Ultimate Beliefs

Sum1sgruj

Banned
Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
774
Age
36
Location
Virginia, USA
Gil
0
Agnosticism. We hear it a lot, especially these days because of extreme diversity. Some people simply do not see the point in believing an ultimatum that holds no possibility of being proven.

The basic definition of agnosticism is the belief that the origins of our reality is unknown and likely unknowable, despite scientific or creationist views. Not all agnostics venture on the educated aspects of it, but it doesn't discount them nonetheless. Whether you know the specific details or not, it all points toward the same aim and voids gnostic teaching.
Technically speaking, anyways.
I feel that if one deems themselves agnostic, they should educate themselves on the rationale behind it. It doesn't do good to be anything without the knowledge basing them.
Which is why I have made this thread- to breakdown it's fundamental aspects and breakthrough certain misconceptions of what agnosticism is, as well as other ultimate beliefs.


a.gnosticism
- breakdown the word and you have void/anti gnosticism. Gnosticism was a once a school of cosmic philosophy that taught a general, nameless view of creationism. In other words, divine influence is what created reality.

When you look at it this way, the term 'agnosticism' seems to be synonymous with the term 'atheism'. Technically speaking, this is grammatically correct.
However, agnosticism is more involved about gnostic teachings, and so is coined in relevance to it's genre rather then to atheism, which has no prevalence on creationism altogether.

The teachings of gnosticism itself is a dead subject for the most part in this day and age. However, it phantoms within religious teaching.

The deepest conception of agnosticism goes all the way back to the beginning of reality. What is there lies a big
?
Pretty much, an agnostic believes that science nor creationism can prove what made this reality.
This is highly logical. Science can uncover every aspect of reality, but it cannot reveal it's origin. As far as religion goes, it just so happens that most of them are unfalsifiable.

There is one misconception about agnosticism, however, which is surprisingly popular. It's the idea that agnostics say everything is uncertain. This is simply not a requirement for having an agnostic approach. I'm personally certain about many, many things, and I hold agnosticism with great esteem.

This is my belief and rationale.

Anyways, I wanted to make a specific thread on ultimate beliefs because they seem to be a reoccurring subject for me as well as others. If anyone wishes to talk or debate about this subject, feel free.

NOTE: I made this thread to keep things somewhat relevant. I know that sometimes it is necessary to stray to ultimately get a point across, and that's okay, but don't let it derail into a whole different subject.
Also, if you disagree, have a reasonable explanation why. There will be no saying someone is 'false' or 'prove it' simply out of stubbornness. And there will be no collaborating against anyone. I'm sure that could count as trolling.
 
Last edited:
Not really specific rules for a thread, but rather for certain people. For the most part, debates have been civilized up until recently. Now a debate moves no further than where it starts.

Like now..

Just let a mod do what he has to do.
 
Yeah, as agnosticism pertains to god or the creation of the universe, that's what it means. Though it can be applied to anything, as at its core it's just a belief that you can't claim ultimate knowledge about a specified topic. Agnosticism as it pertains to religion/creation of the universe seems to be the most common use of the word, though.

I can't think of many other times where someone would consider themselves an agnostic - perhaps morality? A cornerstone of science is evidence and falsifiability, so if those criteria aren't met the same thing comes up: You can't claim ultimate knowledge about this particular subject.

I agree that people should examine the rationale of their beliefs. I find it silly when I speak with agnostics who are such simply because they haven't given the subject much thought. Granted, the topic isn't very important to some people.

I disagree with you that science can't reveal the origin of the universe. We haven't yet, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. The issue of how something comes from nothing has been hurdled once we discovered how important nothing is to how the universe works. I hope future generations someday will be able to learn in school how the universe began. Though even with heaps of evidence, I doubt that subject will ever be truly final.
 
My take on it is that we could potentially know how this reality began, but not where it came from. It's more like before existence, to be specific. What spawned nothingness into something? I think this is something we cannot know, regardless of how boundless science may end up.
We may discover new universes and hidden dimensions, however: more constructs beyond our realms. But logically speaking, there just doesn't seem to be anything within nature that would allow us to know. Only theory will ever grace the subject, I feel, as we could unlock every other mystery of reality and still be at a loss.
It's a hella thought, yes, but hard to shrug off when thinking about existence.
 
Personally, I'm more interested in how people currently use the word to describe themselves. Historical connotations of the word aside, under the common, standard usage of the word "agnostic," "true" agnostics--as in people who identify themselves as "agnostic" and nothing else--are technically atheists (As atheism is, by definition, the lack of religious/theistic belief). Sometimes I wonder if most of the people who call themselves "agnostic" do so because they're too afraid to call themselves "atheists" (Or "agnostic atheists").

As for myself, I identify as an agnostic atheist (The default human condition; no particular belief regarding the creation of the universe, with my "faith" being in scientific explanation). Which, I think, is reasonable; it's a humble, skeptic stance, and one that doesn't arrogantly claim the unexplainable as truth (As opposed to hardcore religious individuals, who are so certain in their views) or make claims as to the origin of reality, which is something science currently cannot explain.

Sometimes I feel as though I'm what some would call an "apathetic agnostic atheist" (The origin of the universe cannot and will never be fully known so we shouldn't concern ourselves with it), but I shouldn't doubt the capacity for human knowledge (Although science cannot currently explain the origin of the universe, I don't know whether or not it won't; with quantum physics, we're closing in on how the universe was born, and we already have some pretty good ideas as to how it might end (Furthermore, technically, wouldn't saying that "this will never be explained" be making a claim to ultimate knowledge (Defeating the point of agnosticism), with that knowledge being "I know that this is without a doubt an unknowable subject?")).
 
Last edited:
Oh no, trust me. If there is anyone in the world who deserves that title,, it's me. I'm a shining example of the term and if you wish to contest that,, well, you don't know what you are getting yourself into lmao.
There is no such thing as agnostic athiest. You are either/or.
 
Err, no, sorry.

Atheism = the lack of religion.
Agnosticism = by definition, a stance on knowledge avoiding "ultimate truth."

Agnosticism has referred to knowledge and always to knowledge, not belief. Therefore, atheism and agnosticism are most certainly not mutually exclusive concepts.

Someone, in other words, cannot describe him or herself as an "agnostic" alone if he or she were to be asked what his or her religion was; to do so--to suggest that "agnosticism" is some sort of religion in its own right--would be a fundamentally ignorant misunderstanding of the word. If you're an "agnostic" but don't believe in any supernatural deities or follow any holy books, then, well, you're an agnostic who is also an atheist (I can only assume that a person would call him or herself an "agnostic" in such a scenario because he or she is afraid of taking sides, even though the belief in or lack of a belief in the divine is a binary truth value).

It appears to me as if you're over-analyzing the morphology of the word (An analysis that is fundamenally flawed, as the "gnostic" in agnosticism is not referring to "gnosticism the philosophy") and trying to attribute a new meaning to the word based on that alone. I mean, sure, you can have your own defintion for a word (I can start calling cars "bananas" if I wanted to; no one is going to stop me), but in terms of practicality/liguistics/philosophy/expert knowledge/etc., you're really not doing a discussion any favors by using extremely non-conventional definitions for a word, or flat-out making new definitions up.

(Sources in red; if you wish to learn more, be sure to click on those links).
 
Last edited:
Err, no, sorry.

Atheism = the lack of religion.
Agnosticism = by definition, a stance on knowledge avoiding "ultimate truth."

Agnosticism has referred to knowledge and always to knowledge, not belief. Therefore, atheism and agnosticism are most certainly not mutually exclusive concepts.

Someone, in other words, cannot describe him or herself as an "agnostic" alone if he or she were to be asked what his or her religion was; to do so--to suggest that "agnosticism" is some sort of religion in its own right--would be a fundamentally ignorant misunderstanding of the word. If you're an "agnostic" but don't believe in any supernatural deities or follow any holy books, then, well, you're an agnostic who is also an atheist (I can only assume that a person would call him or herself an "agnostic" in such a scenario because he or she is afraid of taking sides, even though the belief in or lack of a belief in the divine is a binary truth value).

It appears to me as if you're over-analyzing the morphology of the word (An analysis that is fundamenally flawed, as the "gnostic" in agnosticism is not referring to "gnosticism the philosophy") and trying to attribute a new meaning to the word based on that alone. I mean, sure, you can have your own defintion for a word (I can start calling cars "bananas" if I wanted to; no one is going to stop me), but in terms of practicality/liguistics/philosophy/expert knowledge/etc., you're really not doing a discussion any favors by using extremely non-conventional definitions for a word, or flat-out making new definitions up.

(Sources in red; if you wish to learn more, be sure to click on those links).

Riiightt... over analyzing. Do I feel a little bit of irony? The term is what it is. Semantics are not going to be my concern :ryan: Just be done with it, I stand by everything I've said on this thread.

Agnosticism isn't referring to gnosticism?..., don't believe everything you findon the internet, my friend, it speaks for itself. It is a construct spurred from both atheism and theism, not originally, but fundamentally. Which makes it very, very hard to contend, I might add.
I believe this thread is about ultimate beliefs. What's yours, Mr. Gorilla? Does mine threaten yours :D
I'm only asking because this seems like a right-wing attempt to dismiss the idea I've explained. If this continues, you will be ignored.
I'm sorry to put it that way but I simply just do not entertain unintuitive, technical arguments, especially when they can so easily be countered by simple thought.
 
Last edited:
Riiightt... over analyzing. Do I feel a little bit of irony? The term is what it is. Semantics are not going to be my concern :ryan: Just be done with it, I stand by everything I've said on this thread.

Well here's why it matters. If you're trying to make a point by redefining agnosticism, I'd like to know what it is. And in future debates, it's not convenient for you to switch between both definitions because we are aware of your definition of agnosticism and the standard one, and we'll call you on the sophistry if you do.

Agnosticism isn't referring to gnosticism?..., don't believe everything you findon the internet, my friend, it speaks for itself.

And if you're right about not believing things on the Internet, then I don't have to believe your definition of agnosticism because your post is also on the Internet. So find me a better justification for why we have to take on your definition as the accepted definition of agnosticism, and not the one that everyone else already agrees with.
 
Well here's why it matters. If you're trying to make a point by redefining agnosticism, I'd like to know what it is. And in future debates, it's not convenient for you to switch between both definitions because we are aware of your definition of agnosticism and the standard one, and we'll call you on the sophistry if you do.



And if you're right about not believing things on the Internet, then I don't have to believe your definition of agnosticism because your post is also on the Internet. So find me a better justification for why we have to take on your definition as the accepted definition of agnosticism, and not the one that everyone else already agrees with.

Oh my god.. seriously, no comment.

Anyways, atheism- what concludes that the universe originated from natural causes? It's time to flip this around. Tell me your rationale, der Astronom.
Does my belief threaten yours? :D
I'm only asking for the same reason I asked Mr. Gorilla.



Read a dictionary.
 
Oh my god.. seriously, no comment.

Anyways, atheism- what concludes that the universe originated from natural causes? It's time to flip this around. Tell me your rationale, der Astronom.
Does my belief threaten yours? :D
I'm only asking for the same reason I asked Mr. Gorilla.

Oh no, you don't; you are going to sit here and respond to my points before I answer your question. Stop trying to change the subject. If I respond to your new question, you're not going to bother defending your previous point, which I believe requires good justification, which I think you have failed to do so. I am not answering another of your questions unless you can demonstrate to me that it has something to do with the refutation I offered you earlier.
 
Oh no, you don't; you are going to sit here and respond to my points before I answer your question. Stop trying to change the subject. If I respond to your new question, you're not going to bother defending your previous point, which I believe requires good justification, which I think you have failed to do so. I am not answering another of your questions unless you can demonstrate to me that it has something to do with the refutation I offered you earlier.

I explained it before you even got on here. Read the OP. You stop trying to change the subject. You're a broken record, bro. All you do is deny and deny and deny. But where has the rationale been?
I'm beginning to think there isn't any.
I have shown beyond measure what agnosticism is. Any more dwelling on the definition will be ignored.
I would suggest moving on with the broad topic at hand before you hang yourself in this debate.
Just a word of advice.
 
I explained it before you even got on here. Read the OP. You stop trying to change the subject. You're a broken record, bro. All you do is deny and deny and deny. But where has the rationale been?
I'm beginning to think there isn't any.

Your "rules" do not override the rules of the board in general, and if you think I am breaking the rules of the board, feel free to report me. However, your "rules" are not necessarily supported by standard rules used in debate, and I see no reason why I have to follow them, seeing as you seem to think people shouldn't demand proof of something that isn't explained well (and I don't care if you think it's out of stubbornness or not; if you make an assertion and someone asks you to prove it, and you have not done a good job of it, you should, or your assertion fails). I didn't actually want to come here to debate you because I'm afraid it's just going to be a repeat of what happened in the other thread, and you're just using your own "rules" as crutches not to justify your argument properly. But I felt I should because there was a logical contradiction in your post; namely that we should not trust anything that's been put on the Internet, and by that same extension, because you posted your justification on the Internet, and sourced nothing else, no one should also be expected to believe it.

I have shown beyond measure what agnosticism is. Any more dwelling on the definition will be ignored.

No you have not. Because you made your justification a part of the Internet by posting it, and you stated that we shouldn't believe anything on the Internet, no one has any reason to believe your definition of agnosticism is correct. Either provide a different resource in your post that does not involve other Internet posts or websites or retract your statement about not believing anything on the Internet.

I would suggest moving on with the broad topic at hand before you hang yourself in this debate.
Just a word of advice.

According to what I could gather from your original post, you are asking us to discuss whether or not agnosticism includes the definition of a general uncertainty, or only uncertainty as it applies to gnosticism, so it is important for you to have suitable justification for your version of agnosticism.
 
My understanding of agnostic is a person who needs proof to believe in something. While an atheist is convinced there is nothing to believe. In other words, they basically stick with what logically makes sense to them.
 
Your "rules" do not override the rules of the board in general, and if you think I am breaking the rules of the board, feel free to report me. However, your "rules" are not necessarily supported by standard rules used in debate, and I see no reason why I have to follow them

Right, so just hide behind them to justify your lack of intuition.



No you have not. Because you made your justification a part of the Internet by posting it, and you stated that we shouldn't believe anything on the Internet, no one has any reason to believe your definition of agnosticism is correct. Either provide a different resource in your post that does not involve other Internet posts or websites or retract your statement about not believing anything on the Internet.

So now I can't prove anything. Wow.
It's common sense. If you really need proof, then words cannot describe how important it is for you to just leave this whole section of the forums alone.

And let's just forget the fact that you made the same definition as mine on another thread.


According to what I could gather from your original post, you are asking us to discuss whether or not agnosticism includes the definition of a general uncertainty, or only uncertainty as it applies to gnosticism, so it is important for you to have suitable justification for your version of agnosticism.

Ultimate beliefs. I wanted to discuss ultimate beliefs, and shared mine. It's quite clear. But as usual, you only want to argue the obvious. If one chooses to make agnosticism the cornerstone, than that's fine. But arguing with a prestige agnostic on definition.. you couldn't be any more obvious.

I am no longer responding to this.

Koloth hit a nail. Agnostics do need proof, and since there is no proof for the origin of our reality, atheism and theism both become obsolete for them. In other words- uncertainty.
 
Last edited:
Like the other threads, can we please maintain some civility? And please stop the whole "you can't argue at all" talk and just stick with a casual debate of the topic. Thank you.
 
Right, so just hide behind them to justify your lack of intuition.

That does not in any way demonstrate that your "rules" are logical; you just happen to think they are fair when in fact they probably aren't.

So now I can't prove anything. Wow.
It's common sense. If you really need proof, then words cannot describe how important it is for you to just leave this whole section of the forums alone.

You have demonstrated to me in other threads that you can't prove anything. If you can prove me wrong by actually answering some of my questions, I'll gladly take back that statement. But until then, live with it.
I am here to debate using the formal standards of debating, which includes pointing out fallacies when I see them and demanding that my opponents provide clear arguments that are well explained, and if they do not, I provide refutations for them. That is how you move a debate forward. And if you cannot abide by the standard rules of debate, I suggest you just leave this entire section of the forums alone.

And let's just forget the fact that you made the same definition as mine on another thread.

Judging by what you have said about agnosticism in this thread and in the others, I highly doubt it.

Ultimate beliefs. I wanted to discuss ultimate beliefs, and shared mine. It's quite clear. But as usual, you only want to argue the obvious. If one chooses to make agnosticism the cornerstone, than that's fine. But arguing with a prestige agnostic on definition.. you couldn't be any more obvious.

And discussing something can include going into detail about the specific things you're sharing, which I happen to be doing. I'm sorry if it makes you feel uncomfortable, but that's the whole point of debate; we examine and consider things in detail in debate because it can lead to important topics for discussion, some of which can become uncomfortable for some people.

Next time, make it clear that you are speaking of strong agnosticism and not just any agnosticism because the term agnosticism by itself can be confused with the agnosticism that everyone else thought you meant (the one that applies to agnostic a/theist), which clearly has nothing to do with beliefs because they concern knowledge; not whether or not we're able to know anything.

Koloth hit a nail. Agnostics do need proof, and since there is no proof for the origin of our reality, atheism and theism both become obsolete for them. In other words- uncertainty.

If you are holding the position of strong agnosticism, that is, you believe that it is impossible to know anything (or I guess some things, in your case), then no amount of proof is enough to convince you of anything. If you are a weak agnostic, then that might apply.
 
That does not in any way demonstrate that your "rules" are logical; you just happen to think they are fair when in fact they probably aren't.



You have demonstrated to me in other threads that you can't prove anything. If you can prove me wrong by actually answering some of my questions, I'll gladly take back that statement. But until then, live with it.
I am here to debate using the formal standards of debating, which includes pointing out fallacies when I see them and demanding that my opponents provide clear arguments that are well explained, and if they do not, I provide refutations for them. That is how you move a debate forward. And if you cannot abide by the standard rules of debate, I suggest you just leave this entire section of the forums alone.



Judging by what you have said about agnosticism in this thread and in the others, I highly doubt it.



And discussing something can include going into detail about the specific things you're sharing, which I happen to be doing. I'm sorry if it makes you feel uncomfortable, but that's the whole point of debate; we examine and consider things in detail in debate because it can lead to important topics for discussion, some of which can become uncomfortable for some people.

Next time, make it clear that you are speaking of strong agnosticism and not just any agnosticism because the term agnosticism by itself can be confused with the agnosticism that everyone else thought you meant (the one that applies to agnostic a/theist), which clearly has nothing to do with beliefs because they concern knowledge; not whether or not we're able to know anything.



If you are holding the position of strong agnosticism, that is, you believe that it is impossible to know anything (or I guess some things, in your case), then no amount of proof is enough to convince you of anything. If you are a weak agnostic, then that might apply.

Alright, dude, I'm going to be as civilized as possible when I say this.

What in the hell.. is wrong with you? Agnosticism. It is what it is. This is ridiculous. There are no different forms of agnosticism.

Agnosticism is my belief. It is also my knowledge. The same exact thing can go for Christians and Christianity, atheists and nature, etc.
How does this get lost in translation? Why am I going to waste my time answering questions you should already know?
In fact, I asked myself why I even did in the 1st place, to be honest.
Stop quoting every syllable of every word of every sentence I state and keep the thread moving so that other people will actually want to share. Because it's no coincidence that recently the debate sects have slowed down and it's really aggravating to me because I used to enjoy these sects myself.
 
Last edited:
It's more like before existence, to be specific. What spawned nothingness into something? I think this is something we cannot know, regardless of how boundless science may end up.
We pretty much already understand this, though. In simple terms, the universe has zero total energy when everything's added up, which means it could arise from nothing. Why did it arise? It's inevitable. Eternity is infinite, and because it's infinite everything that can ever happen will happen an infinite amount of times. There is no way this couldn't have happened, in those terms.

Then again we still have a lot to learn about why this occurs, as we only know that it does at the moment. Then again, God is a concept that can't really be pinned down. God can always exist in the margins even if we defined every single element of the universe simply because the only why that science is give is "Because that's how things work" which is not a very good reason for most people.

Personally, since meaning and worth are human creations, I don't need the existence of a God to view the universe and life as having some.

We may discover new universes and hidden dimensions, however: more constructs beyond our realms.
Other universes almost definitely exist currently, but we probably won't be able to observe them, which is a shame. The cosmic background radiation and the increasing speed that things are moving away from each other will make it impossible to detect the creation or existence of another universe with our current means. The Hadron collider may help us research different methods of determining their existence, but there's no way to know if we will be able to use them.

And given that this is a thread on what our "ultimate" beliefs are, I suppose mine's as normal as your typical atheist. I need evidence for my beliefs (I'm talking about reality and the physical world, rather than ethics, right now). Everything we've learned about this world has been natural, not supernatural. I don't believe in god(s) because there is no evidence for it/them, much in the same way I don't believe in wizards even though people claim they can perform magic.
 
What in the hell.. is wrong with you? Agnosticism. It is what it is. This is ridiculous. There are no different forms of agnosticism.

And I do not agree with your definition of agnosticism because you have not demonstrated that there is no distinction between strong and weak agnosticism.

Agnosticism is my belief. It is also my knowledge. The same exact thing can go for Christians and Christianity, atheists and nature, etc.
How does this get lost in translation? Why am I going to waste my time answering questions you should already know?

Because agnosticism in and of itself is not a religion; if you do not believe in deities because you think you cannot know anything for sure, and don't know anything, then you are rightly classified as an atheist, and belong to no religion. If, however, you are claiming you are agnostic about some things because you don't know everything, and furthermore, claim that some things cannot be known, then it says nothing about your religious beliefs, so long as we don't know what you think about the existence of a god or gods. (In your case, you seem to be saying you don't think it's possible to know the origin of the universe, in which case you would also have to be an atheist, unless you are asserting there exists a god that did not create the universe.)

In fact, I asked myself why I even did in the 1st place, to be honest.
Stop quoting every syllable of every word of every sentence I state and keep the thread moving so that other people will actually want to share. Because it's no coincidence that recently the debate sects have slowed down and it's really aggravating to me because I used to enjoy these sects myself.

Maybe it's because people recently feel the need to pick apart your arguments. And I think it's worth it because it really shows how thoroughly you've researched your arguments. If you really did your research, then you wouldn't have any problems answering any questions anyone throws at you, right?

And a debate is not moving along if the only thing you're doing is ignoring all the problems in your argument and trying to pose new arguments that may not even have anything at all to do with the previous ones. A debate is not simply share your ideas and not care if it's right or not. That's the problem I've been having with your arguments all along, and with your new "rules" in this thread the entire time.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top