Is Religious Neutrality a Myth?

[Evo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism"

Jimmy, you just reiterated what I said. Look at what you posted again.

The Agnosticist is absent of belief, where theism and atheism require faith that there is or is not a deity or deities. An Agnosticist would say, "I neither have a belief in a deity nor do I have a belief in the absence of such a deity."

Agnostics are two parters, they swing both ways. They neither confirm nor deny a deity.

An atheist only lacks faith that one exists.

You're getting old Jimmy.

 

[disregardthat]

Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of agnosticism is that they consider that which is beyond phenomena of experience is unknowable, i.e. that we cannot know whether something exists or not if it is not part of phenomenal experience, or that either makes no sense. An agnostic would perhaps say that "existence" is only a property of physical objects, and extending it beyond that would be nonsense. I don't think it's so much "swinging both ways" or "fence-sitting" than distancing themselves to the dilemma entirely. Agnosticism with regards to deities (that deities are not physical entities and are therefore unknowable in principle) is to me the most appealing position.

The worst thing I hear is that agnostics consider the probability of that god exists is 50 %.

 

[Evo]

Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of agnosticism is that they consider that which is beyond the phenomena of experience is unknowable, i.e. that we cannot know whether something exists if it is not part of phenomenal experience. I don't think it's so much "swinging both ways" or "fence-sitting" than distancing themselves to the dilemma entirely.

That's another definition that separates agnosticism from atheism which confirms my earlier definition of agnosticism that agnostics claim they "cannot know".

 

[disregardthat]

That's another definition that separates agnosticism from atheism which confirms my earlier definition of agnosticism that agnostics claim they "cannot know".

Correct, but not only can they not know; it is in principle unknowable. There are certain things we can't know about the universe due to physical limitations, but they are not in principle unknowable. I think this is a distinction worth to be made, if it is not already obvious.

 

[Gokul43201]

I've fallen way behind on this thread, and will not be able to catch up completely, but briefly:

1. Jarle, I believe you interpreted my posts correctly (at least the part that was in contention)

2. Jimmy, an agnosticist is a different creature than an agnostic (so perhaps that's the term you want to use?) (While I also disagree with the characterization within that paragraph - it clearly contradicts the definitions in the main articles - I'm not going to follow up on that issue any more.)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

An atheist only lacks faith that one exists.

In the post that this post links to it says:
theism and atheism require faith
No wonder I get old.

 

[Evo]

I can't find agnosticist, I thought he'd mispelled it. Did you find a definition in the English language gokul?

I found this definition

“Atheism is a non-prophet organization.”

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I found this definition "Atheism is a non-prophet organization"

For people with no invisible means of support.

 

[Gokul43201]

Jeez, I was hoping to not get sucked back into this thread.

What is it in human cognition that facilitates conviction that reality is in fact real and not a dream, fantasy, hallucination, or something else subjective but lacking objective foundations?

Even as an empiricist you don't need to have faith that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow (to pick an example). You could wager a lifetime's salary on it, or plan your next several thousand sunrises in advance, but neither those nor any other action that is dependent on the cyclic continuation of this event need belie a faith in its inerrancy.

PS: Please keep the psychoanalysis out of the discussion.

 

[Gokul43201]

Evo, I had not heard that term (agnosticist) before, and couldn't find it anywhere else with a quick search.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Evo, I had not heard that term (agnosticist) before, and couldn't find it anywhere else with a quick search.

It's not in the oed either. Clearly it is a spelling error.

 

[Evo]

Evo, I had not heard that term (agnosticist) before, and couldn't find it anywhere else with a quick search.

Good ol' wikipedia. Thanks, I was wondering.

I think we've beaten this topic to death. Too many different definitions. Closing.

 

[Evo]

For people with no invisible means of support.

I had to end with an LOL.