>not being an agnostic
What's your excuse, /his/? Atheists have no way of knowing that their absolutely is no deity, and theists have no way of knowing that a deity absolutely does exists.
Therefore, the only logical way to be is an agnostic. It's the only honest way.
If there is a God, then agnosticism is fake.
If there is no God, then agnosticism is fake.
One is true, the other isn't.
Therefore agnosticism is fake.
>mfw agnostic about agnosticism
Does that make one an agnostic agnostic?
>agnosticism isn't real
>agnosticism might be real
Atheists often like to preach that theists 'believe without evidence', yet atheists themselves choose to deny a god's existence without evidence. It's laughable, really.
Agnosticism is at least honest about it.
Even if there weren't a universal consciousness [spoiler]which there most undoubtedly is and you probably shouldn't test it[/spoiler] The sun still counts as an essential god. Without the sun, life as we understand it right now wouldn't exist.
Just because Richard Dawkins said it doesn't mean it's true, mate.
Picking either side is to be blind. You cannot be an atheist and then tell theists that they're wrong, and you can't be a theist and tell atheists they're wrong. Neither of you have evidence for your points.
If you deny that we can know anything about god you might aswell deny god himself
HAIL THE SUN-GOD
H A I L
A I L H
I L H A
L H A I
Why the fuck do I need evidence? Should I also keep in mind the possibility that Thor, Zeus, etc are real? Until theists come up with evidence of their god their claims are worthless.
>Agnosticism isn't real
>Agnosticism makes no sense because you're 100% wrong
Agnosticism means you don't know. It's just as good as guessing.
Your claims are equally worthless, as you cannot know for sure.
Humans are but a spec in the eye of the universe. We know practically nothing about what the universe has to offer. Atheists are just as blind as theists.
How can you say for certain "there is no god?" I'm not even just talking about mainstream religious gods, any higher power really.
Let the cult of the phoenix once again rise from it's own ashes
May the light of the Sun guide you, brother.
May He spare you of His wrath.
We can't really be sure of the nonexistence of a Deist God who just started the Big Bang and then fucked off. But we can absolutely be certain that the Gods which monotheists and polytheists envision are just human inventions. So while we still can't be 100% sure, the we can be pretty sure that there isn't a god.
This. As someone who defines themselves as agnostic because I prefer the term I don't see my opinion as particularly different to most atheists and I don't mind if other people want to describe me as an atheist.
This argument is almost always kicked off by a religious person who thinks agnosticism is some sort of mild support for their belief system and when it isn't it is usually someone who has a completely incoherent definition of agnosticism.
>Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain.
Thomas Henry Huxley (inventor of the word agnostic)
>that defintion is atheism
no it isn't, your position is untenable and you're just trying to weasel your way out of it by trying to redefine a term that for decades has meant one thing, learn how to spell.
Atheism is the null-hypothesis. You are an atheist until you're convinced of theism. If you're convinced of theism, but post factum find your reasons for it and reneg on your belief, you're an atheist again. There's no need to prove a negative.
It's delusional to think in this way. Are you really gonna tell me that maybe, just maybe, you actually DO have a fairy godmother? You don't know it, but it might be true.
define both. and even if your definitions hold up and there aren't and strange scenarios which fuck up your black and white of theism vs atheism, what is wrong with not making the leap to certainty when we can't do it empirically.
essentially, yes, agnosticism DOES REAL because it chooses to recognize our limitations and not be arrogant/self-important enough to opine about something we don't have nearly enough info on.
>As someone who defines themselves as agnostic because I prefer the term I don't see my opinion as particularly different to most atheists and I don't mind if other people want to describe me as an atheist.
I'm pretty much the same way. I think the key thing to realizing the dsitinction between the two is that (as this anon:>>532400 pointed out):
>Atheism is the null-hypothesis
Which means that, functionally, agnostics is basically atheism. The difference is in the ideology behind that function, which some people argue doesn't matter. Since this is a religious argument which is entirely founded in ideology, I think it is. So, I prefer agnostic because the actual meaning of the word is pretty close to how I think on the matter (I'm actually somewhat of an apatheist, or an ignostic, but I hate special snowflake terms), but I still realize that basically makes me an atheist in action, so I don't care about being classified as one.
A big part of why thing debate is kind of pointless is that no one uses set definitions for any of this stuff. People regularly operate using definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" that means different things, which mean that most people in the debate are probably talking about different ideas entirely. Agnosticsim seems particularly vulnerable to this, probably because it's the first idea people usually hear of that isn't directly theism or atheism. For example, I've known a few people who call themselves agnostics, but are basically just vaguely theistic that don't like belonging to organized religions. They clearly see agnosticism as some kind of in-between, which isn't, and a lot of people also have that view.
You have no clue of what you are talking about.
Theism means that you base your life decisions on the hypothesis that God exists and on the deductions that follow this assumption.
Atheism means that you base your life decisions on the hypothesis that God does NOT exist and on the deductions that follow this assumption.
Agnosticism means that you accept not knowing whether God exists or not and base you life decisions on factors that does not depend on the existence of God.
If God exists, your decisions as an atheist are more likely to be wrong and your decisions as a theist are more likely to be good.
If God doesn't exist, you decisions as a theist are more likely to be wrong and your decisions as an atheist are more likely to be good.
But the existence of God has no influence on the likelihood of your decisions as an agnostic to be good or bad.
I largely agree with your post but I prefer to define myself as agnostic. I don't have a problem with atheists saying they are also agnostic (so long as they don't claim they can prove god doesn't exist). I don't have a problem with people calling me an atheist so long as they aren't defining that as someone who says they can prove god doesn't exist.
What I do take great exception to is shitty little trolls like OP and this guy >>532397 who think my fucking creed and position is nothing but an excuse to troll non-believers.
Let me be clear, Huxley described himself as a disbeliever. Agnosticism is a position of disbelief.
Just the way looking at it.
Like if 2 people never seen a computer but heard about computers, and computers exist.
If one says "computers don't exists" they're wrong and so isn't "I don't know if they exist" but the one that is indecisive is less in fault.
Yeah but even if your agnostic or an atheist, if God exists He would still be in your life somehow even if you don't accept that He is there.
Just because you don't believe in God or are unsure / unaware of the existence of God, doesn't mean if God is real, He cannot affect your life because you don't believe He is there.
Sure but what if they are spirit aliens juggling spirit tangerines? If you disbelieve in them then you are probably some kind of materialist or logical positivist and quite possibly a Marxist as well.
Being an agnostic doesn't mean that you don't accept its existence, but that you accept not knowing about it.
Whether God has power over your life is not the point here, because he has power over you whether you believe so or not and there's nothing you can do about it.
But our knowledge is incomplete
If you could imagine all the things you don't know, could the aliens on the surface of Pluto that juggle tangerines (who by the way just telepathically told me that you should give away half of every paycheck to the first homeless bum you see, or else they will juggle with your soul forever) be in that unknown?
What's the difference between basing your life decisions on factors that do not depend on the existence of God and basing your life decisions on the hypothesis that God does not exist? I believe you will find they are suspiciously similar.
God isn't defined well anymore, so any and all positions regarding the subject, if it's just described as "God", is meaningless. I do not believe the classical idea of a personal deity is probable in the slightest, but I do not rule out the possibility something that can be described as the impersonal Absolute (which I do not consider a deity in its own right). Does that make me an atheist by definition? Does it really matter? I don't know, but I still (forgive for this language) identify as an irreligious atheist due to not worshiping anything I define as a deity. Since I don't claim to know that no deity exists absolutely, (I'm only claiming it's highly improbable not 0% chance), then that makes me an agnostic by definition, since I do not claim to know the truth value regarding the existence of the subject.
Idk, agnostic sounds like they know God exists they just don't know how to go about it / they know God exists and don't want to feel guilty about their decisions.
If they actually believed God didn't exist, then they would say so.
I think the stronger point of agnosticism is the fact that neither side has evidence to support its claim, and therefore unassertable. The reason that we give more weight to, for example, Christians is merely out of respect. There very well could be a giant teapot floating out in the universe, however there may not be many who strongly believe that and so it's not a strong enough cause to defend for the sake of agnosticism reality. Many of you probably believe in schrodingers cat, however then equally dismiss probability in your favor when selecting atheism.
This point is to (deliberately?) misunderstand the position of most atheists, which is weak atheism as opposed to strong atheism. It is essentially a strawman claim.
You can't even define god properly, let alone shout at atheists "ha ha you are taking a strident position by not believing something I can't even define properly, checkmate".
Yes, facts. Jesus walking on water is either true or false. It is either a fact or it isn't. We judge it by weighing evidence.
>Secondly it's not favor it's simply disarming both sides hostile to one another because it's pointless arguments.
>it's not favor
> The reason that we give more weight to, for example, Christians is merely out of respect
Fuck off, fencesitting religious apologist.
And for the last time. Atheism is the null-hypothesis on god claims. There doesn't have to be any "proof" for atheism as it's what you start with. Literally. Babies are atheists.
Look up the difference between positive and negative claims mate, it's going to help you become less of a quasi intellectual.
Dude, all of us have the experience of being alive as a microscopic sperm inhabited in an egg.
A baby knows more about life, they don't have regular thoughts and no language barrier, so the babies perception is beyond what we can percieve
Our souls are pure until we become contaminated by the material suffering we face, and as adults we lose the innocence and faith we have when we are kids.
The wisdom of a child is pure, and the logic of an adult can be malevolent
>Atheist Christians shitposting against Christian Atheists.
Every child is born a Muslim.
Theistic atheists are rare, most will not deny that they cannot know with 100% certainty, but it's irrelevant. Nothing in society has to do with whether or not you acknowledge that there is a remote possibility of an impersonal and absentee creator.
I call myself an atheist because I don't believe in god, the fact that I acknowledge that this isn't certain is irrelevant. I don't believe in aliens, you could call me an "analienist" or some such term, should I qualify this position with some statement on my certainty on the matter? Is it necessary to label myself an "agnostic analienist"?
yes i realize there is a possibility that god exists but i wont dignify it by saying im agnostic just like i wont dignify the possibility of the universe being a computer simulation by making up some new term for my beliefs. The point is that everything we know isnt certainly right or wrong and that doesnt mean we should thoughtlessly throw every bit of our knowledge out of the window and resort to complete neutrality
All Muslims are Christian. Islam is just one branch of Christianity.
atheism is simply not believing in religions because they are based on statements that have not been proven. you don't have to claim to know their wrong, you just don't believe in them
nobody can actually know if any statement is true or false with 100% certainty, regardless of it's proof or lack thereof
agnosticism is pointing this obvious fact out and call it a whole new theism because you want to be a special flower
agnosticism is that guy who joins an argument, says he disagrees with both sides and then acts like he won
>u can't know nuffin
whoa there socrates, don't drop all your wisdom on me at once
Pretty much this. The entire concept of agnosticism was developed as a concept to push evolution and trash the belief in god with no evidence whilst dissociating itself from philosophical claims that try and disprove the existence of god.
It is an outdated term, used by trolls and doubting theists.
No, which is why it's stupid to argue whether or whether not there are. We must simply accept that we cannot know. Getting mad at someone who claims not to know and saying that there are definitely under no circumstances tangerine-juggeling aliens under the surface of pluto is stupid and illogical.
>Atheism is the null-hypothesis
No, Atheism is essentially the positive claim: "Any and all divine beings do not exist."
>no one uses set definitions for any of this stuff
Well they should
>disbelief in the existence of deity
>the doctrine that there is no deity
>mental rejection of something as untrue
It's an absolutely clear cut position, it is a denial of the possible existence of any and all deities.
It's just that faggots like sam harris know that it's a stupid claim and need to try to redefine the word to mean something other than what it is, and turn the argument into semantics and distraction.
It's the same thing socialists do, is claim that there is no true definition of Socialism.
Theism / atheism is a claim about belief. Theists have a belief in God(s), atheists do not have this belief.
Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge, not belief. Agnostics claim they cannot / do not know if there is our isn't a god. Without relying on personal revelation this seems to be the only reasonable knowledge claim.
I'm an atheist... I live without God. A-theist. I do not have a belief that there are Gods. I suspect there aren't. I can't prove it. Can't prove something doesn't exist. So I'm also agnostic.
>which there most undoubtedly is and you probably shouldn't test it
Why would a universe ( or greater )sized conscious care about what humans think?
Do you care about the vibrations of molecules?
Ignosticism makes the most sense, but since it's such an obscure term I usually say I'm agnostic or that the possibility of a god or gods can very well be true (even with science) depending on what you consider a god. I mean obviously the bible is crap and there isn't one guy who identifies as the Christian God only. If you define a god as a superior being then I think it's more plausible to admit that gods do exist, but they most likely have no way to interact with us or if they do they don't care about us. I'm talking about gods as in regular beings of a higher dimension. Obviously at a small level they could be able to alter our timeline by coughing or something if you consider that a godpower, so yeah they're gods gods exist but not A GOD.
theism = thinking a God exists
agnostic = thinking we can't know whether a God exists
atheism = claiming we can't know, but actually thinking the chance of God is the same as an alien on Pluto which juggles tangerines (which is zero chance)
That is like saying your an irrational retard for denying the existence of leprechauns. Of course most atheist recognize that a god could exist, it is just so massively improbable that, in good conscience, they can call themselves atheist.
>saying that there are definitely under no circumstances tangerine-juggeling aliens under the surface of pluto is stupid and illogical
As beings that exist on a mortal plane and limited frame of time, we cannot know the nature of the divine which exists outside the bounds of both, or if there is anything outside those bounds to begin with.
The lack of evidence that God exists.
If you have a bag full of marbles, and keep pulling out red marbles, that's evidence that no blue marbles are in the bag, right? Sure, there might be one down at the bottom, but you can't waste your life searching through every single bag, you just label it "Red Marbles" and go on with your life.
I used to be "agnostic" until I realized how pathetic this skeptic's leap is.
9 in 10 agnostics accept the external world and materialism as-is and do not apply these epistemological standards otherwise. They're hipster atheists, plain and simple.
lets put it this way
there is nothing to know about such things not because they are or are not, but because reality as such alone is, and all were discussing here are words for notions and ideas we make about reality
but it is not merely that were working with words and language is problematic, its that the conceptions and notions themselves are merely 'a way to say', the notion of a divine omnipotent allpresent personal being is a projection as amuch as the word 'god' is just a word
even if such a being existed, that would not be 'god' but that being as such as it is, and us calling it 'god', actualy believing in it, and taking it as a factor in life at all would make us schizophrenic idiots attempting to subject this hypothetical being to our own mental constructs
this is not to say there are no sublime, transcendent and divine dimensions to reality, within and without, but these cannot be adequately discussed in this way, cannot be understood in this sense, they must be experienced, only then they are known
but, since they can be so known, agnosticism is technicaly wrong
Asserting definite answers is impossible for any question.
We can't give a definite answer to weather unicorns exists, yet the idea of being agnostic about the existence of unicorns is absurd.
The problem is that accepting a theory have become synonymous with accepting it as absolute truth when infact you accept a theory because it is the most reasonable alternative.
Agnosticism is not reasonable because it does not make sense to apply it to other then god. What makes god different? Why should we be agnostic about him and not Unicorns? Or Zeus?