Debate user Null on if agnostics should have to pick a side

[Londo]

Maybe I'm an outlier on this thread but I have a hard time seeing how you could avoid coming off as passive aggressive or dismissive about another's life devotion without giving it a seperate label.

You can't, really. That's why language exists with so many descriptive words. We need labels and the like to fit things in to boxes so that the lower common denominator can understand it. I think dismissing the idea of there being a middle ground is the sort of shit that's lead to us being in such a broken society.

 

[Null]

Imagine being arrogant enough to have convictions about something that is unknowable.

Sounds like insecure faggot talk to me.

 

[Grub]

View attachment 5366380
Sounds like insecure faggot talk to me.

Seems to me that the ones who feel the need to have blind faith in something and are incapable of admitting that we have no real way of knowing whether there's any kind of God or not are the insecure ones. They need to have the universe wrapped up in a neat little explainable package and are unable to handle the idea that we just don't know for sure and likely never will.

 

[IKOL]

Better drink Pissbear's piss.

 

[Ealen]

Having to pick a side means having to defend that position. A position, which agnostics don't fully believe in. As someone who doesn't have a solid position on the matter, I don't think I should have to defend a definitive yes-or-no stance on such an open-ended question.

 

[W00K #17]

Declared atheists are smug and insufferable, in my experience.

 

[RichardMongler]

I'm just going to post this article from the great Jim Goad which plainly states why he's agnostic which I personally identify with entirely.

Also, no, I'm not picking sides. I refuse to rub elbows with either fedora tippers or the aggressively religious.

 

[Kyle Odom]

This discussion is incredibly autistic. You would be so hard pressed to find someone whos a true and thorough atheist. Most people don't follow rigid religious structure, I'm willing to bet many of the Catholics here don't attend mass and many the other Christians have personal conflicts with their chosen denomination. The cross contamination between atheism and agnosticism is immeasurably large. Most atheists have spiritual beliefs like superstition, karma and the idea of a soul. Individuals disregarding all religious and spiritual beliefs is such an insignificant portion of human history it doesn't deserve to be a category. The vast majority of average people in history could probably be considered agnostic.

 

[gorgoroth7134]

Voted yes but based on the phrasing of the question being "should". I think forcing someone to accept or deny a belief is antithetical and retarded, but agnostics in the west are essentially just refusing to Think(TM) about the subject and it's annoying and gay. It's enabling more retarded shit, essentially. Religious centrist cucks too afraid to claim a fucking side, and then thinking they've evolved to some higher ethos by being spiritually masochistic. "My tiny ant brain could never fathom blah blah blah."

Agnosticism shouldn't be accepted as an answer. It indicates that you have further development to make on the subject, and as a transition point can be accepted.

Funny that coming from @Null when he's terrified to elaborate on his religious views at all in public.

There are some religious practices that encourage abstaining from talking about one's personal religious beliefs in public. And, not to defend Moonboy, can you imagine the amount of mental illness and sperging that would commence if he did claim a specific religious practice? There would be some people who would convert that minute, other people who wouldn't stop dogging him and fucking with shit, and it would just end up being more fuel for journoscum in the end to shit on the farms AND religion (because I doubt he's secretly Jewish, the only safe one). Just saying, there could be a few reasons why he wouldn't want to share that shit with us.

This discussion is incredibly autistic. You would be so hard pressed to find someone whos a true and thorough atheist. Most people don't follow rigid religious structure, I'm willing to bet many of the Catholics here don't attend mass and many the other Christians have personal conflicts with their chosen denomination. The cross contamination between atheism and agnosticism is immeasurably large. Most atheists have spiritual beliefs like superstition, karma and the idea of a soul. Individuals disregarding all religious and spiritual beliefs is such an insignificant portion of human history it doesn't deserve to be a category. The vast majority of average people in history could probably be considered agnostic.

Not every religious practice in the world is a dogmatic array of flagellation. Human brains are naturally predisposed towards the belief in the supernatural, and that develops into religious thought (xxx) through culture. This is, again, why I say agnosticism should be treated as a transitional period of religious exploration instead of a religious destination.

 

[Super Guido]

I don't see why anyone cares about agnostics unless they're in-your-face about it. I've got more interesting things to get mad at.

That might be because I'm non-practicing but can't completely shake the idea that there is a god, though. I'd like to think if one is real, it shows within the way we treat others.

I guess that technically means I'm a believer.

 

[Norbert the Tiger]

Agnosticism is mostly just Reddit intellectualism.

Perhaps just in this very unfortunate moment of time. Another poster correctly noted the term has been around a long time. I looked it up and the term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 or 1870, depending on the source. The term is a lot newer than I would have guessed, but it has been around for well over a century.

if I called myself a madeup word

It was a made up word in 1869-1870.

In reviewing some of the other comments, it seems the reddit factor plays large. I am not religious myself. I am an atheist-agnostic (I oscillate between the two as I reflect on the evidence against any organized religion in the modern world that has any sway). I really hate the American, super-redditor brand of atheism/agnosticism that is far left, intellectually vapid, and utterly embarrassing. When I tell others I am not religious or atheist, these far left associations take their toll. A lot of the hard right in Europe were atheists or at the very least very critical of Christianity, and not without good reason. I will also say as bad as left-wing, American atheists/agnostics are, bible thumpers are no less endearing to me, at least for the most part.

If anyone here has read either Decartes or Heinlein's Job: Comedy of Justice as just two examples, they will see the importance of making the distinction between agnosticism and atheism, As much as reason and evidence and modern science not yet ideologically corrupted persuade me there is no God and certainly no afterlife, there is no way of knowing that is absolutely, positively so. On the other hand, we have to use the tools we have, as limited as they are. Yes everything could be a simulation or a malicious god (or aliens) or the Matrix tricking us to think our perceived reality is an induced illusion, but the probabilities are incredibly low.

 

[Lidl Drip]

Agnostics are just atheists without fedoras.

 

[Kankichi Ryotsu]

I normally identify myself as agnostic if the question arises. It's not out of any fear, my family or associates aren't particularly religious if at all. My position is that I do think God exists, but I can't subscribe to any religion because I don't believe things like Jesus resurrecting. If I have to take a side I'll take that of Christianity because that's deeply ingrained in our culture and national identity, but not because I believe in the core fundamentals of Christianity or share its values. Outside of this, I have no real reason to "pick a side".

 

[Alabaster Disaster]

I've known a lot of self-declared agnostics who are atheists in that they don't believe in God, but they still want to like astrology and crystals and shit.

So they have picked a side: the worst one.

 

[David Brown]

it's none of your fucking business faggot

agnostics are gay because have a term for being retarded. if I called myself a madeup word meaning "Idontwantotalkaboutistrian" then you'd also call that gay.

Geez, alright, we get it. Touchy subject. Can you really blame people for being curious? You run a gossip forum and have been doing a great podcast about gossip and your opinions and takes on various subjects for years. You frequently share stories from your life and are fairly open and consistent on your thoughts and people appreciate that. I certainly do. People like to know what you think about things, that's why you have a consistent audience of thousands of listeners. You're one of the few innernet lunatics that is actually reasonable and levelheaded, doesn't run gay ops all the time, doesn't lie for attention, and isn't afraid to own your actions and make light of them if need be. Of course when you bring up a subject people want to hear you opine on it. We like hearing your thoughts. Nobody can possibly make you share your thoughts if you don't want to but when you bring it up on the show, quote Torah, Romans, and Revelation in the random text, cite James on every web page, people naturally make assumptions. That's all. Sorry to rile you.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Jersh is very wrong.
Agnosticism is the most honest and most open position towards an important and existential question.
When humans honestly answer "I don't know" about things they are OBVIOUSLY oblivious about, it leads to an attitude of humility that is well suited for our beginner, very young species, and it allows for truth seeking and an attempt at objective reality determining.
All of us here need to learn to say "I don't know" about many things. Understand the things that you are sure you know, those you have doubts over, and those that are mysteries.

 

[BaskingWhaleShark]

What if humans are just too fucking dumb, at least at this point, to comprehend the origins of the universe?

Neither Christianity (this Jew rose from the dead after being sadistically tortured because his dad raped a virgin to clean up some kind of mess he could have prevented in the first place) nor atheism (der, everything came from nothing, and I can prove it) makes any fucking sense. The problem is that people are too cowardly to admit they don't know why we're here—and they probably know that, which is why they project their cowardice on those who are honest enough to say "I don't know."

Null brought up Pascal's wager, which is essentially the mind-blowingly stupid idea that, hey, you have nothing to lose if you waste your life, the only life you'll ever have, denying yourself pleasure just on the off chance that there's really a God sick enough to burn you forever in hell.

Goddamn, don't make this so easy. Both sides are retarded.

 

[Male Idiot]

I believe in Aryan Blood Magic and Asian Shamanism.

Its more fun than atheism.

 

[Ewan McGregor]

As much as I might respect Null in other aspects I think his OP quote was actually quite deranged and uninformed.

While the moral decay of society can be related to lack of religion it is not exactly as clear cut as he has expressed it.

Also, I won't elaborate on my religious views and I find it annoying and offensive when I'm asked about them by randos. I think it's quite hypocritical to be asked to "choose a side" from the guy who's answered "None of your fucking business" about his religious views.

It reminds me of those liberal assholes that demand everyone to position themselves politically so that they can identify if they're a fellow cult member or an enemy.

Lemme grill alone, for fuck's sake.

 

[AgendaPoster]

I believe in Aryan Blood Magic and Asian Shamanism.

Its more fun than atheism.

Send me some free shrooms and hallucinogenic plants you throat singer