Agnosticism

>>1597059
because they're as full of shit as theists. they're so smart that everyone else is stupid to them

Because if you're not with us you're against us, infidel. Non-non-believers will face Science's eternal wrath.

A lot of atheists don't seem to know what being a atheist means. They'll cal themselves an atheist but then take the position of an agnostic.

>>1597059
>"Hurr you must pick a side."
>"Fencesitter."
Dualism is ever cancerous.

Couldnt "I dont know" be a fucking side in itself?

>>1597059
Quibbling over the exact definition of atheist. Most atheists I've spoken to insist that it just means someone without gods, not a person who necessarily denies them. Hell even one of my professors said that with agnostic being a more abstract position on whether or not the question of god can ever be truly known.

Personally I've given up the language fight and simply call myself an agnostic for the sake of clarity.

>>1597157

"I don't know" should never be a satisfactory option when discussing questions like where our universe comes from. Agnosticism is intellectual laziness because they're no longer actively seeking answers.

>>1597059
Atheist clocking in.


I don't hate agnostics (most of my friends are) but I really don't see a distinction between agnosticism and my interpretation of atheism (for me, literally not belonging to any religion.)

However, most atheists I have had the (usually dis)pleasure of meeting are usually the kind of hipster bullshit #resistreligion kind of shits that are polluting what is simply just the state of not having a religion.

Like I said, I'm an atheist. And I think some religions kick ass. Sikhism, for example, is based as fuck.

>>1597269
But there is no way to get a satisfactory answer and claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

File: Soren quote.jpg (34KB, 499x245px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 499x245px

>>1597269
Kek. You do not understand the point of Agnosticism. Nowhere in agnosticism does it deny advancement. Agnosticism simply states we cannot (at least in this current stage) know about our existence and our purpose, that doesn't say we WON'T know, it simply means in this current time with the evidence we have we cannot empirically prove the reasonings towards our existence, like a Christian (for example) or atheist does.

This is a round-a-bout view of how the argument goes.

Religious person:
>My god is real!
>provides no proof

Atheist:
>there is no god, he doesn't exist!
>provides no proof
>uses science as means to deny the christian dogma
>uses that to say they disprove god

Agnostic:
>both of you are wrong
>at least you cannot back up what you are saying with hard facts.
>The only thing you can say, is there is no evidence at this point in time

Agnostics re the true reason of the world, start with Soren Kierkegaard, a spiritual agnostic. He argues god is outside of the churches and their dogma and abiding by their laws is not how you find god. He says god is subjective, for the individual to find.

The one thing which confuses me the most is why atheists for some reason think science disproves god, as if a being such as god cannot implement the mechanism known as science. Religion, at least the old religions attempted to answer how with why, that's the fault. Science explicitly answers how, it no way even touches the question as to why, which is what spirituality is for.

>>1598665
>>there is no god, he doesn't exist!
>>provides no proof
Atheists don't believe in a God, nor do they 'believe' there is no God. Basically, kys agnosticuck.

File: 1471985640306.jpg (9KB, 197x256px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 197x256px

>>1597059
Because agnostics are completely illiterate in epistemology. They insist that "you can't know" without ever providing argumentation behind their claim, ans being completely ignorant of what the word "knowledge" even means.

>>1598772
>Atheists don't believe in a God, nor do they 'believe' there is no God.
Literally what. Care to lead me to the point in my post that projected this inaccuracy unto you?

>>1598665
There's plenty of valid arguments for atheism, that you have never read philosophy of religion is your problem, not ours.

>>1598793
>They insist that "you can't know"
Well, lets look at the other side, shall we? Keep in mind Agnostics say we cannot know """"NOW""""". Yes some say we may never know, that's another point entirely. For you can never know if you don't look and agnostics like everyone else, are searching for the answers.

Okay, onto your point. You say we provide no evidence to back up our claim, well that's true. Because if it were not true it would mean there is actually evidence against our claim. Care to point me to said evidence? That evidence would mean that you have either proven god to be real, or disproven him completely, empirically. Also keep in mind, you can disprove Christian/Islamic/Judaic dogmas, that doesn't disprove god. To say so implies those are the only religions to ever have existed on earth.

Our claim is simply there is no evidence of our reasoning, our existence, nowhere does it say to stop looking, it actually expresses the opposite, to find out your own subjective reasoning.

You're a literal fool if you think either science or religion has the answer as to why we are here, there is no answer yet - agnosticism is the only true belief system available to any logical person in this current time.

>>1598799
Oh, so you've disproven god have you. Go on.

>>1598810
It is YOU who is making a claim about the impossibility of knowledge in a certain area, the onus is on you to justify this view.

>>1598815
You don't "disprove" things outside of math and logic.

>>1598823
>It is YOU who is making a claim about the impossibility of knowledge in a certain area, the onus is on you to justify this view.

You simply do not understand. You are asking me to prove god, or disprove him, like I am asking you to do. That is the only way to invalidate my claims. Why are you projecting? I have said many times our reason is lost to us KNOW, it's not impossible for us to know, but you are implying we have the answers and can empirically prove them, note I am talking about our reasoning, not scientific methods.

>>1598831
>You don't "disprove" things outside of math and logic.
Kek.

>>1597059
Gnostic vs. agnostic is a completely different question than theist vs. atheist.

>>1598842
>KNOW
lel, now*

>>1598842
>You are asking me to prove god, or disprove him, like I am asking you to do.

No, I'm not. What you need to do is provide epistemic justification for the proposition "It is currently impossible to obtain justification for theism or atheism"

This is a positive claim that you need to argument for, otherwise your views are without foundation.

>>1598854
>"It is currently impossible to obtain justification for theism or atheism"

mhm, and how do you do this without proving either of them?

Don't run away now. You are actually asking me to do the impossible, which is why agnosticism exists - we don't know, yet.

You cannot refute this logic, you are asking me to prove certainty in something which is uncertain. The only way to disprove agnosticism is to find our reason i.e. providing the certainty.

I have told you, I cannot do what you ask - that's literally why this belief exists. If I could prove god, or the lack thereof, I would not be agnostic.

>>1598862
>You cannot refute this logic, you are asking me to prove certainty in something which is uncertain.

There's no logic to refute, you just accepted that it's impossible to justify the epistemological views of the agnostic, therefore agnosticism is without foundation.

Again, it is you who is making a claim about the impossibility of knowledge.

>>1597109
'sigh' we used to get bait that wasn't utter shit

>>1598870
>therefore agnosticism is without foundation
What ever helps you sleep at night. The only way it can be without foundation is if you are implying they are ignorant which in turn means you have proven either theism or atheism, so again, prove it.
>'no'
Therein lies the validity of your argument, 'no'.

Are you done?

>>1598873
To add to this, who said anything about knowledge, why are you projecting?

>>1598877
>who said anything about knowledge, why are you projecting?
Outside of our reason for being of course.

>>1598873
You still don't get it, do you? Your claims are not about mere uncertainty, you are making an extremely strong epistemological claim, namely that knowledge about certain field is *impossible*, not uncertain, impossible. I reckon you don't even know what epistemology is, otherwise you would realize the implications of making such claim.

>>1598881
>namely that knowledge about certain field is *impossible*, not uncertain, impossible.
At this moment in time yes. That's the part you are willingly missing?

>>1598877
You literally said "we cannot know", so yes, knowledge is a central topic of this discussion.

>>1598886
Literally irrelevant.

>>1598888
Read the rest of the parts when ever I said that, literally used caps so you wouldn't miss it.

The keyword being now, you know, this point in time. With all the knowledge we have available, currently?

So you are done now. Like literally read my first post. >>1598665
>Nowhere in agnosticism does it deny advancement. Agnosticism simply states we cannot (at least in this current stage) know about our existence and our purpose, that doesn't say we WON'T know, it simply means in this current time with the evidence we have we cannot empirically prove the reasonings towards our existence, like a Christian (for example) or atheist does.


I couldn't have worded it any better to avoid your utter retardation.

>>1598889
Why? Because you have no argument when you willingly ignore my whole point?

>we cannot know as we don't have enough information right now
you take that as to mean
>we will never know
>it's impossible TO know

and then you blame me for being an idiot? Kek.

Chiggity check yourself before you wreak yourself.

You honestly think Agnostics would exist if there was empirical knowledge out there regarding out existence? That we currently are aware of?

>>1598891
Like I said, the fact that you said "now" is irrelevant. If you are being so insistent on it, let me put it this way:

You claim "we cannot know now", do you have justification for this belief?

>>1598896
>do you have justification for this belief?
The lack of empirical evidence either proving or disproving gods existence.

We are literally going round in circles here now.

>>1598893
It is you who has no argument, after all, it is you who is making positive statements, not me, that require justification.

Let's do a little though experiment: suppose God exists, and he decides to "prove" his existence to a believer, this the believer would have knowledge about God's existence. You claim this is impossible, why?

>>1597059
Conversation with a typical agnostic:
>Do you believe in God?

>I don't know
>You don't know if you believe in God?

>No I don't know if God exists

>(didn't fucking ask you that) So then you do not believe that he exists

>You can't actually be sure he doesn't exist
>You can't actually be sure anything
DOESN'T exist. I'm asking you if, in your perspective of the universe, is there a God. You don't know if you'll wake up tomorrow but you assume you will. Do you assume there is a God or don't you?

>Well you especially can't be sure God doesn't exist

>>1598900
>The lack of empirical evidence either proving or disproving gods existence.

That provides no justification for the quoted statement, let me remind you that the statements "God's existence is uncertain" is semantically disnct from the statement "It is now impossible to know about God's existence." The latter is a far stronger claim.

>>1598907
>You claim this is impossible, why?
Now you are making no sense. Obviously god revealing himself to someone who already believed is not empirical evidence to prove god's existence. This scenario happens all the time?

Kek, you're a literal idiot aren't you? You can stop posting anytime.

>this the believer would have knowledge about God's existence
This makes literally no sense.

>It is you who has no argument, after all, it is you who is making positive statements, not me, that require justification.
What ever helps you sleep at night. Funny how this is no long about the fact you thought I was denying knowledge and your projection has shifted elsewhere, seriously just stop posting I would love to give you my day and let your retardation unfold, but I am leaving soon I will give you as much time as I have though.

>>1598917
>God's existence is uncertain" is semantically disnct from the statement "It is now impossible to know about God's existence." The latter is a far stronger claim.

Ahhhhh, so you've finally moved your goal posts to align with mine. Glad you're no longer being an idiot.

Cya.

>>1598918
>Obviously god revealing himself to someone who already believed is not empirical evidence to prove god's existence.

It would be empirical evidence, or more broadly, epistemic justification for the believer.

>This makes literally no sense

The believer would have justification for his belief, thus have a justified true belief I.e. knowledge.

Honesty it is frustrating to argue with someone so ignorant of the terms being discussed, and incapable of realizing the implications of his views.

>>1598920
Not at all, are you retarded? You madd the latter claim, which is wholly unjustified. You either have reading comprehension problems or are mentally deficient.

>>1598933
>It would be empirical evidence, or more broadly, epistemic justification for the believer.

Empirical evidence is not subjective justification.

>The believer would have justification for his belief, thus have a justified true belief I.e. knowledge.
A subjective one yes, not empirical by any means.
>based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

How am I, or a non-believer, meant to verify gods existence when he reveals himself only to believers? It's not empirical.

Kek, get out a thesaurus.
>do you even know what 'x' means
Really now?

>>1598920
By the way, do you not understand tht by "stronger claim" I mean a claim tha demands greater argumentation to be justified? I'm not sure if you even understand the discussion.

>>1598935
THen literally what is the point of that claim. Are you seriously trying to argue strict semantics? Really? Is that all you have? Because I am not willing to argue semantics with a 4chan retard. I don't have it in me today. I thought you were arguing the idea, not the strict semantical meaning of my words.

>>1598942
>I'm not sure if you even understand the discussion.
Yeah, it's clear now. You had no intention of arguing an idea or belief just using your new found vocabulary on the internet.

Done and dusted.

>>1598940
"Empirical evidence" means knowledge obtained through the senses, how would such case not be empirical evidence? Let me remind you that empirical evidence doesn't mean universally available evidence, I have empirical evidence about the existence of my father, yet you don't.

>>1598952
>"Empirical evidence" means knowledge obtained through the senses
Kek, you understand you were accusing me of not understanding terms.

>I have empirical evidence about the existence of my father,
Wrong, I have the internet where somewhere your father's birth records are recorded. Literally just stop.

>>1598943
Ah, so you know realize how weak your position is, right? By accepting that's possible to know about God's existence, you undermine your whole case. Thus, your agnosticism cannot be anything more that a personal assessment about how certain you are about something, not a view of epistemological relevance.

>>1598955
>Kek, you understand you were accusing me of not understanding terms.
>>1598952

You have done this many times, you are treating me like an idiot in favor of your argument which only means you yourself are an idiot. You are leaving out the vital parts of your definitions and using them in your argument.

That's simply ignorance. You are actually arguing god revealing himself to an already established believer is empirical evidence for gods existence.

This is my last reply. I thought I would give you my day, but you are stinking of some filthy Euro.

>>1598957
Yeah man, my position is weak because you leave the core part of the fucking argument out of it. That being currently, in this present moment, there is no empirical knowledge regarding gods existence, you keep taking that to mean we will never know, that's fine, that's your idiocy - literally not my argument, simply your projection.

>>1598955
>Kek, you understand you were accusing me of not understanding terms.

Define it. Let's all laugh at whatever response you will think of.

>I have the internet

How is that empirical evidence? You don't even know me, thus you cannot search for anything. Thus, you possess no empirical evidence about it.

Empirical evidence is not universally available. I have empirical evidence of what's in my house, you don't.

>>1598968
(you).

Happy?
>Thus, you possess no empirical evidence about it.
(that evidence still exists though)
:^)

>>1598959
>is empirical evidence for gods existence.

Are you retarded? My whole case is that it would be empirical evidence *for the believer*, not for you. Empirical evidence is not universally available, for the last time.

>>1598871
Its calles making a joke, just like your IQ level you retarded faggot kys srrsl :^)

>>1598973
>Empirical evidence is not universally available, for the last time.
Empirical evidence, is by definition, universal. That's the point. If that's your whole beef with my argument replace it with an idea that is what you say it's not, and forgive me for having a shit vocabulary.

Jesus.

>>1598971
>that evidence still exists though

But is wholly inaccessible to you. >>1598973
Incredible you are too dumb to understand such a simple concept.

>>1598979
Again back at the point of what it means to be empirical knowledge.

>not accessible to you
But it is.

>implying it's not possible to doxx off 4chan
No I can't do it, it's entirely possible though.

>>1598978
>Empirical evidence, is by definition, universal

It literally is not. Nowhere is the term defined as such. Not only retarded, you are illiterate as well.

>>1598983
Okay fine, I used the wrong word, sue me. My point remains :^).

You cannot UNIVERSALLY, at this point in time disprove or prove god's existence therefore agnosticism is the only logical choice.

xD

>>1598981
>No I can't do it

So, *you* can't obtain empirical evidence about it, thus conceding my point.

I don't know if it's more intense now than before, but people these days get really buttmad over identity politics. Team A is destined to forever be archrivals with Team B for the sake of superfluous excuses. If you don't subscribe to either or try to make a Team C, you're committing an even worse crime.

Can an oldfag call me out on this?

>>1598988
That's not the point though, the evidence exists. As far as we know, right now, no evidence of god's existence exists UNIVERSALLY.

Really, why are you still going?

>>1598990
>Can an oldfag call me out on this?
The only thing 4chan hated in 2007 were peadofiles/animal cruelty and suprisngly racisim.

>>1598986
>My point remains

No, it doesn't. Your views show their cracks with each post.

And your deduction doesn't follow, I cannot *universally* prove a lot of things, I cannot universally prove what I ate for breakfast, so I should be agnostic that I had any breakfast? Doesn't follow, your views are borderline epistemological nihilism.

>>1598991
Lovely how you had to backpedal and talk about "universally" proving things, a request that would make nearly all knowledge impossible. Knowledge is very rarely universally available.

>>1598994
>I cannot universally prove what I ate for breakfast
Kek, yes you can. You can pump your stomach, you can vomit.

now you're literally posting 'no' and ad hom. Getting less and less involved with each post, bro.

>>1598999
>Knowledge is very rarely universally available.
Mhm, gods existence, i.e the creation of the UNIVERSE and reasoning for our existence (the thing which the term UNIVERSAL is based on) would in fact be quite universal, by you know, definition and etymology.

This is actually getting fun.

>>1598993
4chan was surprisingly SJW before /pol/. They literally ruined everything.

>>1599000
>You can pump your stomach

Grasping at straws. What about what I ate a week ago? During last Christmas? According to you, you shouldn't believe things unless you can "universally" prove them, which would make virtually all knowledge impossible.

Christ, this is just a circlejerk at this point.

If you feel the need to call out someones benign worldview, you are wasting your time and energy. If you're an atheist and are dogmatic about it, you're a hypocrite.

>>1599002
>would in fact be quite universal, by you know, definition and etymology.

Is this bait? By no definition does the knowledge about such thing necessities being universal.

Because agnosticism is literally just apathy, and declaring yourself one without some sincere intentionality betrays a misconception about atheism

Unless you really believe "can't no nuffin" is a real epistemological stance, an agnostic will often belive that atheists claim knowledge of absence. As though atheists (types often geared for stem or science in some way) literally don't understand reductionism, a common complaint they level at religion

File: HEOJs.gif (500KB, 300x268px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 300x268px

>>1598993
>surprisingly racism

No. 4chan hated stormfags but there was abundant racism.

Nigger

>>1598993
lolno

>>1598854
You cannot even prove that you yourself exist you stupid shitposter. Your words are anecdotal evidence at best, if I were to ask a random sampling of humanity if your shitposting ass existed most could not give me a concrete answer, and when you (if you exist) die then we won't have a primary source to argue for itself and instead be left with a mush of ambiguous data. What impetus or justification is there for your existence?

It's currently impossible to obtain justification for either belief: you exist, or you do not exist.

Atheism = Sophism and an intense lack of knowledge of actual scientific or philosophical rigor

>>1599004
t. chanologyfag

>>1598993
>pedophiles
4chan was full of pedos and still is
>animal cruelty
you're right about this but it was mostly an edgy joke "lol we care more about animals than humans XD"
>racism
LOL

>>1599058
>>1599065
>>1599082
actually chanology started around 07 so he might be right about the racism part

>>1599083
chanology was more of an 08/09 thing

File: Gnostic_Agnostic_Atheist.png (22KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x400px

>>1597059
You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
You cant just be agnostic.

>>1597059
If you don't now, then you can't be a believer, therefore, you're an non-believer. Just a cowardly non-believe.

>>1599089
I never understood this argument. Why am I a coward for admitting that we don't know? You are the one who hides behind a veil of belief and who's afraid to acknowledge your own ignorance.

>>1599136

See
>>1599087

>>1597059
Because the average agnostic is ten times as smug as religious or atheist zealots about his profession of ignorance. It turns people off.

>>1597059
Most people who call themselves agnostics are just being intellectually dishonest.
Half of them are deists who don't really follow an organized religion, the other half are atheists who don't want the stigma of calling themselves such.
It's really very fucking rare to find someone who really honestly has no inclination towards either atheism or deism.

>>1597059
Because the majority of 'agnostics' are literally just soft atheists, which means they're atheists and trying to deny it, which is irritating and retarded. I know why they do it. They don't like what they perceive the label 'atheist' represent. They bought into the 'atheists are all literally militant, obnoxious, ignorant fedora tippers' meme and instead of challenging that stereotype or owning up to it, they run away behind a new label, attempt to obscure the truth behind semantics.

That or they literally just don't care and/or don't know anything particularly deep about arguments for or against god(s) existence and often times think this somehow makes them intellectually superior.

>>1599177
>>1599196
Dualism at work, ladies and gentlemen
>They're closeted deists!
>They're pussy atheists!
And yet supposedly, agnostics are the arrogant ones.

>>1597059
Cancerous Western dualistic thinking.

The west loves "U MUST PICK A SIDE" kind of thinking.

>>1599210
>Dualism at work, ladies and gentlemen
Yes, that's pretty much my point. Most people are dualistic, their agnosticism is an annoying pretence.

>>1599216
You don't have to pick one. You already are on one

>>1599229
The fact that "annoying pretence" exists means there's more than two sides to a single argument.

Agnostics could be said to be intellectually lazy, fine, but the polar opposites are intellectually dishonest. Neither side could provide evidence and all they have is sophistry and mental gymnastics.

As for "annoying" shrill atheists shitposting on the internet and godly terrorists make shit of the middle east are a thousand times more annoying than some cunt going "i really dont know man."

>>1599244
>As for "annoying" shrill atheists shitposting on the internet and godly terrorists make shit of the middle east are a thousand times more annoying than some cunt going "i really dont know man."
The problem is that for every humble guy going "i really dont know man" there are veritable hordes of smug faggots looking down on everyone else because they're proud of being neither religious sheeple nor fedora tipping atheists. It's not an intellectual third way to them, it's a social third way that does not reflect their actual beliefs. As such it's hypocritical and irritating.

>>1599074
Literally not an argument

For me, it's because being agnostic implies not believing there is a god. If you did believe, you would know there is a god. So I think most agnostic are atheists who don't want to say they are atheists.

>>1599244
>Neither side could provide evidence

Debunk this argument
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-evi/

>>1599270
My brain blew a fuse trying to understand your logic.
>If you did believe = Automatically religious, Cant be agnostic.
>If you're agnostic = automatically atheist,
>"No idea" is not an opinion for this anon.
>Even if Atheism literally means "I am 100% sure there is no God."
>Which is totally antithetical to agnosticism.

>>1599278
>Atheism literally means "I am 100% sure there is no God.

Nice strawman

>>1597059
>What's bad in admitting you just don't know?
Because chances are you're being a hypocrite about it.
The whole point of atheism is basically "there's no proof of god, so there's no god".
If you disagree with this without being a theist, you necessarily need to refuse to disbelieve anything that hasn't been proven not to exist which it's impossible because it's a negative claim.
Not disbelieving anything has so many repercussions it's basically impossible for it to be coherent with anyone's worldview.

>>1599259
The smug bastards found in Atheism & Religious leanings far outnumber that of agnostics.

And they are far, far more hypocritical than agnostics. Religions preach love & peace yet their proponents are intolerant and confrontational. Atheists are "LE RASHUNAL" side yet they cant provide evidence for the non-existence of God.

>>1599278
No idea is not an option. If you believe you know there is a god, if you don't know there is a god you don't believe.

The atheist position is literally "I don't believe there is a god".

You either know there is a god, and you are religious, or you don't believe there is a god, and you are an atheist.

That's because many people don't actually think they know for certain either, especially plenty of atheists who proud themselves in skepticism and when they are asking whether there is a god or not, they don't really ask whether you know there is a one, but whether you think there is a one or not.

Merely asking "I don't know" is just avoiding the question in a big way, since that's already given to many people asking the question to begin with, they just want to know whether you think there is one of not and you refusing to actually answer is irritating to them.

>>1599287
There's plenty of deductive and inductive arguments for atheism. There's a reason why the vast majority of philosophers are atheists.

>>1599287
>The smug bastards found in Atheism & Religious leanings far outnumber that of agnostics.
Prove it fag.
The truth is, you only ever notice the smug bastards. You're never gonna notice the decent atheists/theist/agnostics because they're not gonna bother debating their beliefs.

>>1599287
Literally every time I see an agnostic on the internet it's some smug, philosophically illiterate "u can't know nuthin" turbo faggot.

>>1599278
No idea cannot be an option because that's not the question asked.
You actions dictate what camp you belong to.
Since you partake in no God believing activities then you don't have belief and are therefore an athiest.

>>1597059
Gnosis means knowledge of the occult. the title agnostic fits well with the intellectually lazy hipsters.

>>1599290
>If you believe in god, you're a theist
>If you don't believe in god, you're a atheist
>If you believe in neither, you're an agnostic
How is this hard to understand.

>>1599390
>If you believe in neither,
>believe
>lack of belief = belief
You sure understand a lot, don't you?

>>1599390
Its not its just wrong.

The absence of something is the only proof needed to prove the absence itself, until contradicting evidence appears.

The position that you can't make rational claims about something if you have no evidence one way or the other is the only sensible one.
If you read "it's impossible to know now" and aren't an autist you'll understand "now" means "with the currently available human body of knowledge", which is not a definitive claim about all the information present but rather the info we have access to.
If you wish to claim otherwise you'll need to provide proof for the existence of evidence (- contradictory evidence to the perceived absence).

t. African

>>1599395
>I believe in god
>Can you empirically prove there is a god?
>no

>I don't believe in god
>Can you empirically prove there is no a god?
>no

>I believe you can't assert whether there's a god or not because we have no empirical evidence to support either hypothesis.
>Therefor, I believe neither.

>>1599412
>Can you empirically prove there is no a god?
This is a fallacy. You can't prove a negative, lack of evidence is enough to dismiss by itself. That's how you live your life, why do you make an exception for god? Because you're an atheist in denial who's afraid of the moral consequences.

>>1599423
>lack of evidence is enough to dismiss by itself
Only when you have exhausted all possible options.

You act like it's impossible to disprove gods existence. Just as it's possible to prove him, it's possible to disprove him.

Obviously we have no fucking idea how to do that or it would already be done.

Lack of evidence only works when you have exhausted all possible leads of information. Can you honestly say you've done that in regards to god, when we cannot even say for certain how our universe operates?

>>1598871
>sigh

Apologies, friend, it seems you have entered the wrong place for conversations on an intellectual level that is befitting of your intelligence. You might want to check out a place called reddit *tips fedora*

File: image.png (290KB, 698x399px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 698x399px

I assume religious agnostics also agnostic about literally every question other than cogito ergo sum.

Can't prove gravity isn't invisible elves, why take the position that it's not?

I actually just assume it's always bait in these threads.

>>1599423
By saying "there is no god" you're making an assertion of the nature of the universe. Therefor you have to prove your assertion.

Atheists think that the state of non existence is not a state at all, but the lack of something, tells us just as much about the universe as the being of something.

If I hold up a closed basket and say "there may or mat not be an apple in this basket". What would you respond?

A theist would say "I believe there is an apple in the basket"
An atheist would say "I believe there is no apple in the basket"
An agnostic would say "It's impossible to know whether there's an apple in the basket or not, until we open the basket".

>>1599411
So, a priori knowledge doesn't exist?

>>1599443
>By saying "there is no god" you're making an assertion of the nature of the universe.
Wrong. The argument begins at theists claiming there IS a god. Atheists ask for proofs, theists offer nothing, claim dismissed.

>If I hold up a closed basket and say "there may or mat not be an apple in this basket". What would you respond?
"Ok."
Your claim covers all possibilities, what do you expect me to answer? Also the universe isn't a box. You're comparing infinite with discrete here.

>>1599411

>>1599276

>>1599461
>You're comparing infinite
>the universe is infinite
Going to have to stop you there. No evidence suggests that either, actually the opposite

>>1597059
Those people are ignorant, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive

>>1599462
>another place where 'educated' men debunk 2000 year old myths
>think they disproved god
>placing their arguments strictly in the definition of literal words
kek, every time.

What the fuck does 'evil' even mean when you take away the subjectivity of it? Does a bear think it's evil that I killed my brother for a hit of heroin? Doubt it.

>>1599461
>The argument begins at theists claiming there IS a god. Atheists ask for proofs, theists offer nothing, claim dismissed.
Where after atheists claim there is no god. Agnostics ask for proof, atheists offer nothing, both claims dismissed.

>Also the universe isn't a box. You're comparing infinite with discrete here.
The box is a metaphor for a barrier to gaining knowledge, how was that not clear to you?

>>1599473
Read the argument.
And try to form a counterargument next time.

>>1599440
>I assume religious agnostics also agnostic about literally every question other than cogito ergo sum.
It's agnostic not autistic anon.

The real reason people call themselves agnostic is so christcucks and fedoras will fuck off and leave us alone. You're all annoying faggots and your debate is tiresome inconsequential bullshit.

>>1599474
>Where after atheists claim there is no god.
Wrong. There's no need to claim anything of the sort until god's existence is proven. Are you not familiar with the concept of burden of proof?

>>1599475
Not an argument. God exists outside the bound of human beings yet our subjective definition of good and evil is how you disprove or prove him?

Explain this retardation.

>>1599477
>Are you not familiar with the concept of burden of proof?
Not him but that's literally the whole point. Both sides fail to provide any proof. You're not saying -
>I don't have to prove anything therefore I am correct and refuse to acknowledge any other arguments
Are you?

>>1599463
The whole concept of finiteness requires something external to it to be separated from. If the universe is finite, then What term should I use for "universe plus whatever's outside it"?

>>1599480
What proof do I need to provide? I'm not claiming anything. I'm just refusing a claim on ground of lack of proofs.

>>1599482
As far as we know space and time only exist inside of our universe. That's not saying there is no 'existence outside the universe' but the universe is termed to literally mean the space and time we are experiencing. There is nothing inside the universe which implies eternity except 'existence' itself which is such a broad idea it claims literally everything.

>>1599478
God is defined as all-good
Read the argument

>>1599487
>existence' itself which is such a broad idea it claims literally everything
Which is the point I was making. You can't compare something as broad as exhistence with something as discrete as position within our universe.

>>1599485
>What proof do I need to provide?
If I could tell you how to disprove god do you think we would be having this discussion? You simply cannot.

I know ask you to justify your belief that god doesn't exist. Surely you have some sort of reasoning? That reasoning is your own subjective 'proof', which is fine, everyone has that. What you do not have is objective, empirical truth which cannot be logically denied. Which is what an agnostic wants when it comes to belief, we want certainty, which at this time cannot be given so both disciplines are shrugged off.

>>1599497
Existence and our universe are literally not the same thing.

>>1597059
Because you can't know anything for sure.

We realize this and live our lifes as if anything we see is real.

If you follow the agnostic thought process you will come to the point where " we live in the matrix duh we can't know for sure maybe we don't even exist" bullshit.

If start thinking like that you kann kill yourself right now.

That's why atheists hate agnostics they are the absolute worst when it comes to thinking in a practical "realistic" way.

They are just as pathetic as you philosopher cunts "well lets think about xyz even tho xyz doesn't matter or isn't even real in the end you won't have a scientific answer.

Just a few cunts debating and trying to show off how cool they are.

agnosticism -> scum

philosophy -> useless scum

both together = /his

>>1599496
Again, you are basing your proof or disapproval of a being such as god, who operates outside of humankind, on human language and human ideas.

You cannot disprove a god based on ideas which cannot even be argued objectively. There is no definition of evil which works for every human, there is no definition of 'all-good' which works for every human. There is one singular christian definition for each of those terms, luckily god exists outside of Christian dogma.

You cannot explain this utter retardation, you're a parrot with no thought.

>>1599500
Whatever, as long as you get what I'm trying to say.

>>1599478
Are you saying that all these theologians that went through the trouble of making theodicies shouldn't have bothered to do so? Theodicies being something that is accepted and even considered important in mainstream Christianity?
You don't seem to have the same God as Christianity, or at least your christian denomation is not being addressed, if so, then this argument is not for you indeed.

>>1599502
But anon, even if we assume our senses are trust worthy and that it's possible to make assertions of the universe based on empirical evidence, it's still impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god.

>>1599503
Who told you moral realism is false? Why are you so confident in things you clearly have no formation in?

Also, read the argument, for real this time.

File: Agnostic_v_Gnostic_v_Atheist_v_Theist.png (80KB, 1087x1051px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1087x1051px

>>1599498
Athiest do not claim there is no God (usually)
We refute the clam of theists due to lack of evidence. And stop ignoring what people claim about their own positions.

>>1599508
>then this argument is not for you indeed.
But this argument is used against god, as a tool to becoming an atheist, to disproving god. I ask you exactly how it does so when the whole basis of your argument is wishy washy at best.

No I am not a Christian, this argument is still utterly retarded though. It's an argument which no longer has a place in modern theology.

>>1599511
>Who told you moral realism is false?
Who has proven to me that it is real?

>Why are you so confident in things you clearly have no formation in
Why do you think ad hom refutes anything I am saying? All that argument does is refute a Christian god based on ideological nonsense on words and ideas subject to change.

>>1599498
See >>1599512
Stop putting claims in my mouth.

>>1599515
> It's an argument which no longer has a place in modern theology.

Says who? Some retard on 4chan? Philosophers, both theists and atheists, agree the argument from evil is one of the most important arguments in contemporary philosophy of religion

>>1599520
I asked you to justification of your reasonings. Are you literally using a definition for atheism which includes agnosticism? The other anon is literally saying exactly what that chart does, which you have now linked to, which has actually been posted before, in this thread.

Literally what are you doing? Past expressing of ignorance and all around tomfoolery?


>>1599512
>Athiest do not claim there is no God (usually)
Kek. Lucky those are agnostic atheists right? Not Atheists whose by express definition are peoples who denounce the existence of god or gods.

Are you actually trying to twist definitions of well known philosophies to suit your means?

>>1599529
>Says who? Some retard on 4chan? Philosophers, both theists and atheists, agree the argument from evil is one of the most important arguments in contemporary philosophy of religion

But as you've just said it doesn't apply to anyone who believes in a god outside the Christian dogmas i.e. a lot of people in this modern age.

I mean sure, it disproves YAHWEH, he is an idea which is many thousands of years old, good job - modern man. Now disprove god.

>>1599519
>Who has proven to me that it is real?

Who has proven to you it is false?

And the argument, if successful, proves that classical theism, the topic of discussion, is false. Saying "but what if you define God as something else" is not an argument.

I am not twisting any definitions.
I am telling you what I am informing you what I and everyone else you are arguing with think

>>1599533
>Who has proven to you it is false?
No one, as no one has proven it to be real, so therefore they must hold the same weight if I am to logical weigh any argument.

> proves that classical theism, the topic of discussion, is false.
The topic is god, not classical theism. Nice try there.

>Saying "but what if you define God as something else" is not an argument.
Why? When many people's subscribe to a god outside of any of the dogmas, are you denying their faith for purpose of this argument? Kek.

>>1599532
What do you understand by the word "God"? Disproving classical theism is enough to justify atheism to anyone who understands language.

>>1599538
>I am telling you what I am informing you what I and everyone else you are arguing with think

If you linked to me I will spare you the trouble, what you think is simply wrong.

There is simply a difference in what it means to be agnostic and atheist. You are down-right wrong. There is no two ways about it. Atheists are certain as Religious man is, Agnostics are uncertain. That's all it is. That's the strictest definitions which you can attempt to deny all you want, kicking and screaming don't change the facts though.

You are finally understanding that agnostics can be atheists or theists. We are subjective, we are in a constant change nothing is rigid as nothing is known for sure, yet *about our existence and why*.

>>1599542
I bet you've used the argument "do you believe in Thor, or Zeus"?

So why MUST the Christian god be THE god in need of disproving why does disproving YAHWEH suddenly mean god doesn't exist in any shape or form? Again, disproving YAHWEH does not disprove god, it disproves YAHWEH.

>>1599539
>The topic is god, not classical theism.

The topic is theism, which in the English speaking world is classical theism.

>Why? When many people's subscribe to a god outside of any of the dogmas, are you denying their faith for purpose of this argument?

Because the term was already defined, thus the conclusion follows. You can't redefine words out of am argument, otherwise human communication would be impossible. The topic of discussion has always been what the academia refers as classical theism, not about esoteric, irrelevant views like pantheism

>>1599552
>I bet you've used the argument "do you believe in Thor, or Zeus"?

No, I haven't. Polytheism is irrelevant. Nice strawman by the way.

>>1599510
We don't believe because there is a lack of evidence, that's why we don't live our lifes as if there are no ghosts tooth fairy and so on.

It makes no sense to believe something without evidence so why waste your time thinking yeah it may be possible It doesn't change a thing.

>>1599555
>irrelevant views like pantheism
Literally has nothing to do with anything.

You are simply arguing Christianity has a monopoly on the idea of god and the disproving of YAHWEH disproves the idea of god. The idea of god and gods existed long before the idea of good and evil in the Christian sense.

You're simply wrong.

>>1599557
'no'.

>>1597059
& Humanities was a fucking mistake.
It absolutely is a fucking mistake.
Holy fucking shit Japmoot why the fuck did you do this?
Jesus Christ.
Back in /int/ and /tg/ we just wanted a history board
A HISTORY BOARD
but some asshole added & humanities to it and japmoot went along
Fucks sake
/his/ is not a mistake
& humanities is.
Humanities
that stupid, aimless body of "knowledge" that is based on conundrums, muh feels, and conjectures.
History is NOT humanities, it is it's own fucking thing.
Holy shit who decided "& humanities"

>>1599510
>it's still impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god.
Why? If you term god as simply our creator and subscribe to the idea of evolution then you have already found your god.

File: Here you go.png (133KB, 1400x1163px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1400x1163px

>>1599566
Why not make a meta thread? How about a Hitler thread, dindu?

>>1599564
>You are simply arguing Christianity has a monopoly on the idea of god and the disproving of YAHWEH disproves the idea of god.

No, I'm not, I'm explaining to you that the debate us about theism, which is synonymous with classical theism, thus, if the argument is sound, atheism is true. I know autists have problem with communication, but that's how human language works, people communicate with previously agreed terms.

>>1599565

Not an argument

>>1599545
No i am correct.
You are arguing with a bunch of people who simply dosagree with you.

>>1599571
>Not an argument
Exactly, it was yours.

>people communicate with previously agreed terms.

So you've simply used terms for purpose o your argument and ignored any dissenting facts. Right.

So yes, you are actually using an argument which disproves christianity to disprove all gods. Thanks. I will put it in the trash, where it belongs.

>>1599576
>No i am correct.
You are wrong, by literal definition of the words you are trying to say you know anything about. You cannot refute that, I can simply take the semantical route and argue strict meaning and you lose be default.

>>1599577
You are slow, so I will ask again with the hopes that you can make a coherent argument: what do you understand by "God"?

>>1599583
>what do you understand by "God"?
If I could explain it I would.

>>1599585
Before you get all twisted you are able to denounce and disprove these ideas of gods which have attempted to be explained, that does not disprove god, it disproves the attempted explanations of said god. Therein lies your fault.

You are actually saying the Christian god is the only god of relevance and in need of denouncement, if majority of people practiced paganism your target would be Thor, not god, but the current most easily targetable representation of the idea.

>>1599582
Evem if i were. Which i am not definitions are defined by consensus and are far from immutable.
This is not the classical world.

>>1599566
All knowledge is conjecture anon. See David Deutsch.

>>1599585
So, you are literally avoiding giving the word any definition, so you can keep pretending your agnosticism is tenable? Do you see how dumb your line of thought is? If you refuse to give the word "God' any semantic content, then what the fuck do you mean by "Nobody can prove or disprove God"? May as well say that nobody can disprove jfucwhhfo, a meaningless utterance.

>>1599595
I highly suggest you look up the definitions of each of those words,come back when you have found them and post them here.

>>1599594
Again, what is the semantic content of the word "god" in your post?

>>1597059
Because most atheists do not recognise those two things as being different.

Agnosticism is just a variant of atheism to them.

>>1599597
>"Nobody can prove or disprove God"?
Huh, where have I said this?

All I am saying is disproving YAHWEH does not disprove god, especially not in the Christian sense of morality as there are many gods who exist outside of these ideas, a point which you are casually ignoring. Of course you would project when it becomes harder and harder to remain ignorant.

>>1599210
I'm sorry the question 'do you believe God exists?' only has two valid responses anon, but it does.

'Agnostics' are just special snowflake atheists.

>>1599530
>I asked you to justification of your reasonings.
No, you asked me to prove claims you've made about me. And you've even been called out about it by third parties.
I don't claim I know god doesn't exist, I just presume it from the lack of evidence.
You have this absurd belief that atheism requires an absolute claim of knowledge, but that's your own definition of atheism. The standard definition is "lack of belief in god". That's it.
Your idea of "atheism incorporating agnosticism" is literally standard atheism.

>>1599601
The creator of our universe and holder of our reason for existence. Whether that be no reason or literally nothing is yet to be discovered. Literally what does MY meaning of god have to do with anything? The point is YAHWEH are not all gods, I could list off hundreds, disproving YAHWEH does not disprove the idea of god, how does that not get through your thick fucking skull?

>>1599599
All definitiond are done by consensus.
What are you on?
Are you telling me that words meanings are never adjusted?

>>1599606
>Huh, where have I said this?

You know what I mean. "It's impossible to know now" is functionally the same in this argument.

Again, what do you understand by the word "god"? Don't ignore this.

>>1599604
How could it be otherwise?

>>1599611
>making presumptions in the field of anything
You're done.

>>1599621
>Again, what do you understand by the word "god"? Don't ignore this.
This has literally no point. Except an attack on my own subjective belief. You are ignoring many things I am posting, why are you still going?

>You know what I mean. "It's impossible to know now" is functionally the same in this argument.
I literally have no idea what you are saying. I am saying disproving YAHWEH does not disprove god, nowhere does that even remotely mean we cannot disprove god or it's impossible to know right now. It simply fucking means you cannot disprove god by disproving YAHWEH. Stop making this more complex then it has to fucking be so you can shift the goalposts.

>>1599624
>thinking you can know anything for certain
And you call yourself agnostic.
See this is the exact problem with agnostics: they're incoherent. They only apply their ridiculous level of required certainty to the question of god, not to everything else like they should. Because of course if they did, they would be unable to take any sort of action or thought.

>>1599640
Now he is arguing the uncertainty of knowledge.

xD

You were just pretending, right.

>>1599612
>>1599633

Why do you insist with this YAHWEH thing? I've literally never brought up such term, the discussion is about classical theism, remember?

>The creator of our universe and holder of our reason for existence.

So, pretty much classical theism minus the "all-good" part.

>>1599644
Pretending what? Any claim to the opposite was made by you.

>>1599645
>So, pretty much classical theism minus the "all-good" part.
So, pretty much it had no point, as I said.

>Why do you insist with this YAHWEH thing?
Why do you insist with this classical theism thing? Which YAHWEH is explicitly, in this argument, representing.

I am glad you are actually not making any points anymore, you are also done. Good shit. Hopefully you won't bring that retardation around here anymore.

>>1599649
Kek, you've literally taken the easy route of 'can't no nuffin'. Just stop, you're actually done. You took to the out. You can't argue with that, it's simply idiotic.

Why don't you just kill yourself as you can't verify your own existence, it's all pointless may as well die. Do it, kill yourself, not even joking.

>>1599652
> Which YAHWEH is explicitly, in this argument, representing.

Not at all, you imbecile.

And your view of "god" can be justifiably rejected by appealing to the law of parsimony. If there's no evidence or reason for such god, and if such god is a more complex hypothesis, then it follows that's more likely that god doesn't exist, thus atheism is the rational view.

Because no-one is asking what you KNOW. We're asking whether you BELIEVE. It genuinely IS a dichotomy with no third answer.

>>1599662
See
>>1599429

Lack of evidence is not an argument to be used as you have not looked at all the evidence, yet.

>>1599655
>Why don't you just kill yourself as you can't verify your own existence, it's all pointless may as well die.
Because I PRESUME it would be better for me to stay alive. See, I'm not that much of a coward that I can't make assumptions, unlike you. I'm not intellectually paralyzed by the lack of absolute certainty.
Well neither are you really, but only where god isn't concerned. You're just incoherent.
Can't no nuffin isn't an out for most people. It's just an out for you because you refuse to make assumptions on certain fields, whereas you're more than happy to rely on faith (you talk about empirical proof, so faith in your perception mostly I assume) for other. Doesn't you incoherence bother you at all?

>>1599670
Irrelevant, it's perfectly reasonable to make claims about the world based on the evidence we do possess, otherwise we would never be able to believe in anything, as we are not omniscient.

>>1599677
>Can't no nuffin isn't an out for most people. It's just an out for you because you refuse to make assumptions on certain fields

It's an out, because as you can see, you can literally say it to anything and it cannot be refuted. You're a fucking idiot in short.

>whereas you're more than happy to rely on faith
Kek, you are the one making assumptions. I know see your whole argument is actually based on a misconception and assumptions.

>>1599678
>it's perfectly reasonable to make claims about the world based on the evidence we do possess

Claims and theories sure, claims of certainty such as theism and atheism at this stage dictate?

You are looking through a dictionary for the word "Sickness" but stopped at "sick" and said it wasn't in there and then disregarded the rest of the dictionary. Agnostics look to the end until they make up their mind whether the word is in there or not.

>>1599695
>It's an out
It's an out for you. I said it, and poof! All of a sudden you refuse to continue.
>you can literally say it to anything and it cannot be refuted
But this was fine when talking about god? Why is this not fine now?
>your whole argument is actually based on a misconception
The misconception that you're trusting your senses? How can you be absolutely sure that what you perceive is true then?

>>1599596
History asks for evidence.
Humanities is all muh feels and theories.

>>1599709
>But this was fine when talking about god? Why is this not fine now?
Well how can I know you are real, what purpose does this serve? Can't verify anything man you can't know nothing, what's the point?

THis is literally your point, not mine, this is why you are done. You don't make that point if you want to be taken seriously. You're a fucking idiot.

>The misconception that you're trusting your senses? How can you be absolutely sure that what you perceive is true then?

Look how hard you are pushing it. Actually hilarious. As soon as you couldn't argue you took this route, are you seriously trying to imply this wasn't an out for you.

YOu can stop anytime.

>>1599706
>claims of certainty

Elaborate.

>Agnostics look to the end until they make up their mind whether the word is in there or not.

And which is this "end"? How do you know when you have gathered all the evidence in existence? Again, we don't need to know everything to make reasonable claims about the world, otherwise we could never believe in anything.

File: 1437457500124.jpg (9KB, 298x212px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 298x212px

>>1597059
>What's bad in admitting you just don't know?

Because religious belief isn't about knowledge. If if you haven't noticed, it is indeed impossible to know if there exists a god or not, but people still believe he exists anyway, therefore claiming you are agnostic literally says nothing, because what matters is what you believe, not what you know.

>>1599716
>And which is this "end"? How do you know when you have gathered all the evidence in existence?
Obviously not for us to decide, which is again, obviously why I am agnostic . As in this point in time we have not exhausted all possible options, we are still learning.

The extent of human knowledge will eventually plateau, and in this plateau it will be safe to say you have sifted through enough evidence to say the existence or non-existence of god is unlikely. We are no way near that point though, we cannot even answer how, let alone even touch why.

>Elaborate.
Really now? We are back at what it means to be religious and Atheist? Jesus fucking Christ.

>>1599714
>As soon as you couldn't argue you took this route
I was never anywhere but on this route. You're the only one who has ever pushed for absolute certainty. Idiotic, from one considering himself an agnostic, but hey, that's you.

>Well how can I know you are real, what purpose does this serve? Can't verify anything man you can't know nothing, what's the point?
You can't know, but you can presume. You can apply all rules of absolute knowledge on presumption. You just refuse to accept it because it invalidates your position.

>>1599727
>You're the only one who has ever pushed for absolute certainty. Idiotic, from one considering himself an agnostic
Before we go any further, explain how these are related.

>You can apply all rules of absolute knowledge on presumption.
Therefore I can presume there is an invisible flying spaghetti monster in the sky as there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

>>1599721
>Obviously not for us to decide, which is again, obviously why I am agnostic . As in this point in time we have not exhausted all possible options, we are still learning.

So, how will we know that we have exhausted all the options when we get there? You could always argue that "we haven't exhausted all the options" ad infinitum and never believe in anything.

>The extent of human knowledge will eventually plateau, and in this plateau it will be safe to say you have sifted through enough evidence to say the existence or non-existence of god is unlikely. We are no way near that point though, we cannot even answer how, let alone even touch why. Your epistemology is completely self-defeating.

No reason to think it will plateau. That's purely baseless speculation.

>Really now?

Really what? You need to elaborate why you involved the word certainty here.

>>1599622
I am one of those atheists who dose not recognise the difrence.

I was writing in a general impersonal way.

>>1599733
>Before we go any further, explain how these are related.
One would think an agnostic, unwilling to rely on belief, would be the last person to advocate for something so unobtainable as absolute certainty.

>Therefore I can presume there is an invisible flying spaghetti monster in the sky as there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Indeed you can. The fact that you don't relies on the lack of proofs (yes, I'm assuming this, do tell if you believe otherwise or would believe otherwise were you to reason this way).
This behaviour sets a precedent: if you don't believe in shit like flying spaghetti monsters or tooth fairies etc. due to lack of proofs, why would you have different standards for god? Hence why I'm calling you incoherent.
It's called skepticism, look it up.

>>1599736
>You could always argue that "we haven't exhausted all the options" ad infinitum and never believe in anything.
Only if you believe the extent of our knowledge is infinite, which would imply infinite timeline and infinite existence.

>Really what? You need to elaborate why you involved the word certainty here.
I elaborated exactly what it means. How is it exactly now clear? Are you seriously ignorant that atheists claim there is no god and theists claim there is a god? Are you being retarded on purpose here? YOu understand what a theory is right? And how all the 'claims' revolving our world are in fact theores, yet to be proven.

>No reason to think it will plateau. That's purely baseless speculation.
No reason to say god doesn't exist, that's baseless speculation.

>>1599622
>How could it be otherwise?
There actually are tons of fools that argue for absolute knowledge of there being no god. Mostly due to equating "disproving" a religion with disproving theism in general.

>>1599752
>would be the last person to advocate for something so unobtainable as absolute certainty
Have you actually read any agnostics? Are you basing all your ideas on the simple fact that 'all agnostics advocate we can never know' like the majority on this thread?

If so, there is your fault, pure, simple, ignorance.

> if you don't believe in shit like flying spaghetti monsters or tooth fairies etc. due to lack of proofs, why would you have different standards for god? Hence why I'm calling you incoherent.

But where have I said I DON'T believe in these things, I literally said I do. See you are calling me incoherent because you are simply willingly, remaining ignorant and you are actually using assumptions to base your arguments. THat is where you argument falls apart. YOu are projecting everything and calling ME incoherent, when I have said literally nothing about myself.

Again, you are simply wrong.

>>1599718

Define 'to believe' and 'to know'.

>>1599752
If you can't know anything for sure how can you make a presumption at all.

If nothing is actually verifiable how can you make a claim that god doesn't exist, or at least there is no evidence that god doesn't exist, everything you are basing your assumption on is essentially wrong or at least unreliable.

>>1599756
>Only if you believe the extent of our knowledge is infinite, which would imply infinite timeline and infinite existence.

Not at all, that's an absurd inference. The point us that, if going by your absolutist skepticism, we can never know that we have all the evidence, thus we could never believe anything.

>YOu understand what a theory is right? And how all the 'claims' revolving our world are in fact theores, yet to be proven.

You're confusing theory with hypothesis. Theories are things that we are justified in believing, just like I'm claiming we are justified in believing in atheism. I see no reason to say one is more "certain" than the other, this is about justification, not absolute certainty.

>No reason to say god doesn't exist, that's baseless speculation.

Except it's not, it's a justified probabilistic inference given our background evidence.

You are frustratingly dumb, to be honest. Like talking to a wall.

>>1599760
Well no there are not tons of them. You want there to be tons because they are the oy ones you can argue against
No the evidence we use can be extended to all judeo-christian faiths which would cover 2/3 of believers.
Because God as reckoned by many religions is basically the same entity at its core. Everything else is really worthless religious kitch.

>>1599760
Nobody ever said anything about "absolute knowledge" in the entire thread, you mentally deficient fuck.

>>1599777
>If you can't know anything for sure how can you make a presumption at all.
I use the unreliable informations I have of course.
>If nothing is actually verifiable how can you make a claim that god doesn't exist
I never actually made that claim.
>or at least there is no evidence that god doesn't exist
None has been brought to me, not even unreliable ones. Onus probandi on the one who claims.

>>1599773
Belief.

1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life"

Knowledge

1. facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

>>1599770
>But where have I said I DON'T believe in these things, I literally said I do.
>Therefore I can presume there is an invisible flying spaghetti monster in the sky as there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
I don't think that counts as "literally saying you do". Do you actually honestly believe in said flying spaghetti monster and all other unprovable shit? Beyond saying yes for the sake of this argument?
Are you prepared to assume the weight of all the implication of said belief? Because if you said yes, I could just literally start spewing an insane amount of unprovable bullshit with all sort of implications, and you'd have to believe it for coherence.
Like, your room is cursed. You lose one hour of your lifespan every minute you spend inside it. Better get out.

>Are you basing all your ideas on the simple fact that 'all agnostics advocate we can never know' like the majority on this thread?
Obviously yes. Because otherwise your position is untenable.

>>1599831

Define 'to believe' and not 'belief'.
Define 'to know' and not 'knowledge'.

>>1599837
>Do you actually honestly believe in said flying spaghetti monster and all other unprovable shit?
Nope, but that's not the point is it. I do honestly believe they could exist and be our reasoning to exist though.

>Beyond saying yes for the sake of this argument?
Believe what you want.

>Obviously yes. Because otherwise your position is untenable.
Then again, by literal definition (at least my definition and many others) of agnosticism is wrong, it says, at least the part where I and many others subscribe to, says we cannot know now with the current information we have available.. Of course you would take the ignorant view to make your argument.


If it helps you sleep at night literally the only thing which I believe to be objective in this universe is the reasoning for existence. Weather it be have meaning or not, it's objective - we are here and there is a reason, lack of a reason is a reason - yet is to be proven.

>>1599849
If you're not going to supply any counterarguments to what I said in my original post you can fuck off.

>>1599859

There is no counter argument to be made when you dont have any argument to counter.
Now define the terms you fucking pussy.

>>1599858
>Nope
>I do honestly believe they could exist
Why hello fellow atheist. I see you too don't believe in god but don't actually claim he doesn't exist.

>but that's not the point is it
It's precisely the point. It's the hinge of the whole argument. If you don't believe in something unproven, you can't believe in god within this worldview.

>lack of a reason is a reason
>lack of belief is belief
Oh we've come full circle.
You don't really like the laws of logic do you? This is literally a contradiction.

>>1599872
>Reading comprehension

>>1599935
Come on now, that discussion had obviously changed to become about a flying spaghetti monster, not god. Like literally every part of that post you are replying to does not reference god, but a flying spaghetti monster.

Good job.