Philosophical Vegan Forum

Love your Youtube channel, and just joined the forums. I think adding Agnostic to the list of religions would be nice. I'm not religious, but I don't consider myself Atheist either, so I just had to go with other.

PsYcHo wrote:Love your Youtube channel, and just joined the forums. I think adding Agnostic to the list of religions would be nice. I'm not religious, but I don't consider myself Atheist either, so I just had to go with other.

Thanks for your suggestion, but (unless others disagree) agnosticism isnt a belief or lack of a belief. It is a statement of what you claim to know or not.

Do you believe that a god exists? If no, then you are an atheist. Most people mix this up with "Do you know if a god exists", and therefore they identify as agnostic... but, that is not the same question.

TheVeganAtheist wrote:
Thanks for your suggestion, but (unless others disagree) agnosticism isnt a belief or lack of a belief. It is a statement of what you claim to know or not.

Do you believe that a god exists? If no, then you are an atheist. Most people mix this up with "Do you know if a god exists", and therefore they identify as agnostic... but, that is not the same question.

I have changed my religion preference on this forum to atheist, and until god tells me he/she exist, that will suffice for now. I still believe agnosticism is substantially different from atheism. IMO, Atheist believe there is no possibility of a "God", and Agnostics believe no "God" would be bothered to make some "prophet" speak for them. Agnostic "God" is not a vengeful, caring, war-lord, just a simple consideration of a species with vastly different parameters for existence. "To bacteria, we are all gods".

If the slight, (but substantial), difference in our "pseudo-religions" is what we each know or not, neither of us knows shit. If the theist god were so powerful, it would take but a second of his time to confirm that. Giant man in the sky would make the news. So I believe all prophets to be liars, and all established religions to be bull-shit. When I speak of a "higher power" in regards to my agnosticism, I mean it in such a way as a genetically engineered monkey would consider his keepers to be "of a higher power"

Hey, thanks for responding to me! Your videos are great, and I really enjoy the forums, and the people in them. Please call me out on any mistakes I have made, and do not be gentle if I have made a grievous error. ( I love the tolerance of the forum, but I hope to be a regular member (with breaks for work) and would love to see this forum/site go mainstream)

PsYcHo wrote:IMO, Atheist believe there is no possibility of a "God",

An atheist is simply somebody who is not a theist. It doesn't mean that person believes a god doesn't exist, or believes a god is impossible.

The term "agnostic atheist" is a common one you'll see. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist.

In common usage, there are "agnostic theists" which means they believe in a god, but aren't 100% sure, and "agnostic atheists" which means they don't believe in a god, but think it's possible (e.g. not 100% sure a god does not exist). I don't completely agree with this usage, but it is what it is.
A "gnostic atheist" a "positive atheist" or "explicit atheist" is one who believes that a god does not exist. Just a plain old "atheist" is usually an agnostic atheist, but you'll never know until you ask.

Deists tend to be a grey area; Are they theists or atheists? Depending on the deist, they may have characteristics of each. They believe there is something like a creator being, BUT they don't worship it (typically) or think it requires worship or intervenes in this world.

Where a deist falls depends on whether you fixate more on the belief part of theism, or the requirement for worship of some kind, and what that implies.

The trouble with these terms is that they're all quite ill defined.

PsYcHo wrote:and Agnostics believe no "God" would be bothered to make some "prophet" speak for them.

This doesn't have anything to do with agnosticism. I'm not sure where you heard that.

PsYcHo wrote:Agnostic "God" is not a vengeful, caring, war-lord, just a simple consideration of a species with vastly different parameters for existence. "To bacteria, we are all gods".

That's something else entirely. You might be thinking something along the lines of deism, or "cosmic paganism", new age ancient astronauts/star-gate style demigods.

PsYcHo wrote:Agnostic "God" is not a vengeful, caring, war-lord, just a simple consideration of a species with vastly different parameters for existence. "To bacteria, we are all gods". )

This is a deist mentality, maybe you are an agnostic deist, if you cannot rule out the posibility of a creator. Check that out. TVA is right anyway, the single term of ”agnostic” is incomplete...either you must decide which kind of agnostic you are...atheist or deist...since all even different deist views do not compare to the theists god.

I wish you well and good health.

Unknownfromheaven wrote:

PsYcHo wrote:Agnostic "God" is not a vengeful, caring, war-lord, just a simple consideration of a species with vastly different parameters for existence. "To bacteria, we are all gods". )

This is a deist mentality, maybe you are an agnostic deist, if you cannot rule out the posibility of a creator. Check that out. TVA is right anyway, the single term of ”agnostic” is incomplete...either you must decide which kind of agnostic you are...atheist or deist...since all even different deist views do not compare to the theists god.

I wish you well and good health.

Thanks for the well wishes, and the same to you and your family! Language is a fluid medium, but I do agree that agnostic is an incomplete "philosophy. " It is often used by those who just have no concrete position. (God? Maybe, Maybe not?! IDK, google it!)

I am not a deist. I consider the possibility of a higher level of species being responsible for our existence, but I see them no more caring or benevolent than myself when I bred guppies in a fish tank. And having a firm belief in hard science, even if there were such a "Giver of life who sprinkles the multi-colored flakes of sustenance upon us!", try to ask him/her who was responsible for their creation.

I only hold on to my version of agnosticism because of hard science. Theist make up stories of invisible people in the sky. Half-assed agnostics just spout "How do I know?" There is but a single question that keeps me from joining either group. How in the hell did all matter be created out of nothing? Quanum physics is mind-blowing As soon as science explains how to create matter from nothing, (the pre-cursor to the big bang involves a super-dense collection of matter, but how did that matter get there in the first place!!!!!), I will happily tattoo the answer upon my face.

PsYcHo wrote:There is but a single question that keeps me from joining either group. How in the hell did all matter be created out of nothing? Quanum physics is mind-blowing As soon as science explains how to create matter from nothing, (the pre-cursor to the big bang involves a super-dense collection of matter, but how did that matter get there in the first place!!!!!)

You may want to listen to Lawrence Krauss' answer to this.
Here's a video of a lecture he did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsGYRArH_w

This one is long and I haven't seen it yet, I'm watching it now.

PsYcHo wrote:I consider the possibility of a higher level of species being responsible for our existence

Thats under the umbrella of deism..(biocentrism, intelligence from intelligence) which has many, many variations. You are speaking about extraterrestrial intelligence.

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Deists tend to be a grey area; Are they theists or atheists? Depending on the deist, they may have characteristics of each.

Thats true, i ve met deists in deist groups which consider themselves christian deists....and for me thats somehow a contradiction, since deism mostly is against revealed religions.

My case is different since i am not an official taoist, (because these also had the idea of possesions, demons, magic) things that i do not believe.
I embraced positive parts from it and its very different at its core than those with abrahamic roots...since most believe in fate, or just plainly energy, not a personal being.

Why fate ? because we are not free, we cannot control birth and death and many other things that might happen to us.

Unknownfromheaven wrote:

PsYcHo wrote:I consider the possibility of a higher level of species being responsible for our existence

Thats under the umbrella of deism..(biocentrism, intelligence from intelligence) which has many, many variations. You are speaking about extraterrestrial intelligence.

Brimstone, I will watch the video later, (I have a ton of adulting to do tomorrow, but please refer to it again so it shows up in notifications.)

Unknown, at first glance I assumed you said theism, and admittedly I know little of deism. And considering the scope of the universe, extraterrestrial intelligence is not beyond what I would consider possible, (mathematically it is almost a certainty.) But I do not want to be grouped among those who believe tin-foil hats will prevent the star children from absorbing their thoughts. But even if it could be proven that interstellar Yeti spacemen seeded the planet to create Humans (This is said in jest, but I have heard many theories that make this seem plausible ), i would not see them as Omnipotent. Thus my contention that as an Agnostic, I hold no loyalty to any "Creator", but even if the Christian were correct, and their (Multiple-versions) of God did exist, the bull-shit excuse of "I have always been, and always will be", still does not address the issue of "Well O.k., You are obviously God. How did you get here?!" To address the atheism vs. agnostic debate, I believe in no religion, and that any creator is either indifferent or unaware. I identified as atheist for many years, but it was my understanding that their belief begins shortly after the big bang. I just (in a manner consistent with ocd,) always have that nagging thought, "What about ten seconds before that?!"

(I get a little passionate about this topic, but even sentences punctuated with an exclamation are only to express my sincere frustration at the inability to prove it either way. Please understand I am not being angry, just passionate, and I thoroughly welcome rebuttals and differing views!)