"Agnostic"

[rahl]

good point rahl; i believe the atheists to certainly be fake around here.

so now it is the Agnostic's turn; in all probability they are Fake also.

all we have left are Believers, and Rebels who are mad at God.


of course God enters the picture and will decide what to do with all of these fakes....


View attachment 67566262

There is no such thing as agnostic. You either have a belief a god exists, or you lack belief a god exists.

 

[Revelation]

There is no such thing as agnostic. You either have a belief a god exists, or you lack belief a god exists.

we tend to let them slide on this forum, hoping they may see more light that wasn't visible at certain times in their life.

.

 

[watsup]

But given that we have no evidence for the existence of non-conscious stuff at all, a kind of "cosmic consciousness" hypothesis of a growing, evolving deity would obviously have at least as much merit right out the gate (with various other advantages in explanatory scope and parsimony following on).

Your particular superstition. Philosophical meandering has never proven a “cosmic consciousness” and never will. Still no actuality-based evidence for a “God”.

 

[rhinefire]

I'm an agnostic and have been since birth. Faith is something that can't be taught rather it can be presented in a method to convince a person something is there. We must agree if convincing is done right it is very effective to the point of committing horrible acts in the name of a god.

 

[Parker_Chess]

Agnostics are people who want to claim neutrality. It's the same in politics as people who are independents. They all lean a specific way but want to make that unknown to others.

 

[RalseiButINTP]

I would say that I remain agnostic because there really are countless things we still do not know, including matters in psychology, species found in the depths of the oceans, as well as what exactly started the universe. When specifics are brought into the discussion, it is then that discussion can be had as to whether something is or is not true. If one suggests to me there is a "god," I don't really have anything to go off of to refute yet. If the bible is brought into the equation, then there is an abundance of points to refute. To me, arguing that something defaults to being not true until proven otherwise, suggests that one could argue the Earth didn't revolve around the Sun until it was proven it did.

I won't fault the idea that agnosticism can be seen as intellectually lazy, or maybe even irresponsible, all I know is that disproving the Christian "God" does not immediately dismiss the possibility of any god.

 

[watsup]

I would say that I remain agnostic because there really are countless things we still do not know, including matters in psychology, species found in the depths of the oceans, as well as what exactly started the universe. When specifics are brought into the discussion, it is then that discussion can be had as to whether something is or is not true. If one suggests to me there is a "god," I don't really have anything to go off of to refute yet. If the bible is brought into the equation, then there is an abundance of points to refute. To me, arguing that something defaults to being not true until proven otherwise, suggests that one could argue the Earth didn't revolve around the Sun until it was proven it did.

I won't fault the idea that agnosticism can be seen as intellectually lazy, or maybe even irresponsible, all I know is that disproving the Christian "God" does not immediately dismiss the possibility of any god.

No evidence, no God. It’s just that simple.

 

[RalseiButINTP]

No evidence, no God. It’s just that simple.

Can't say that I'm convinced.

Moreover, the fact that you capitalized the "G" in "god" suggests to me that you think I'm still referring to the Christian/Biblical depiction of "God," who allegedly created the universe to create a place for human beings to live and loves all of them, but judges them after they die, etc etc.

In this context, I'm only pursuing the argument of "Was there a being that created the universe?" I'm not against discussing hypothetical ideas of such a being and how it (or they, if more than one) would exist, but I'm not sure if it would go too far against the original topic of the thread arguing that the word "Agnostic" has no meaning.

There is no such thing as agnostic. You either have a belief a god exists, or you lack belief a god exists.

If we are to go die-hard by this logic, then I'd say some kind of being beyond the confines of this universe could exist that started it, and I like to believe that it exists, and there is a sense of "right" and "wrong" in the world, even if it may not be possible for me to know exactly what it is nor how to prove it. I am not too highly confident in it.

So going on sheer belief: I'm arguably some form of theist, but it's not some kind of hill I'd die on or anything, I'm not all that confident, and I'd admit the evidence is stacked against the idea of it, but I don't think it's fair to say unlikely is the same thing as a steadfast no.

 

[watsup]

Can't say that I'm convinced.

Moreover, the fact that you capitalized the "G" in "god" suggests to me that you think I'm still referring to the Christian/Biblical depiction of "God," who allegedly created the universe to create a place for human beings to live and loves all of them, but judges them after they die, etc etc.

In this context, I'm only pursuing the argument of "Was there a being that created the universe?" I'm not against discussing hypothetical ideas of such a being and how it (or they, if more than one) would exist, but I'm not sure if it would go too far against the original topic of the thread arguing that the word "Agnostic" has no meaning.


If we are to go die-hard by this logic, then I'd say some kind of being beyond the confines of this universe could exist that started it, and I like to believe that it exists, and there is a sense of "right" and "wrong" in the world, even if it may not be possible for me to know exactly what it is nor how to prove it. I am not too highly confident in it.

So going on sheer belief: I'm arguably some form of theist, but it's not some kind of hill I'd die on or anything, I'm not all that confident, and I'd admit the evidence is stacked against the idea of it, but I don't think it's fair to say unlikely is the same thing as a steadfast no.

Sorry. I usually say “no God or gods”. At any rate, in this case, I did indeed mean “any” God, no matter how defined, capital or small “g”.
Here is the problem: there is not a single god or God that has ever been proposed by any human that has been shown to be anything other than a figment of imagination. My main objection is that people do indeed get to propose a God or god and then, without providing actuality-based evidence to back it up, demand that others must knock it down based on their saying it alone. Until such time as someone can provide said evidence for their particular God or god, I see no reason to acknowledge it as an actuality.

 

[rahl]

If we are to go die-hard by this logic, then I'd say some kind of being beyond the confines of this universe could exist that started it, and I like to believe that it exists, and there is a sense of "right" and "wrong" in the world, even if it may not be possible for me to know exactly what it is nor how to prove it. I am not too highly confident in it.

Then you aren’t agnostic. There is no such thing as agnostic.

So going on sheer belief: I'm arguably some form of theist, but it's not some kind of hill I'd die on or anything, I'm not all that confident, and I'd admit the evidence is stacked against the idea of it, but I don't think it's fair to say unlikely is the same thing as a steadfast no.

Ok

 

[Aries]

My feeling is that the term "agnostic" essentially has no meaning and, stripped of its semantic sophistry, is intellectually dishonest as it simply states, "I don't know." Well, if we're looking for dispositive proof of the existence or lack of existence of god(s), then there is none to be found, however, we don't live in a universe where patently absurd propositions are accorded possible viability until they are disproven (viz. Are there teams of invisible unicorns pulling chariots around the moons of Jupiter; perhaps Santa Claus travels from Alpha Centuri to earth a few times a year, etc.). No, we routinely dismiss such absurdities because they lack the slightest shred of evidence and are, thus, understandably regarded as absurd.
Regarding belief in god(s) using the term agnostic (i.e. "I'm not sure") places the pope and I in the same category. Neither of us can be sure but my position simply posits that it seems utterly fanciful and absurd in the absence of even the slightest evidence to think that there is any such thing(s). And for those who might challenge that by suggesting that I have no proof of the non-existance of any god, I would suggest that they brush up on simple logic which would inform them that it's impossible (and dishonest) to ask anyone to disprove a null hypothesis. Nope, the entire burden of proof here lies with those who believe to show that there is some basis for their belief. Absent that, the default position has to be that absurd claims lacking in the slightest shred of evidence are, definitionally false until proven otherwise.
The only real question then is whether you 'believe' there is a god(s), in which case you are a theist or believer or whether you don't, in which case you're an atheist. The term 'agnostic' is just some weird combination of intellectual laziness and cowardice.

Not necessarily.