Poll

Are you a weak agnostic or strong agnostic?

Weak Agnostic
Strong Agnostic
Neither of the first two options

Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic

  • 19 Replies
  • 3071 Views
Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« on: October 20, 2009, 09:51:41 PM »
Please do not vote in this poll until at least reviewing a fairly legitimate definition of weak and strong agnosticism is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism

The main reason I'm making this thread is to ask for a defense of strong agnostic, because I don't fully understand its justification. I myself am a weak agnostic (agnostic atheist to be exact?), but I think its more because the way I'm reading the arguments seem to make strong agnosticism seem close-minded? I'm not really sure.

How can a strong agnostic say "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you." It seems as though they are dismissing the possibility that a "godly figure" is in fact in existence and working through natural means rather than metaphysical ones. For all I know I'm a strong agnostic, but I think I may just need a more clear definition than the ones provided me so far.
"So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is peace." -Arundhati Roy

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2009, 10:01:28 PM »
"Strong agnosticism or positive agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist. It is a broader view than weak agnosticism, which states that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable."
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2009, 10:28:38 PM »
I read that. How can you know that nobody has the knowledge.
"So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is peace." -Arundhati Roy

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2009, 10:35:12 PM »
I'm confused. Is this about strong/weak atheism or strong/weak agnosticism?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2009, 10:39:15 PM »
I'm confused. Is this about strong/weak atheism or strong/weak agnosticism?

I was having trouble typing this post after getting so flustered by the wikipedia pages confusingnesses an the realization that I'm still not really certain as to what category of non-theism to place myself with. So ya the way I said things in the first post might make it seem about Atheism but its supposed to be about strong/weak agnosticism.
"So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is peace." -Arundhati Roy

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2009, 10:40:50 PM »
How can you know that nobody has the knowledge.
Are you asking me? I voted weak...
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2009, 10:47:01 PM »
How can you know that nobody has the knowledge.
Are you asking me? I voted weak...

The main reason I'm making this thread is to ask for a defense of strong agnostic, because I don't fully understand its justification.

Yes sir, I'm asking you.
"So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is peace." -Arundhati Roy

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2009, 10:59:52 PM »
How can you know that nobody has the knowledge.
Are you asking me? I voted weak...

The main reason I'm making this thread is to ask for a defense of strong agnostic, because I don't fully understand its justification.

Yes sir, I'm asking you.
??? If you're looking for a defense of strong agnosticism, I'm not the right guy to ask...

1. I don't think what everyone else knows collectively, can be known.
2. I don't think that deities are limited only to the supernatural realm, if they have any influence on ours. Therefore, should one choose to reveal itself, it would become known.
3. Strong agnosticism makes an unverified claim, and weak doesn't.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2009, 11:01:29 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2009, 11:10:05 PM »
Sorry, let me be more clear, I didn't explain much when I quoted you. I am asking for a defense for strong agnosticism and a clearer definition of the two, and I felt that you did not provide such an explanation by bringing up a quote from a sub-series of what I posted.
"So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is peace." -Arundhati Roy

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2009, 05:13:03 AM »
I don't really have a logical defence of my position. It's a belief like everything else. It just seems to me that if there is an extradimensional, eternal being who created the universe and us in his "image" or whatever, he would probably be too complex for us to perceive. My lack of belief in any god or gods may be grounded in the(to me) logical stance that absence of evidence means that it is more likely that something doesn't exist(i.e. unicorns, kappa, sea monsters and the force), but my strong agnosticism is really just an assumption, and I can live with that.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2009, 09:58:21 AM »
I'm a weak agnostic atheist. I don't believe there's a god but I don't know there isn't and I'm open to be proven wrong.

*

Masterchef

  • 3898
  • Rabble rabble rabble
Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2009, 01:05:54 PM »
I do not believe in a god or gods.

If a god exists, he certainly could prove himself to us, but doesn't seem to want to. If he doesn't exist, there is no way for us to prove his existence one way or the other. The only evidence you will ever have against non-existent creatures or beings is that you can't find them. And with a being that could easily exist outside of our known universe, we will never be able to say that we searched all possible locations for him.

That's where I stand. Apply whatever labels you wish.

Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2009, 03:38:32 AM »
Idea 1:
What would someone gain in saying or proving that something exists or not?

Idea 2:
Why looking for something while one knows in advance that he doesn't need it in the first place?

Idea 3:
Isn't natural that a person might be ready to fool others but never himself?

So if someone says 'his' god exists, one can deduce one of the following two:

(1)
He surely gains something, most probably indirectly and not necessarily spiritually, from doing this.

(2)
He was looking for more knowledge about himself and the world. And 'his' god happens to be able to give him the best practical insight on them, not provided completely in any other source.

If none of the above two happens to be true, talking about a god has to be for fun (like to tease some others).

*

Soze

  • 1291
  • Flat Earth Proponent
Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2009, 07:00:48 AM »
Idea 1:
What would someone gain in saying or proving that something exists or not?
It's a reputable intellectual achievement.

Idea 2:
Why looking for something while one knows in advance that he doesn't need it in the first place?
The search for truth shouldn't take material motivation.

Idea 3:
Isn't natural that a person might be ready to fool others but never himself?
People are never ready to fool themselves, but it doesn't prevent them. It wouldn't be effective if it was a conscious choice.

Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #14 on: October 22, 2009, 08:51:55 AM »
Idea 1:
What would someone gain in saying or proving that something exists or not?
It's a reputable intellectual achievement.

Do you mean "a reputable intellectual achievement" has no real value!  :)

[edited] Sorry... I wrote 'no' instead of 'a'. You are right it does have a value if one is looking to become famous (though to me this is much like having fun but in a rather serious/intellectual way  ;D )

Idea 2:
Why looking for something while one knows in advance that he doesn't need it in the first place?
The search for truth shouldn't take material motivation.

Did I say one's need should be material always!  :)
« Last Edit: October 22, 2009, 11:56:07 AM by Thank_you »

Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2009, 05:28:21 PM »
I don't know where you can get you can make a claim that this isn't something you need Thank_You.... You base your entire life on what you believe in? Hundreds of millions draw their morals from the bible?

Idea 2:
Why looking for something while one knows in advance that he doesn't need it in the first place?

Clearly people don't need a reason for life, the proof behind that is the thousands of years humans have existed without a god, but if someone was to find a way to get people to accept the idea that they may be wrong, it may change people's ideologies in a very positive way. It could be fairly easily argued that much of racism, homophobia and war have stemmed or at least been promoted from/by religions.

Idea 3:
Isn't natural that a person might be ready to fool others but never himself?

So if someone says 'his' god exists, one can deduce one of the following two three:

(1)
He surely gains something, most probably indirectly and not necessarily spiritually, from doing this.

(2)
He was looking for more knowledge about himself and the world. And 'his' god happens to be able to give him the best practical insight on them, not provided completely in any other source.

(3)
The said person was raised to believe in a god, and taught that god was the only source of virtue. When said person was eventually addressed with the idea that what they were raised to believe may be false, their emotions overtake their reasoning and they deny the possibility of such an idea and create an argument so that they can find an excuse for their horrendous fallacy.

fix'd

And a note, Please stop using the term " 'his' god " Thank_You. Could you say belief, or creed or theism or something like that rather than using that poorly connotated phrase?
"So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is peace." -Arundhati Roy

Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2009, 05:50:10 AM »
Sorry Sadistic, from my long experience I couldn't meet two persons who believe 'exactly' in the same image of god. On the other hand, I didn't meet two Atheists who believe exactly in the same way about their non-existing god as well. I mean this happened when I was able to share what a person really believes, deeply in himself.

I mean the real truth has no way but to be personal. But in general, people like to please each other (for material or spiritual motivation) so they claim to agree on what their majority say (and mainly the one we look to be with ;D ). And the Elites in a society who are looking to enslave (lead if you like  ;) ) their masses have no way but to convince them that they all believe in (and are gathered around) the same ideals. In both cases, this leads the common person (as his leaders) to defend when necessary what it is supposed to be the belief of their community.

So actually and mainly among strangers, personal beliefs are ignored because strangers should talk about global/universal ideas/theories instead. That is why I am not surprised that debates keep going on in circles since they have to play far away from the real personal truth of each debating person.

As you may have noticed, I don't see in the general words as 'belief', 'creed' or 'theism' any real meaning other than the assumption that too many persons might share the same exact belief. This common belief simply doesn't exist to me (as the god, you heard of, cannot exist to you ;D )

Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2009, 10:44:17 PM »
In my opinion it is impossible for any person to discover the true nature or indeed to comprehend the true nature of any greater power. The only way to know what exists after death is to die yourself. Strong Agnostic and Weak Agnostic has never come into it for me as i really don't see much of a difference. From what has been said the only difference i can see is in the belief regarding the possibility of proving of a higher being and even strong agnostics must acknowledge that after death one side of the debate will be confirmed. Strong Agnosticism i believe stems from the idea that if there is a greater power and they haven't shown themselves by now then they won't and no-one will be able to prove it because the greater being has the power to control whether people can understand it.

?

Sono_hito

  • 111
  • Hark Hark yon logic!
Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2009, 05:13:43 AM »
Strong athiest, i find the presumption that one cannot be firm in this statement a sad plea from theists.

I generaly find the concept of diety an understandable creation from lack of knowledge. But today? Its just pitiable that people still believe in this concept. It does nothing but hold us back to ancient dogmatic beliefs that allows the killing and molesting (physical and mental) of people while holding back scientific advancement.

All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others. - Douglas Adams

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Weak Agnostic or Strong Agnostic
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2009, 10:30:56 AM »
Probably weak agnostic. I can't prove there isn't a God, but I'd expect one to have done something more than draw pictures of Jesus on potatoes by now.

Similarly, I can't prove there's a tea pot orbiting the sun, but I'm not about to start basing my actions on the presumption that there is one there.