fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2554 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2554 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Hobbit movies, Silmarillion]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Ripper Street]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Avengers]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Sekai-ichi Hatsukoi]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Game of Thrones]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Sherlock Holmes/Star Trek: The Next Generation]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Soukyuu no Fafner]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Attack on Titan]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Goo Goo Dolls]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 050 secrets from Secret Submission Post #364.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The only problem I have with self-described agnostics are the ones who think it's some sort of third position in between atheism and religious belief. It's not. It's a statement about knowledge, not belief. An agnostic claims not to know whether or not gods exist; good for them, but most atheists and many sensible religious believers will admit the same. So you're agnostic, but agnostic what?

It's not really a claim about knowledge, because it's a claim about knowledge that an almost infinitesimal number of agnostics actually apply in a wider sense.

It's a position of the special pleading, and the place religion occupies within our society.

AYRT

This is true. For any other topic besides God(s), the vast majority of people (including agnostics) would be willing to offer a hard "yes" or "no" conclusion given the information available about God(s).

This is why I prefer ignostic.

"Do you believe in (a) god?"
"First, define what you specifically mean by 'god.' Then I might be able to answer your question."

Yeah, that's legit - especially with the way some religious people like to insist that the reason (rhetorical you) don't believe in God is because you've got God wrong, so you should believe in what they think God is.

I have the same problem with self-described atheists who think it's some sort of 100th position between Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. it's not. It's a statement about how much you believe in something, not what you believe in. You're atheist, but atheist what?

Are you just trolling, or do you actually think you're making some sort of legitimate point? Because it actually is a statement about "what you believe in" - in this case, none of the gods. If this was a sincere post (which I doubt), you apparently have no functional understanding of what atheism is.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, does not address the question of belief at all; it's a statement of knowledge. "Agnostic what?" makes actual sense, because you can be an agnostic believer (of pretty much any stripe) or an agnostic atheist.

It's about half trolling. In the immortal words of the band Rush, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." You saying "yes, you've decided not to have a position, but what position don't you have" is absurd.

That's not what I'm saying at all, which is presumably where your problem is. Agnosticism is not incompatible with either atheism or theism (as evidenced by another poster further down this thread identifying as an agnostic believer, and a significant portion of atheists identifying as agnostic atheists). Acknowledging that you do not have certain knowledge of the existence of gods does not negate your ability to be personally persuaded or not-persuaded by theistic claims.

Are you persuaded that a God or gods exist? If yes, you're a believer. If no, you're an atheist. You can be an agnostic on top of either of those, but it's not some third path.

Both religious people and atheist define themselves by their believe or lack of it and that doesn't change whether they accept their lack of factual knowledge or try to prove otherwise.

On the other hand an agnostic defines themselves by that lack of knowledge and that's it, because they don't think whatever they believe changes that and hence it's not important.

Your first statement is inaccurate, at least as far as most atheists I've encountered (and I would venture to say, a large plurality of atheists in existence) are concerned. Agnosticism is implicit. The way God(s) are commonly defined, they are inherently unknowable, so to label yourself in such a way that states that you don't know whether gods exist is redundant. It doesn't convey meaningful information, other than that you are not delusional - or perhaps that you think you're somehow more rational than people who are willing to share whether or not they have been convinced by theistic claims.

DA
There is a difference between having something implicit in your belief system and making that same thing the center of your beliefs.

Yes? I suppose I'm just not seeing what it is about a self-evident statement that merits being the center of one's beliefs. Any god for whom the question of existence is a legitimate matter of contention is a god whose existence is an unfalsifiable assertion. I don't see anything particularly insightful about stating that one cannot have certain knowledge about the truth value of an unfalsifiable claim. From my perspective, the better question is, "Do we have any reason to give any serious consideration to the unfalsifiable claim in the first place?"

The difference is that you use the uncertainty as a safety net to avoid being wrong, while we actually embrace it.

To you, agnosticism is stating concrete beliefs, then shrugging at the end and saying "but I could be wrong," whereas for other people it means "there is no way to know, so I will embrace that and continue not knowing one way or the other."

The way God(s) are commonly defined, they are inherently unknowable, so to label yourself in such a way that states that you don't know whether gods exist is redundant.

Uh, no. That's not how God has been commonly defined throughout my highly-Christian (Catholic school, Pentacostal churches, theist parents) childhood, by anyone. Just throwing one's hands up and going "we can't know God in any capacity, so do whatever" is pretty bullshit considering things like holy books and endless theistic debate exist for the express purpose of getting to know God. In fact, all religion claims to have utmost knowledge of God; that's why they oppose each other. Certainty is what's implicit in belief, not doubt, which is what agnosticism embodies.

[ SECRET POST #2554 ]

Re: 'I'm agnostic'

Re: 'I'm agnostic'

Re: 'I'm agnostic'

Re: 'I'm agnostic'

Re: 'I'm agnostic'

Re: 'I'm agnostic'

Re: 'I'm agnostic'

Re: 'I'm agnostic'

Re: 'I'm agnostic'

Re: 'I'm agnostic'

Re: 'I'm agnostic'

Re: 'I'm agnostic'

Re: 'I'm agnostic'

Re: 'I'm agnostic'

Re: 'I'm agnostic'