The Agnostic Thread - Home of the Unsure

[jmc]

It's not ridiculous. Many atheist act as if God is a laughable concept.

Your description describes an agnostic rather than an atheist.

There's a just reason why it's a laughable concept.

 

[jmc]

Atheists cannot prove that a god doesn't exist so not really. The only difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that an agnostic is reasonable.

Agnostics tend not to worry one way or the other, it's just not an important issue to them in their daily lives. I will admit us Atheists can get militaristic in our voicing opinions because ultimately we see that many of the problems in the world come from religious beliefs.

 

[Dr.]

"Unknowable" is admitting that you can't prove God doesn't exist which is a few steps away from the common atheist position of saying God is no more real than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

But (classical) agnosticism isn’t just a statement of personal indecision; it’s the firm conviction that the existence/non-existence of gods is intrinsically incomprehensible (therefore, a meaningless question) for everyone. So by that reckoning, I’m not sure that a devoutly religious person would see much of a difference between atheist and agnostic.

Also - to the extent that someone is pedantic enough to choose agnostic over atheist as a label, s/he must be equally agnostic about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny - no strong evidence that they exist either, but we can’t positively rule them out.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

But (classical) agnosticism isn’t just a statement of personal indecision; it’s the firm conviction that the existence/non-existence of gods is intrinsically incomprehensible (therefore, a meaningless question) for everyone. So by that reckoning, I’m not sure that a devoutly religious person would see much of a difference between atheist and agnostic.

Also - to the extent that someone is pedantic enough to choose agnostic over atheist as a label, s/he must be equally agnostic about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny - no strong evidence that they exist either, but we can’t positively rule them out.

Why can't we rule out Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny?

Do any number of kids receive unexplained Christmas gifts or Easter eggs?

 

[SV Fan]

"Unknowable" is admitting that you can't prove God doesn't exist which is a few steps away from the common atheist position of saying God is no more real than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

I disagree atheists usually use Unicorns as a comparison.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm a theist who is certain there is a God but I don't adhere to any single religion.

Are you saying that makes me an atheist who believes in God?

I think it is more accurate to say an atheist has a disbelief in God where an agnostic has a neutral position of neither belief nor disbelief.

I don't think you're getting my point (and perhaps I'm not getting yours). If you don't believe in anything supernatural you are an atheist. Agnosticism is atheism, to the extent that it means you don't believe in a god, or anything like that. Usually that's called weak atheism, positive atheism, soft atheism or implicit atheism.

If you believe in God, or some kind of higher power, or anything supernatural, than you're neither an atheist nor an agnostic.

 

[Spider-X]

To me, stating you're agnostic shouldn't mean that you "are still trying to figure it out." It means that you accept that you can't know for sure and you can live with that.

It means you have chosen not to dictate your life by a centuries old (and way out of date) book that's so open to interpretation that it's mind blowing that anyone would chose to say "yes...that is absolutely what that means!" even though it was written in a different language 2000 years ago. While I'm clearly going after Christianity here, it also applies to any other text claiming to know of deities or "creators" and then goes on to tell you their rules and therefore how to live your life.

But it also means there's a possibility of all sorts of things, including that some of these texts might be correct in some fashion...but you can't prove it, so you're not going to get all hot and bothered by it.

To me agnosticism is the most healthy way of living really...you live based on what you've experienced and you try to make logical decisions as you go. When i come upon something important I don't understand, I'll try to figure it out based on things i can prove to myself as real or reliable...and if i get to a point where i just can't figure it out...i accept that and don't decide to make something up.

For example...here's something you don't need a Bible for: pain is bad...when you feel pain, it makes you want to get away from whatever caused it. So if you want to get along with others who can feel pain (a.k.a. anything living) you don't cause pain! Wow, it's like we could all live in some sort of harmony based on that concept alone (other than the psychos...but you'll always have those, so you take logical measures to section them off...like jail)! Now imagine if we wanted to advance our species and become more comfortable in our habitat...We'd have to agree on a goal and work together! I could go on, but basically what I'm getting at here is you don't need religion for these things, it's logical.

Btw, I was born Catholic...I thought through it, and here I am. I'm comfortable in saying "I don't know" and I'll never tell you any of your religious beliefs are wrong...but I'll tell you if I think they sound far fetched in my opinion and based on my experiences.

 

[moviedoors]

I'm an agnostic atheist. It all depends on how the question is phrased:

Q: Is there a god?
A: I don't know.

An agnostic answer.

Q: Do you believe in god?
A: No.

An atheistic answer. There's no cognitive dissonance between the two answers either.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I disagree atheists usually use Unicorns as a comparison.

I generally avoid those comparisons, because all it does is offend people.

But the point is, from an atheistic perspective, all supernatural claims, no matter how respectable by societal standards, or silly by those same standards, are equally implausible. They all have the same amount of evidence going for them.

The only reason that belief in the Christian God seems more believable to us, than any of the other deities we would quickly dismiss, is because most of us were raised in a Christian environment. If we weren't, we'd dismiss them as simply as we dismiss any foreign culture's deity.

Has anyone here given the existence of another culture's deity serious thought? I would guess no.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Why can't we rule out Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny?

Prove that they don't exist.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Prove that they don't exist.

I already said the vast majority of kids don't get unexplained gifts . Not even millions of well-behaved kids.

If Santa exist he's not very active.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'm an agnostic atheist. It all depends on how the question is phrased:

Q: Is there a god?
A: I don't know.

An agnostic answer.

Q: Do you believe in god?
A: No.

An atheistic answer. There's no cognitive dissonance between the two answers either.

Or "do you believe God is a myth?"

agnostic: "Not necessarily."

atheist: "Absolutely!"

There's a very noticeable difference between stances.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't think you're getting my point (and perhaps I'm not getting yours). If you don't believe in anything supernatural you are an atheist. Agnosticism is atheism, to the extent that it means you don't believe in a god, or anything like that. Usually that's called weak atheism, positive atheism, soft atheism or implicit atheism.

If you believe in God, or some kind of higher power, or anything supernatural, than you're neither an atheist nor an agnostic.

It's inaccurate to say agnostics don't believe in God.

It's like saying someone who says UFO sightings are possible doesn't believe in UFOs.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I already said the vast majority of kids don't get unexplained gifts . Not even millions of well-behaved kids.

I know. I can read. But that doesn't prove that he doesn't exist. You'll need to do better than that.

 

[Doctor Evo]

It's like saying someone who says UFO sightings are possible doesn't believe in UFOs.

There's nothing logically inconsistent about this statement.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's inaccurate to say agnostics don't believe in God.

It's like saying someone who says UFO sightings are possible doesn't believe in UFOs.

Is it? How can you believe in something you can't know exists? By that logic, agnostics would believe in every supernatural thing they can't disprove.

At the end of the day, you are without a god.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I know. I can read. But that doesn't prove that he doesn't exist. You'll need to do better than that.

You could scan the North Pole for heat signatures.

You could have chimneys installed with motion detectors.

You could have every gift recieved on Christmas registered so the givers would be accounted for.

There are ways to disprove a gift giving Santa Claus. It's impossible to prove God does or doesn't exist.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Is it? How can you believe in something you can't know exists? By that logic, agnostics would believe in every supernatural thing they can't disprove.

At the end of the day, you are without a god.

An agnostic doesn't believe or disbelieve in God's existence.

They won't commit to either stance because both are equally impossible to prove.

 

[Doctor Evo]

You could scan the North Pole for heat signatures.

You could have chimneys installed with motion detectors.

You could have every gift recieved on Christmas registered so the givers would be accounted for.

There are ways to disprove a gift giving Santa Claus. It's impossible to prove God does or doesn't exist.

Santa would avoid detection via all of these methods with magic.

See how this works, yet?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Santa would avoid detection via all of these methods with magic.

See how this works, yet?

How does magic avoid gift registration?

The parents would be able to see the gifts a child opens.

Would they not?

Magic can only do so much.

 

[Doctor Evo]

How does magic avoid gift registration?

The parents would be able to see the gifts a child opens.

Would they not?

Magic can only do so much.

All gift registration would prove is that he doesn't deliver gifts, not that he doesn't exist. Besides, if we invoke the use of magic, who's to say it couldn't destroy or alter the registry any way he sees fit?

It's a bit silly to impose limitations upon a fictional concept such as magic.

 

[moviedoors]

Or "do you believe God is a myth?"

agnostic: "Not necessarily."

atheist: "Absolutely!"

There's a very noticeable difference between stances.

That's the same question as "do you believe in god."

 

[The End]

Here's a fine explanation of the burden of proof.

[YT]KayBys8gaJY[/YT]

 

[The End]

Or "do you believe God is a myth?"

agnostic: "Not necessarily."

atheist: "Absolutely!"

There's a very noticeable difference between stances.

At this point its wilful ignorance. You insist on maintaining your strawman of what an atheist is in spite of what other people try to tell you.

An atheist that says "I know gods don't exist" is going a step further than simple disbelief. Many atheists disbelief, they don't claim to know (you can continue ignoring these explanations, apparently).

 

[The End]

Here's Dawkins, explaining he can't be sure god doesn't exist.

[YT]dfk7tW429E4[/YT]

Here's the scale Dawkins talks about.

Here's another way to look at it.