Love and Religion

[Ava Estelle]

To the committed believer, the Agnostic is just being difficult and to the Atheist the Agnostic is hedging his bets.

The position of the church in the original debate was that people fall into two categories, believers and infidels, (unbelievers). They saw no middle ground, you either believed or you didn't.

Huxley asserted that he neither believed nor disbelieved, and the reason he gave was that he felt neither side could justify their stand using the burden of proof. He further asserted that, according to his own conclusions, proof could not be attained, by either side.

This position was unacceptable to the church, it flew in the face of all their teachings on the subject, so they set about categorising agnostics according to their own interpretation. They claimed that agnostics were infidels, who accepted that they could be wrong.

This was categorically rejected by Huxley. As he had taken no position on the right or wrong of either side's case, what exactly was it he could be wrong about? He made it quite clear that he neither believed nor disbelieved either side, that he did not have a foot in either camp, and that the church was wrong to define agnostics as such.

The church, of course, has a wider audience than Huxley, and their interpretation took hold along with the true version.

[lynx]

I thought most people used that version, irrespective of who had coined it. Or something similar. Do non-Christians have another meaning.

JP, it's the rider that's the contentious issue here, "but admits they could be wrong".

An agnostic would not admit they could be wrong as it's a dead issue, the very definition of agnostic states that they see the proof or otherwise of the existence of god as unknowable, so they don't make the claim that they don't believe, only in as much as they don't disbelieve either. So to say they could be wrong would be to say they had come to a conclusion one way or the other.

As to other meanings, there are, of course, many interpretations.

Sorry for the late response, work occasionally interferes.

I don't accept your argument that an atheist needs to prove the non-existance of god, and because he can't he's an agnostic. Disproving the non-existance is an impossibility, all that can be done (if one wants to bother) is show that so called proofs of existance don't have substance.

You also lump in with that the supposed argument that there are other things which are unknowable, such as the Big Bang and what happened before it. Who says they are unknowable? They may be currently unknown, but that's a completely different ball game.

I feel you've fallen into the age old trap that because an atheist can't prove the theists wrong, then either they are right or there is room for doubt.

You might like to try this. Make up some absolutely absurd story, and go out and tell people that it is true. When they tell you that you are crazy, challenge them to prove you wrong. If they allow you crayons in your padded cell you can tell us that you are being held by agnostics.

[bigboab]

JP, it's the rider that's the contentious issue here, "but admits they could be wrong".

An agnostic would not admit they could be wrong as it's a dead issue, the very definition of agnostic states that they see the proof or otherwise of the existence of god as unknowable, so they don't make the claim that they don't believe, only in as much as they don't disbelieve either. So to say they could be wrong would be to say they had come to a conclusion one way or the other.

As to other meanings, there are, of course, many interpretations.

Sorry for the late response, work occasionally interferes.

I don't accept your argument that an atheist needs to prove the non-existance of god, and because he can't he's an agnostic. Disproving the non-existance is an impossibility, all that can be done (if one wants to bother) is show that so called proofs of existance don't have substance.

You also lump in with that the supposed argument that there are other things which are unknowable, such as the Big Bang and what happened before it. Who says they are unknowable? They may be currently unknown, but that's a completely different ball game.

I feel you've fallen into the age old trap that because an atheist can't prove the theists wrong, then either they are right or there is room for doubt.

You might like to try this. Make up some absolutely absurd story, and go out and tell people that it is true. When they tell you that you are crazy, challenge them to prove you wrong. If they allow you crayons in your padded cell you can tell us that you are being held by agnostics.

Good post.

P.S. They did allow me soft, unedible crayons.

[Ava Estelle]

I don't accept your argument that an atheist needs to prove the non-existance of god, and because he can't he's an agnostic.

I didn't say that.

You also lump in with that the supposed argument that there are other things which are unknowable, such as the Big Bang and what happened before it.

I said before the big bang, not the big bang itself.

Who says they are unknowable?

I do.

I feel you've fallen into the age old trap that because an atheist can't prove the theists wrong, then either they are right or there is room for doubt.

If you can't find something I said to argue against, why make things up?

You might like to try this. Make up some absolutely absurd story, and go out and tell people that it is true. When they tell you that you are crazy, challenge them to prove you wrong. If they allow you crayons in your padded cell you can tell us that you are being held by agnostics

I see you've fallen into the same old trap of quoting silly analogies and believing them to be profound.

[JPaul]

What the chap who coined the phrase meant is sort of irrelevant. Words change their meaning all the time. Look at words like sinister, gay, wicked, the list is ended.

So what's important is the current, normal accepted meaning of the word. Even then you are struggling as different dictionaries may give you different meanings. Indeed you may get different meanings in the same dictionary. Even if you limit it to it's relgious sense you may get either of these.


1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

There appear to be degrees of agnosticism.

Which is really rather unhelpful. Like I said earlier I have always taken it to mean the latter of the two.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

There's an interesting word in Scots Law

Sist

1. (Scots Law) To stay, as judicial proceedings; to delay or suspend; to stop.

2. To cause to take a place, as at the bar of a court; hence, to cite; to summon; to bring into court. [Scot.]

How mad is that.

[lynx]

I don't accept your argument that an atheist needs to prove the non-existance of god, and because he can't he's an agnostic.

I didn't say that.
Actually you did, just not in the post I quoted. Try post 39 instead.

You also lump in with that the supposed argument that there are other things which are unknowable, such as the Big Bang and what happened before it.

I said before the big bang, not the big bang itself.
So? How does that make it unknowable?

Who says they are unknowable?

I do.
Oh, sorry, I didn't know you'd been appointed absolute arbiter of such things.

I feel you've fallen into the age old trap that because an atheist can't prove the theists wrong, then either they are right or there is room for doubt.

If you can't find something I said to argue against, why make things up?
Because it's what I think you've done.

You might like to try this. Make up some absolutely absurd story, and go out and tell people that it is true. When they tell you that you are crazy, challenge them to prove you wrong. If they allow you crayons in your padded cell you can tell us that you are being held by agnostics

I see you've fallen into the same old trap of quoting silly analogies and believing them to be profound.

The point isn't how silly the analogy may be, and it was deliberately silly so that it wasn't confused with any story about god. The point is that as an outside observer you wouldn't consider the people who don't believe the story to be agnostics, nor would you place any requirement on them to disprove the story.

Now apply the same logic to a story about god. In the same way there's no reason to label atheists as agnostics simply because the story happens to be about god.

[lynx]

What the chap who coined the phrase meant is sort of irrelevant. Words change their meaning all the time. Look at words like sinister, gay, wicked, the list is ended.

So what's important is the current, normal accepted meaning of the word. Even then you are struggling as different dictionaries may give you different meanings. Indeed you may get different meanings in the same dictionary. Even if you limit it to it's relgious sense you may get either of these.


1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

There appear to be degrees of agnosticism.

Which is really rather unhelpful. Like I said earlier I have always taken it to mean the latter of the two.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

There's an interesting word in Scots Law

Sist

1. (Scots Law) To stay, as judicial proceedings; to delay or suspend; to stop.

2. To cause to take a place, as at the bar of a court; hence, to cite; to summon; to bring into court. [Scot.]

How mad is that.

Please desist.

[JPaul]

That's what I thought too.

[Ava Estelle]

I didn't say that.
Actually you did, just not in the post I quoted. Try post 39 instead.

I didn't say it in post 39 either.

You also lump in with that the supposed argument that there are other things which are unknowable, such as the Big Bang and what happened before it.

I said before the big bang, not the big bang itself.
So? How does that make it unknowable?

Because it happened before the universe came into being, therefore there cannot be proof, only theory.

Who says they are unknowable?

I do.
Oh, sorry, I didn't know you'd been appointed absolute arbiter of such things.

Really? No-one told you?

I feel you've fallen into the age old trap that because an atheist can't prove the theists wrong, then either they are right or there is room for doubt.

If you can't find something I said to argue against, why make things up?
Because it's what I think you've done.

Well you're wrong, there is no compulsion on either a theist or atheist to prove anything, it's only the agnostic that is concerned with proof. An atheist can admit he cannot prove his case but still call himself an atheist, he could claim he doesn't need to prove anything as his position doesn't depend on proof but on intuition and logic. In the same way a theist could also admit to not being able to prove anything, but claim it is unnecessary to do so because their beliefs are based on faith, not proof.

You might like to try this. Make up some absolutely absurd story, and go out and tell people that it is true. When they tell you that you are crazy, challenge them to prove you wrong. If they allow you crayons in your padded cell you can tell us that you are being held by agnostics

I see you've fallen into the same old trap of quoting silly analogies and believing them to be profound.

The point isn't how silly the analogy may be, and it was deliberately silly so that it wasn't confused with any story about god. The point is that as an outside observer you wouldn't consider the people who don't believe the story to be agnostics, nor would you place any requirement on them to disprove the story.

Now apply the same logic to a story about god. In the same way there's no reason to label atheists as agnostics simply because the story happens to be about god.

Your analogy is irrelevant because (a) we're talking about a specific subject here, it doesn't need an analogy and (b) no-one has said anyone is an agnostic if they can't prove something.

[lynx]

I didn't say that.
Actually you did, just not in the post I quoted. Try post 39 instead.

I didn't say it in post 39 either.


I said before the big bang, not the big bang itself.
So? How does that make it unknowable?

Because it happened before the universe came into being, therefore there cannot be proof, only theory.

Who says they are unknowable?

I do.
Oh, sorry, I didn't know you'd been appointed absolute arbiter of such things.

Really? No-one told you?

I feel you've fallen into the age old trap that because an atheist can't prove the theists wrong, then either they are right or there is room for doubt.

If you can't find something I said to argue against, why make things up?
Because it's what I think you've done.

Well you're wrong, there is no compulsion on either a theist or atheist to prove anything, it's only the agnostic that is concerned with proof. An atheist can admit he cannot prove his case but still call himself an atheist, he could claim he doesn't need to prove anything as his position doesn't depend on proof but on intuition and logic. In the same way a theist could also admit to not being able to prove anything, but claim it is unnecessary to do so because their beliefs are based on faith, not proof.

You might like to try this. Make up some absolutely absurd story, and go out and tell people that it is true. When they tell you that you are crazy, challenge them to prove you wrong. If they allow you crayons in your padded cell you can tell us that you are being held by agnostics

I see you've fallen into the same old trap of quoting silly analogies and believing them to be profound.

The point isn't how silly the analogy may be, and it was deliberately silly so that it wasn't confused with any story about god. The point is that as an outside observer you wouldn't consider the people who don't believe the story to be agnostics, nor would you place any requirement on them to disprove the story.

Now apply the same logic to a story about god. In the same way there's no reason to label atheists as agnostics simply because the story happens to be about god.

Your analogy is irrelevant because (a) we're talking about a specific subject here, it doesn't need an analogy and (b) no-one has said anyone is an agnostic if they can't prove something.

Are you promoting the Big Bang theory as the only possible solution, while at the same time proposing that it is only a theory? That still doesn't mean that what went before (if anything) is unknowable, just that we don't yet know how to find out. Otherwise all you are doing is introducing the Big Bang as an alternative for god.

You were promoting Huxley's ideas, and he most certainly was saying that both theists and atheists were actually agnostics but do not realise it. You also say that agnostics require proof. The combination of those positions is that theists and atheists require proof, even if they don't realise it.

The analogy shows Huxley's ideas to be total poppycock, hence it is completely relevant. The proposal that ideas don't need to be disproved for them to be disregarded doesn't dissolve just because the word god is introduced into the mix.

In a situation where belief is a factor, it has to be looked at as if the observer were not affected by it otherwise the observer's own preconceptions prevent objective analysis.