What is the difference between a seeker and agnostic?

[cho_pilo]

Here is my take:

Agnosticism - one simply doesn’t know, or is convinced that things cannot be truly known, and sits on that.

Seeker - something active…things can be known, with the proper effort.

 

[honestquestions]

Here is my take:

Agnosticism - one simply doesn’t know, or is convinced that things cannot be truly known, and sits on that.

Seeker - something active…things can be known, with the proper effort.

Great question. The two words are mutually exclusive. Being agnostic in any belief (not just religion) is a general understanding that at this time and most likely in the near future there will be little if any evidence to ultimately prove or disprove something. It’s a realization that there most likely there will not be a definitive conclusion whether something exists or is true.

I haven’t heard the term seeker used much in regards to religious claims. A seeker sounds like someone hunting for information (as an investigator) to deeply look into the claims. Yes, there probably is some effort with this detective work. But reality is always reality, and merely wanting something to be true will not ultimately make it true (unless it is already in fact true).

Most atheists and theists are also agnostics - they realize there will not be definitive evidence to ultimately prove or disprove god. Atheist simply means lack of believe in god(s) - (not ultimate belief that there is no god). Atheists simply reject the claims based on a lack of evidence. Because something cannot be dis-proven is not a reason to accept the claims, as a flying leprechaun can also not be ultimately dis-proven, but that doesn’t mean we should start believing in them - rather we should believe things with evidence only.

That’s my take - I’d be glad to hear what you think.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Here is my take:

Agnosticism - one simply doesn’t know, or is convinced that things cannot be truly known, and sits on that.

Seeker - something active…things can be known, with the proper effort.

Courage. Agnosticism is little more than invincible ignorance finding a comfortable seat. Its tantamount to intellectual cowardice, a fear that one may have to abandon what one wishes to do for what one must do. It is the personification of the maxim “be careful what one wishes for”. Be careful, If you look too hard for G-d you might find Him. At least that’s my experience.

 

[honestquestions]

At least that’s my experience.

And some people say they were abducted by aliens and they are being just as genuine as you think are.

To the objective world who won’t rely extraordinary claims on anecdotes, these claims are unknown or unknowable – agnosticism.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And some people say they were abducted by aliens and they are being just as genuine as you think are.

To the objective world who won’t rely extraordinary claims on anecdotes, these claims are unknown or unknowable – agnosticism.

Objective world? What objective world? The only “objective” people I can think of on the subject of religion is…wait, no…I can’t think of anyone who is objective on one of the only things that effects every single human being in existence. What extraordinary claims? You have no idea if a claim is extraordinary because you have no idea what the nature of ordinary is, unless you have a complete knowledge of how reality works? Anecdotes? You don’t believe anecdotes? Then you must not believe that any history existed before your first memory. Unless you were there, every single event in history depends on “anecdotes”. You believe all the anecdotes concerning the Constitution right? How do you know it wasn’t made up? You don’t you simply accept it on the basis of the “anecdotes” that you have heard and seen about it all your life. But you have no actual knowledge of these events. You don’t believe these things are unknowable, just the ones you don’t like. So as a former atheist, long before it was cool, I don’t buy agnosticism about G-d at all. And neither should you. Only the strong atheist or theist positions comport with intellectual courage.

 

[honestquestions]

Objective world? What objective world? The only “objective” people I can think of on the subject of religion is…wait, no…I can’t think of anyone who is objective on one of the only things that effects every single human being in existence.

True. I chose the wrong word when trying to make my point. I meant that because your anecdote of being careful what you wish for and finding god as through your own experience would not be reasonable to have others believe so. I tried to use the word objective as what’s true is true despite whatever we believe in something or not. And I’m also not saying that what you claim is not possible.

What extraordinary claims? You have no idea if a claim is extraordinary because you have no idea what the nature of ordinary is, unless you have a complete knowledge of how reality works?

In terms of reasonable discussion that is relevant to us, we do not need to have complete knowledge about everything (and we currently don’t as there are still some unknowns about the universe). But what we do know is that for at least millions of years the sun has appeared to rise up and shine in the sky. If all of a sudden someone claimed the sun did not rise such as in Japan while currently I am in the US and it was night time, I would consider that an extraordinary claim. If I found out tomorrow morning that there was a powerball winner somewhere in the United States, I would consider it not extraordinary given that roughly 100,000 ticket combinations are bought daily, and in a couple of weeks one of the tickets would be a match. Out of 100billion human deaths, how many have come to live again after 3 days? Extraordinary is an adjective which gives reasonable meaning for common discussion.

Anecdotes? You don’t believe anecdotes? Then you must not believe that any history existed before your first memory. Unless you were there, every single event in history depends on “anecdotes”. You believe all the anecdotes concerning the Constitution right? How do you know it wasn’t made up? You don’t you simply accept it on the basis of the “anecdotes” that you have heard and seen about it all your life. But you have no actual knowledge of these events.

That’s why I specifically tied in anecdotes to extraordinary claims. I would never believe someone who says they have been abducted by aliens because we have never known it to be true before with empirical evidence. Someone who claims they saw a popular rock band in concert last week would at least be believable given that we do have much empirical evidence for such things occurring often.

 

[Gregory_I]

A seeker cares, an agnostic does not.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…we do not need to have complete knowledge about everything (and we currently don’t as there are still some unknowns about the universe)…

If we don’t have complete knowledge about everything, then how can one make the statement that something is extraordinary? If you found a million dollars in a briefcase in the street that might seem extraordinary, but there could be similar briefcases all over Bill Gates house. Without knowing everything, when one makes a claim that something is extraordinary, its just a bare assertion, based on nothing more than ones personal knowledge. Its just a guess. Their could be briefcases full of money everywhere at Bills house. The fact seems to be that calling an event extraordinary or even improbable is just a reflection of ones worldview, its whatever they happen to think qualifies as unlikely or improbable.

But what we do know is that for at least millions of years the sun has appeared to rise up and shine in the sky. If all of a sudden someone claimed the sun did not rise such as in Japan while currently I am in the US and it was night time, I would consider that an extraordinary claim.

The Inductive Turkey
So this inductive turkey was born and raised in a farm,. On the first day, it is given food at 5 o clock in the afternoon. On the second day, it is given food at 5 o clock again. This happens every day, every day she is given food at 5 o clock. And so this inductive turkey concludes : “I will get food at 5 o clock tomorrow again”. The next day, it is indeed given food at 5 o clock. Again, it says, based on its inductive reasoning : “I will be given food at 5 o clock tomorrow again”. The next day, it didn’t get any food at 5 o clock. It was Thanksgiving…and Thanksgiving isn’t extraordinary at all. On the cosmic scale neither are the deaths of suns. Someday, there will be no sunrise on whats left of Earth. Its not an extraordinary claim at all. Stars die all the time. But this illustrates how a lack of knowledge can lead one to claim that something is extraordinary, that is as common as water. (Not that you didn’t know the sun will eventually burn out, I am just making a point)

If I found out tomorrow morning that there was a powerball winner somewhere in the United States, I would consider it not extraordinary given that roughly 100,000 ticket combinations are bought daily, and in a couple of weeks one of the tickets would be a match. Out of 100billion human deaths, how many have come to live again after 3 days? Extraordinary is an adjective which gives reasonable meaning for common discussion.

I didn’t like the lottery example either, they aren’t really comparable because winning the lottery is a random event, resurrection is not. Simply because “extraordinary” is a useful concept for general discussion doesn’t make it epistemologically correct. People are often tempted to knowingly use broken tools because it alleviates dissonance, that doesn’t make it right, just convenient.

That’s why I specifically tied in anecdotes to extraordinary claims. I would never believe someone who says they have been abducted by aliens because we have never known it to be true before with empirical evidence. Someone who claims they saw a popular rock band in concert last week would at least be believable given that we do have much empirical evidence for such things occurring often.

I demonstrate that empirical standards of proof and evidence are logically invalid, on the "empirical thread I have up.

 

[honestquestions]

A seeker cares, an agnostic does not.

So we get to come up with completely subjective definitions now, or should we stick to the dictionary, so when we have discussions, the words are meaningful and understandable to us?

I would however partially agree that a seeker cares, hence they would be giving their time to seek rather than doing something else. Agnostic is the realization that some claims are unknowable. But what are you referring to when you mention caring? Agnostic does not care about what?

 

[Gregory_I]

a gnosia is literally no knowledge.

THose who have no knowledge only lack it because they do not seek.

Now, anyone who does not seek, must not really care.

THerfore, agnostics d not care if there is a God or not. OR reather, agnosia is ambivalence.

 

[honestquestions]

If we don’t have complete knowledge about everything, then how can one make the statement that something is extraordinary?

I answered this in another topic, but I mentioned that the words ordinary and extraordinary are simply descriptive to give us meaning for a reasonable discussion. Ordinary is something that consists with all known laws of nature, while extraordinary does not. If you state that someone was dead, but then came back to life three days later, this would be extraordinary because it would appear to be a 1 out of a 100billion case. It contradicts everything that we do already know and understand.

If you found a million dollars in a briefcase in the street that might seem extraordinary, but there could be similar briefcases all over Bill Gates house.

No, that would be rare event that does not violate the laws of this universe. But if you want to use that word, the physical million dollars would be some great evidence that I really found it.

The fact seems to be that calling an event extraordinary or even improbable is just a reflection of ones worldview, its whatever they happen to think qualifies as unlikely or improbable.

There is no worldview that some people die and others come back to life. It’s a scientific fact. Again, this is why I clarified use over the word.

(The Inductive Turkey Story)

We seem to really be arguing over semantics, and I wish you would refute the meat of the argument. I guess, after looking up the definition of extraordinary which is just stated as an unusual, rare event, perhaps it is not the right word to use - but it doesn’t change what the argument is obviously trying to state: that any declaration of something that does completely contradict what is already known with massive amounts of evidence, must therefore require even more massive amounts of great evidence to overturn what we already have understood.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… I guess, after looking up the definition of extraordinary which is just stated as an unusual, rare event, perhaps it is not the right word to use - but it doesn’t change what the argument is obviously trying to state: that any declaration of something that does completely contradict what is already known with massive amounts of evidence, must therefore require even more massive amounts of great evidence to overturn what we already have understood.

I think I addressed this adequately on the other thread. Lets keep this conversation over there since we are talking about the same thing and others are involved on that thread.