorstep with a few friends and beat the crap out of him. Make sure to wear ski masks. Thats old school style. New school style, call the cops and hope for the best. I prefer the old school mayself.....lol

I'm reevaluating my opinions on everything right now , and taking it slow (I'm going to take at least a year before I decide for sure). If I get married, I'll probably stay where I'm at (due to the influence of that potential significant other). If not, who knows where I'll end up.

evaluation is the key to a good belief system. Judaism advocates it all of the time and of course I do it all of the time. but your wishes are your own and I respect that no matter which way you go. your still going to be cool in my book no matter what.

[Timothy Leary]

What prompts you from total agnosticism to deism? Is it a gut feeling, or are you trying to cover your bases?

A little bit of both, and a lot of frustration from Southern Baptist Atheists.

[Ryokan]

A little bit of both, and a lot of frustration from Southern Baptist Atheists.
My thing with deism is, How would we ever be able to determine whether or not a deist God exists? And if he does, well, who cares?

[PeanutButter]

My thing with deism is, How would we ever be able to determine whether or not a deist God exists? And if he does, well, who cares?

I guess the only reason to believe in a deist God is to have something to explain the things we can not explain (as of yet anyway). And really, it makes more sense - to me - than the loving, caring God. Although if it was possible to prove a deist God, it would really be pointless information. Like you said, who cares?

[Doubting John]

Sorry - it was a cheap bid for a giggle. . . . sort of.

Agnosticism is something every intelligent person should do. Agnosticism is the high art of skepticism. It recognizes how the human mind is incapabale of knowing whether or not the objects of its thought really exist "out there" - and if they do exist, whether or not they exist exactly as they are conceived. The agnostic art is a good thing to develop and nurture - because without it we could never change our minds and aquire better ideas.

The problem comes in when agnosticism goes from "something that you do" to "something that you are". If you shy away from affirming any proposition that you do not or cannot know to be certainly true, because you refuse to risk error, then you will never affirm anything, because every proposition (with a single exception) is susceptible to doubt.

Now, if you do affirm things in the sense that you hold them as provisional truths or working hypotheses, then I would say you have moved beyond mere agnosticism. For example, if your actions are based on the theory that God does not exist, then I would call you an atheist because you have put your money on the table, even when you are not sure you made the right bet. In the same way, if you assume for practical purposes that God does exist, then I'd call you a theist.

A person who is an agnostic is sitting on the fence. Fences are very uncomfortable perches, and you don't get much done sitting on one. Even if it is necessary to climb up there now and then, why stay for long periods of time? Surely something can be found that is more pursuasive or more aesthetic on one side than on the other. Why not jump down and hang with the homies for a while? But keep your laddar handy in case you need to go back up.

Exactly. William James claims our choice is forced upon us. We must choose. If that's the case, then simply choose. Take the gamble. Stake the claim. A non-choice is unsettling. It's simply not an answer. What is most probably to you? Even if it's 50.00001%, choose. And it looks like Deism is your choice. So what if you're not sure about Deism. You lean there. Proclaim it then with all of the certainty you can muster. Say, "I am a Deist, but I'm not too sure of this." :lol: Most people aren't sure of their conclusions either. And others who are sure have a false assurance. But go ahead. Do it!

I was where you are now for a long time. Then I just realized that the reason I couldn't figure out how we got here is because I was trying to figure it our based upon the possibility that there was a reason for it all not related to chance. But then it hit me. The reason it cannot be figured out is because no one can figure out the reasons for chance events. They are, by definition unexplainable.

[Truthdigger]

A little bit of both, and a lot of frustration from Southern Baptist Atheists.

I tend to think those people, the freaky fanatics, would act like they do no matter which system they prescribed to.

[sambo]

Agnostics are awesome!

It is the original childlike innocence and wonder we are born with naturally! Just having the honesty and courage to say, "I don't know." (didn't Christ have something to say about being childlike?)

They say Zen Buddhists are merely compassionate agnostics. They know that they don't know but still believe in kindness.

And one of my favorite bumper stickers: Militant agnostic. I don't know and neither do you.

[zorathruster]

Agnostics are awesome!

And one of my favorite bumper stickers: Militant agnostic. I don't know and neither do you.

The reality is that theists don't believe on fact, they believe on faith. The agnostic position says, there are no facts so I refrain from commitment. In other words, I will not accept faith as a basis for my beliefs. It is an atheistic position where you don't want to commit to saying you are an atheist.

Either you believe on faith or you reject theism based on facts that counter most every theistic assertion. The greatest being the logical inconsistency of the characteristics of a God.