/philosophy/ -There is no such thing as an agnostic belief.

Name
Email
Subject	REC STOP
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive	Archive [500 char limit]
Flag*	open flag menu
* = required field	[▶Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf Max filesize is16 MB. Max image dimensions are15000 x15000. You may upload5 per post.

File: 9f40544533d4461⋯.png (218.22 KB,602x582,301:291,main-qimg-c088ee8c02024475….png)

There is no such thing as an agnostic belief. Anonymous 06/18/18 (Mon) 18:26:53 5a4361 No.6422

If knowledge is defined as justified true belief, then agnostic belief, if it is not an irrelevant proclamation of feeling, is simply justified true belief in a plausibility. If someone "believes but they're not sure," their belief can be equated either to knowledge of a quantified plausibility, e.g. "There is a 70% chance this is true," or a feeling, e.g. "I feel like this is true but I don't know." A claim of agnostic belief is therefore either equivalent to a claim of knowledge, or a proclamation of feeling that is justifiedly ignored.

So why the existence of the term? Well if there are no other possible reasons, the implicit conclusion is deception. The specification of "agnostic," by virtue of the apparent necessity of its specification, implies gnostic belief is possible and that one holds other, gnostic beliefs, which, by virtue of the presumed necessity of logical justification for a gnostic belief, implies there is logical justification for the specification of "agnostic," which could only be a quantified plausibility. The term is used to give this impression, and yet so that when pressed to reveal said logical justification, one can incorrectly and deceptively cite "agnostic," that they thus don't actually know anything, and thus have nothing to defend.

Mentioning one's own epistemology at all is just a big red herring; it has no place in debate; and it should only if ever be shared as nothing more than a cool factoid about one's self -- because there is no such thing as an agnostic or gnostic position. Whether one believes they can tell the difference between knowledge and belief is irrelevant. Neither is anything more than a statement of feeling. If someone says "I believe but I don't know this thing to be true," or "I know this thing to be true," either way the only proper response in debate would be "Prove it."

>inb4 someone contests that I can't disagree with "established" epistemology

Well, I can, and I don't. Nor does what you've read on wikipedia or from any atheist 'philosopher' constitute epistemology. The "science" is never "settled" so to speak, unless you're an idiot.

____________________________

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 06/18/18 (Mon) 19:05:25 9765f6 No.6423

I should specify that under this model, "agnostic atheist" is either a belief in the (im)plausibility of God's existence, or it is a statement of feeling and therefore irrelevant.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 08/03/18 (Fri) 07:37:05 cac70e No.6499

File: fffb18fb60607dd⋯.png (104.05 KB,418x627,2:3,ClipboardImage.png)

>>6422

>that definition of 'gnostic'

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 08/08/18 (Wed) 10:47:49 1f6412 No.6510

>>6422

The irony is you use projection or assumption to assert that agnosticism stems from feelings or beliefs. (That is a belief in and of itself)

The answer is simple: absolutism

For example, the absolutism of atheism is akin to the absolutism required to be religious.

Religious people are sure that there is a god just as they were sure that some women were witches. This is the same as atheists being absolutely sure that there is no deity based on what their own idea of what a deity is.

Of course the definition of what "god" is varies too. With that variable definition of what a deity is, you cannot have an unwavering absolute denial of every potential iteration.

Is it a collective consciousness that exists within the fabric of space-time?

Is it a humanoid figure?

Is it an entity capable of calculating the state of all matter in the universe and manipulating it as it wishes?

Is it the universe itself or the collection of all parallel universes together?

Is it something that can't be conceptualized due to it being beyond the current cognitive abilities of the human brain?

Imagination itself might not be what we currently think it is. If (for example) it's discovered that imagination is expressed by some sort of profound quantum "tether" to the universe then both imagining a deity and arguing against its existence is requisite to existence itself. Or that imagining a deity is its way of making its existence known.

--> One cannot be absolutely certain that things (that haven't been discovered or may be beyond human discovery) don't exist. Feelings aren't required.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 08/09/18 (Thu) 02:22:56 f010ae No.6520

File: 22bd9975ea5ff51⋯.png (715.4 KB,1280x720,16:9,vlcsnap-4359-08-28-09h59m1….png)

>>6422

Beginning my first foray into the study of epistemology, so forgive me if I turn out to be a dumbass.

First, why ignore someone's epistemology? People can and do have different standards for what the "justified" part of "justified true belief" is. You even kind of agree with this when you claim, "The science is never settled-". My threshold for justification could theoretically be so absolute and unyielding that I refuse to accept anything outside of the existence of my own awareness as knowledge.

Second, my understanding of what an agnostic belief is, is that it's simply a belief that one does not hold as knowledge. That could mean anything from, "I feel really strongly that X is true," "I have blind faith that X is true" or "I have 52% confidence that X is true based on the data, but that does not meet my threshold for what I consider justification." An agnostic belief is simply a belief without claiming truth and justification.

A gnostic belief, on the other hand, would be an actual claim to knowledge, justified and true. It's right there in your image, too.

>then agnostic belief ... is simply justified true belief in a plausibility

This is a gnostic belief if it's justified and true. It's a justified true belief that a proposition is =possible==, not an agnostic belief in that proposition. A proposition cannot be true if that same proposition cannot ==possibly== be true.

Have a good one.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 08/15/18 (Wed) 01:00:37 af5f80 No.6543

>mr. agnostic, do tou believe in God?

>no

Reminder agnosticism does not exist and religion is on or off

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 10/13/18 (Sat) 13:24:46 03b159 No.6702

>>6543

what if I answered the question "I don't know."?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 10/29/18 (Mon) 16:42:20 377012 No.6750

>inb4 someone contests that I can't disagree with "established" epistemology

>Well, I can, and I don't. Nor does what you've read on wikipedia or from any atheist 'philosopher' constitute epistemology. The "science" is never "settled" so to speak, unless you're an idiot.

The problem is that by the looks of things you haven't even studied epistemology. Feel free to disagree with others in epistemology, but don't act like you can just ignore the major issues in epistemology and expect to be taken seriously.

For example, you haven't put forward clear definitions of the terms you are using. For example, do you hold the position that knowledge must be infallible or do you think that information gathered by a generally reliable means can be considered knowledge?

Without giving a detailed explanation of what you mean by 'knowing' something as opposed to believing in it, it isn't even possible to start a conversation on the distinction between gnostic and agnostic belief.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 11/23/18 (Fri) 18:25:15 423208 No.6808

>>6702

Got'em

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.