Active Now

Randy D
Discussion » Questions » Religion and Spirituality » What is an agnostic anyway, if not just another fence riding neutral?
Benedict Arnold

What is an agnostic anyway, if not just another fence riding neutral?

Very few things annoy me more than a dirty neutral.
This is The guy that takes no position but sits by the sidelines and waits for the fight to be over before he takes sides.
To me this guy is nothing but an opportunist lazy bum who doesn't want to be disliked by none.
I have considered myself an agnostic for a long time. I mean, there's no way of knowing if there's a God. So, in a way,  Ive come to realize, im kind of sitting on this fence, waiting for someone to bring me proof. Until then im not saying God exist, but I can't say it doesn't either. I call it my own brand of "healthy skepticism". 
But I got called out on it the other day. 
How is that not being a dirty neutral? I was asked by someone more smater than I. I was stumped for a second. . .but. . . . ..you know. . Well.. .because it's me . . . Can't be a neutral.. .everybody knows that.
So when I say,  "Well, I have no strong feelings one way or the other, if you show me proof, I'll believe. But if there's no proof, im still not going to say im an atheist,  just in case".  
Question, . . .Isn't Agnosticism just a nice word for being neutral? Just another way to stay comfortably on the side?

Posted - April 6, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • )
      April 6, 2017 3:00 PM MDT
    1

  • Unfortunately Lago seems to have closed his account. He'll be missed.
      April 6, 2017 7:43 PM MDT
    2

  • No idea, W. There must have been something happening in the background. I don't see anything in this question that would cause it. 
      April 6, 2017 9:22 PM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    I agree that the term agnostic usually has a derogatory connotation in modern usage as you suggest.  To wit:  "The guy that takes no position but sits by the sidelines and waits for the fight to be over before he takes sides."

    But (Wikipedia), Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the existence of God or the supernatural are unknown and unknowable.
    According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, "agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist". Agnosticism is a doctrine or set of tenets rather than a religion.

    And also from Wikipedia, here's a random list of better know agnostics.  I suspect you will agree that few if any of these people listed every sat on the sidelines waiting for results.


    Ambrose Bierce; Arthur Conan Doyle; Aldous Huxley; Franz Kafka; Omar Khayyám; John Steinbeck; Alexander Graham Bell; Marie Curie; Albert Einstein; Milton Friedman; Steve Wozniak

     
    This post was edited by tom jackson at April 6, 2017 5:39 PM MDT
      April 6, 2017 2:45 PM MDT
    3

  • The remark about how obviously these people didn't sit in the sidelines, that was actually real good. It got me thinking for a second.
    I honestly said, oh shit. That's right.
    But no. It matters none who adheres to what idea in terms of its validity. So that's that.
    The other argument is a little trickier,  the big question is their position on the existence of God. That's the question. Their mastery in their selected fields of action or the courage with which they presented whatever it was they believed in, . . None of that helps them decide on one position or the other. At the end, to the question of do you believe in God their answer is, I don't know, and I still find it hard to see that as a position.


      April 6, 2017 3:20 PM MDT
    0

  • Jawaharlal Nehru, first Prime Minister of independent India, would also qualify for inclusion in your list. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 7, 2017 5:58 AM MDT
      April 7, 2017 3:59 AM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    For the consideration of all:

    The "whiskey speech"

    (This guy didn't just sit on the sideline---he sat on both sidelines.)

    The "whiskey speech" concerned the question of the prohibition of alcoholic liquor, a law that was still in force in Mississippi at the time the speech was delivered.

    My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, this is how I feel about whiskey:

    If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

    But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

    This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

    Sweat later recalled, "When I finished the first half of the speech, there was a tremendous burst of applause. The second half of the speech, after the close of which, the wets all applauded. The drys were as unhappy with the second part of the speech as the wets were with the first half".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_S._Sweat

     

    This post was edited by tom jackson at April 6, 2017 9:25 PM MDT
      April 6, 2017 3:08 PM MDT
    3

  • I think that you object to my characterization of the neutrals as lazy and unconcerned. 
    And although im not completely convinced you're right, I concede that I could be wrong.
      April 6, 2017 3:41 PM MDT
    0

  • Oh TJ, I thought of your marvelous "If-By-Whisky" example for Lago's Q...I love it SO much...
      April 6, 2017 9:24 PM MDT
    0

  • Many thanks, Tom. Virginia has referred to your "if by whisky" speech a few times but this is the first time I've seen it. 
      April 6, 2017 9:25 PM MDT
    1

  • To some extent, BA, I'm with you on the seeming equivocation inherent in a position of Agnosticism, I mean you either accept something as so, or you don't.
    It is still a species of non-belief. 

    That said, I would submit that an agnostic, in essence, is one who is unconvinced either way, skeptical but not pressing, finds his answer to be unknowable, or is satisfied with not knowing, i.e, doesn't sufficiently care.
    Not so much a non-position as one that agrees with neither the pro or the con.

    As for awaiting proof, it is not possible to prove what is not, and disproving a god would assign the same method as disproving elves or demons... though they each have few advocates now. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 7, 2017 3:52 AM MDT
      April 6, 2017 3:45 PM MDT
    2

  • You either do or you don't,Z. 
    A very good point that I did not bring up is what you mention in passing,
    That non acceptance is a sort of non belief.
    That right there lies at the center of it because if I can say I don't know if it exists, isn't that the same as saying, I don't believe in it. 
    Why don't just say it then?
      April 6, 2017 4:09 PM MDT
    1

  • Zee, this is the statement I love most in your answer.
    "Not so much a non-position as one that agrees with neither the pro or the con."
      April 6, 2017 9:29 PM MDT
    1

  • Z, to me the key phrase in your comment is "doesn't sufficiently care". In fact I might venture to modify it to "doesn't really care". In other words, the existence or non-existence of God does not affect his life, his values, or his goals, or the methods he employs (assumed ethical) to realise them. 
      April 7, 2017 3:56 AM MDT
    2

  • Thats the crux of it, WT. 
      April 7, 2017 4:36 AM MDT
    2

  •   April 7, 2017 4:37 AM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    Acceptance of the reality that there is no probitive (having the effect of proof) reason for declaring one position of the other to be dispositive of a reality is more likely the attribute of an intelligent man who has investigated both sides of an issue and is in the position of the "hung" juror.

    I have strong opinions on a number of things that I consider to be worthy of action and I proceed accordingly.  There are certain issues that I am not qualified to judge or parse for various reasons.  And as such, I remain agnostic until I find certitude that pleases me regarding an appropriate action to which to lend my support.

    You are defining agnostic to mean something that not currently a universally accepted definition.
      April 6, 2017 4:25 PM MDT
    1

  • Dear Lago/Benedict Arnold, and all,
    Just to thank you for a fine Q, engendering many threads of fine (and fruitful) discussion.
      April 6, 2017 9:37 PM MDT
    1

  • 2327
    There's no such thing as fence riding. All fences are motionless. They don't move anywhere. You could sit on the fence, but that's just a figure of speech. Agnosticism has nothing to do with a phantom fence, either. Fences do not relate to religion. Fences are for keeping livestock in their owners fields. And for outlining the boundaries of owned land. 
      April 6, 2017 10:42 PM MDT
    1

  • 5835
    I was one for a long time. I didn't care to define the word, I just wished the people who didn't know what they were talking about would shut the h*ll up and go away.
      April 7, 2017 4:02 AM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    I feel you.
      April 7, 2017 12:45 PM MDT
    0

  • 13395
    Do you believe everything you read in the  bible or any scriptures? 
     If not then you are atheist. This post was edited by Kittigate at April 7, 2017 2:54 PM MDT
      April 7, 2017 2:53 PM MDT
    0