Agnostics are Believers

[watsup]

A typical agnostic will claim that “there is the possibility of a God/gods/ID, but then add a qualifier such as “but the probability is extremely low” to show their lack of confidence in the actuality of such an entity. It reminds me of the old saying “you can’t be just a little bit pregnant”. In this case, once you acknowledge the “possibility”, no matter how slight, of a God/gods/ID, then you have assumed the mantle of “believer” every bit as much as a Tosca or a Daisy or the rest of them in here and elsewhere.
I ask the question: why should I believe in the possibility of such an outrageous concept as a God/gods/ID? Answer: as an atheist, I reject that. In addition to other reasons, almost every religionist/theist will eventually claim that because the universe and everything in it is just too complex to have come Into being on its own, then there “MUST” be a God as an explanation/“cause”. I have seen many agnostics such as DrewPaul at the present time also user that line of “reasoning”. That is a statement that has holes big enough to drive the proverbial Mack truck through, namely that said God/ID would have to be almost infinitely more complex than the universe to be able to just “create” such an almost infinitely complex entity in the first place. It boggles the mind think that “believers” such as religionists/theists and believers can actually buy into such a concept.

 

[Exquisitor]

A typical agnostic will claim that “there is the possibility of a God/gods/ID, but then add a qualifier such as “but the probability is extremely low” to show their lack of confidence in the actuality of such an entity. It reminds me of the old saying “you can’t be just a little bit pregnant”. In this case, once you acknowledge the “possibility”, no matter how slight, of a God/gods/ID, then you have assumed the mantle of “believer” every bit as much as a Tosca or a Daisy or the rest of them in here and elsewhere.
I ask the question: why should I believe in the possibility of such an outrageous concept as a God/gods/ID? Answer: as an atheist, I reject that. In addition to other reasons, almost every religionist/theist will eventually claim that because the universe and everything in it is just too complex to have come Into being on its own, then there “MUST” be a God as an explanation/“cause”. I have seen many agnostics such as DrewPaul at the present time also user that line of “reasoning”. That is a statement that has holes big enough to drive the proverbial Mack truck through, namely that said God/ID would have to be almost infinitely more complex than the universe to be able to just “create” such an almost infinitely complex entity in the first place. It boggles the mind think that “believers” such as religionists/theists and believers can actually buy into such a concept.

"Ye believe because you have seen, blessed are those believe without seeing."

"And we beheld his Glory, that of the only begotten Son of God."

We have video, to remember what we have seen.

But to conclude God, just because something has extraordinary power is a bit hasty.

 

[OrphanSlug]

A typical agnostic will claim that “there is the possibility of a God/gods/ID, but then add a qualifier such as “but the probability is extremely low” to show their lack of confidence in the actuality of such an entity. It reminds me of the old saying “you can’t be just a little bit pregnant”. In this case, once you acknowledge the “possibility”, no matter how slight, of a God/gods/ID, then you have assumed the mantle of “believer” every bit as much as a Tosca or a Daisy or the rest of them in here and elsewhere.
I ask the question: why should I believe in the possibility of such an outrageous concept as a God/gods/ID? Answer: as an atheist, I reject that. In addition to other reasons, almost every religionist/theist will eventually claim that because the universe and everything in it is just too complex to have come Into being on its own, then there “MUST” be a God as an explanation/“cause”. I have seen many agnostics such as DrewPaul at the present time also user that line of “reasoning”. That is a statement that has holes big enough to drive the proverbial Mack truck through, namely that said God/ID would have to be almost infinitely more complex than the universe to be able to just “create” such an almost infinitely complex entity in the first place. It boggles the mind think that “believers” such as religionists/theists and believers can actually buy into such a concept.

Creating a single standard for agnosticism is as asinine as creating a single standard for atheism or theism.

There are plenty of theists who believe there is a God or Gods but is not all that interested in organized religion nor even really making theism a focal point of their ideology, and there are the strongest of theists that profess they know what is best for everyone via theocratic reasoning. The latter is usually a problem, the former rarely is. There are plenty of agnostics who say there is no God or Gods with the suggestion there is no way for any number of reasons, then there are the explicit militant atheists that look for the fight wanting to tell everyone they are wrong and there is no God or Gods. Like many in this area of the forums.

What you tried to describe is actually weak theism, the idea that there is a possibility of God or Gods but one does not have a personal belief in a God or Gods. Acknowledgement of possibility makes one theist even if in the weakest of ways.

Agnosticism on the other hand is different but also has a weak and strong category, the former saying they (as in singular) does not know if there is a God or Gods and the latter saying no one can ever possibly know. It is not about leaving a door open or closed, but making a statement that neither theism or atheism can prove their case.

If it helps you, I have over the last several years arrived at atheism. I am just not in the militant category (yet.) But going after agnostics is rather meaningless to the debate we normally take up with theists, and that theist category includes the group you incorrectly think are agnostics.

Go after theists and ask them to present there case, there are plenty of them across a plethora of religions and splinters of.

 

[tosca1]

A typical agnostic will claim that “there is the possibility of a God/gods/ID, but then add a qualifier such as “but the probability is extremely low” to show their lack of confidence in the actuality of such an entity. It reminds me of the old saying “you can’t be just a little bit pregnant”. In this case, once you acknowledge the “possibility”, no matter how slight, of a God/gods/ID, then you have assumed the mantle of “believer” every bit as much as a Tosca or a Daisy or the rest of them in here and elsewhere.
I ask the question: why should I believe in the possibility of such an outrageous concept as a God/gods/ID? Answer: as an atheist, I reject that. In addition to other reasons, almost every religionist/theist will eventually claim that because the universe and everything in it is just too complex to have come Into being on its own, then there “MUST” be a God as an explanation/“cause”. I have seen many agnostics such as DrewPaul at the present time also user that line of “reasoning”. That is a statement that has holes big enough to drive the proverbial Mack truck through, namely that said God/ID would have to be almost infinitely more complex than the universe to be able to just “create” such an almost infinitely complex entity in the first place. It boggles the mind think that “believers” such as religionists/theists and believers can actually buy into such a concept.

I don't think it's an appropriate comparison between pregnancy and belief.

A man can say he's agnostic about GOD, but that he leans more (or less) to the possibility.
Maybe, in time and with more contemplation - he'll end up making the choice.

Whereas, a pregnant woman is a pregnant woman! There is no question of possibility (if it's been medically deemed that she is pregnant).
And, she can't even say time is on her side!

 

[Argent]

Meh, I don't have an issue with anyone who is on the fence or who leaves the door open to all possibilities regardless of how absurd those possibilities seem. Agnostics haven't, as far as I've seen, engaged in harmful practices and government interference as Christians have. I find no use in pitting agnostics and atheists against each other or competing to determine who is more pure in their disbelief. Imo, that uncomfortably resembles the competition among religions to establish which is the one true everything.

Science fiction and horror, my favorite genres, wouldn't exist were it not for imagination and the imaginary. Science fiction authors with science backgrounds have written about things seemingly impossible that have since been discovered or have come true. Our species is akin to a zygote compared to the maturity of the universe and our knowledge of such is equally young and evolving. My world would be less colorful and far less interesting if I couldn't indulge in far out thinking about the possibility of ghosts and aliens (which a primitive species may call a god) for example.

 

[Dragonfly]

I thought agnostic was simply stating:

We can’t prove one way or the other, so I make no claim to either.

 

[watsup]

I thought agnostic was simply stating:

We can’t prove one way or the other, so I make no claim to either.

My primary complaint regarding agnostics is that they "put on airs" by heavily inferring or even outright stating that they are more intellectually pure than atheists because of the "don't know" or "can't know" statements that they make regarding a God/gods ID. Those are just words, and I, at least, prefer evidence (lack of) as the basis for my atheist outlook, like the scientists do.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Go after theists and ask them to present there case, there are plenty of them across a plethora of religions and splinters of.

There... their... I have got to find a way to get more sleep.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I thought agnostic was simply stating:

We can’t prove one way or the other, so I make no claim to either.

Pretty much, it is a purist stance from a position of logic, be it individual level as weak agnostic or making a global statement as to strong agnostic, on the argument of proof. A philosophical take on this is the natural position of being skeptic of both offerings from atheism and theism on the debate about a concept neither can honestly prove.

But the debate makes me atheist.

There is no proof of God or Gods so I have no reason to consider the possibility and that disqualifies me from agnostic or theist (weak or strong does not matter.) Just as I have no reason to believe sasquatch is running around in the hills of North America somewhere, the lack of evidence and proof ends that debate.

The attempt at legitimacy through numbers of believers or the numbers of various faiths for God or Gods becomes immaterial.

 

[holbritter]

I thought agnostic was simply stating:

We can’t prove one way or the other, so I make no claim to either.

That’s my thought as well.

 

[btthegreat]

A typical agnostic will claim that “there is the possibility of a God/gods/ID, but then add a qualifier such as “but the probability is extremely low” to show their lack of confidence in the actuality of such an entity. It reminds me of the old saying “you can’t be just a little bit pregnant”. In this case, once you acknowledge the “possibility”, no matter how slight, of a God/gods/ID, then you have assumed the mantle of “believer” every bit as much as a Tosca or a Daisy or the rest of them in here and elsewhere.
I ask the question: why should I believe in the possibility of such an outrageous concept as a God/gods/ID? Answer: as an atheist, I reject that. In addition to other reasons, almost every religionist/theist will eventually claim that because the universe and everything in it is just too complex to have come Into being on its own, then there “MUST” be a God as an explanation/“cause”. I have seen many agnostics such as DrewPaul at the present time also user that line of “reasoning”. That is a statement that has holes big enough to drive the proverbial Mack truck through, namely that said God/ID would have to be almost infinitely more complex than the universe to be able to just “create” such an almost infinitely complex entity in the first place. It boggles the mind think that “believers” such as religionists/theists and believers can actually buy into such a concept.

Bullshit. You do not get to set some artificial and arbitrary standard on me. I know when I believe in something and I know when I do not. If I recognise that it is possible for God to exist. It means I believe it is possible for God to exist. It does not mean I believe God exists. It does not mean I believe God likely exists. I do not believe in God, andI have not in a very long time. I am an agnostic atheist. What I believe and what I know are very different. It feels very different to believe in the possibility for something may exist, and to believe that something exists.

 

[Individual]

I thought agnostic was simply stating:

We can’t prove one way or the other, so I make no claim to either.

I was born an atheist, and have remained one throughout my adult life. I have found no purposeful reason for a belief in God(s) or anything supernatural, but as I am unable to prove beyond doubt to believers, I simply allow them an infinitely improbable possibility, leaving the door open to them to prove me wrong, which none have ever found any indisputable evidence capable of doing so.
Beliefs can ONLY be founded on beliefs, circular reasoning. The extent to which believers go trying to fit their God into discoveries that explain things without need of a God only strengthen my atheism.
An agnostic, IMO, is someone who possesses at least a minute possibility in the existence of God(s). I have none.

 

[Individual]

Bullshit. You do not get to set some artificial and arbitrary standard on me. I know when I believe in something and I know when I do not. If I recognise that it is possible for God to exist. It means I believe it is possible for God to exist. It does not mean I believe God exists. It does not mean I believe God likely exists. I do not believe in God, andI have not in a very long time. I am an agnostic atheist. What I believe and what I know are very different. It feels very different to believe in the possibility for something may exist, and to believe that something exists.

I don't believe in the possibility, primarily because I can easily see how and why early humans found reason to create Gods and make use of them, but I'm open to being proven wrong.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Agnostics are the only people doing it right.

God by definition is an un-testable proposition. If you argue that there is a god or is not a god, you are stating opinion, not science.

 

[Mithrae]

My primary complaint regarding agnostics is that they "put on airs" by heavily inferring or even outright stating that they are more intellectually pure than atheists because of the "don't know" or "can't know" statements that they make regarding a God/gods ID. Those are just words, and I, at least, prefer evidence (lack of) as the basis for my atheist outlook, like the scientists do.

So in summary, your primary complaint regarding agnostics is that they 'put on airs' by heavily inferring or even outright stating that they are more intellectually pure than atheists when really it's the atheists like you who are the most scientific and intellectually pure

Fact is that most people won't maintain a particular position or approach if they acknowledge that another position or approach is better, so maintaining any position or approach automatically implies a belief in its superiority (or occasionally and at the least equality) over others.

 

[Mithrae]

A typical agnostic will claim that “there is the possibility of a God/gods/ID, but then add a qualifier such as “but the probability is extremely low” to show their lack of confidence in the actuality of such an entity. It reminds me of the old saying “you can’t be just a little bit pregnant”. In this case, once you acknowledge the “possibility”, no matter how slight, of a God/gods/ID, then you have assumed the mantle of “believer” every bit as much as a Tosca or a Daisy or the rest of them in here and elsewhere.
I ask the question: why should I believe in the possibility of such an outrageous concept as a God/gods/ID? Answer: as an atheist, I reject that.

I'm absolutely certain of my own existence, 100.00%, but it's pretty much the only thing I can be certain about. Conversationally I might also say that I'm 'certain' that the Earth is a spheroid shape, but it's surely possible that there's a vast international conspiracy to fool everyone into believing in a round earth for unknown reasons; heck, it's quite possible that I'm in some kind of matrix-style setup inside the core of a gas giant orbiting a white dwarf star, or indeed that the world outside this matrix doesn't resemble our view of astrophysics at all! So I'd put my confidence in a round earth and our general view of reality at something like 99.999999999% confidence, because of those possibilities of it being wrong.

If you're rejecting even the possibility no matter how slight that a god exists, that is an assertion of 100.00% certainty that there is no god. Do you have the evidence to back up that assertion?

You don't of course, we all know that. So what's the point of your absurd rhetoric above?


##########
##########

What you tried to describe is actually weak theism, the idea that there is a possibility of God or Gods but one does not have a personal belief in a God or Gods. Acknowledgement of possibility makes one theist even if in the weakest of ways.

Theism is "belief in the existence of a god or gods." Why are you trying to redefine the word?

Agnosticism on the other hand is different but also has a weak and strong category, the former saying they (as in singular) does not know if there is a God or Gods and the latter saying no one can ever possibly know. It is not about leaving a door open or closed, but making a statement that neither theism or atheism can prove their case.

"I don't know" can be rephrased as "could be true or could be not-true"; another word for that is 'possibly.' But you've just tried to say that acknowledging the mere possibility of gods' existence makes one a theist.

If it helps you, I have over the last several years arrived at atheism. I am just not in the militant category (yet.) But going after agnostics is rather meaningless to the debate we normally take up with theists, and that theist category includes the group you incorrectly think are agnostics.

Go after theists and ask them to present there case, there are plenty of them across a plethora of religions and splinters of.

You're essentially saying "Agnostics are theists, so go after the theists not the agnostics."

 

[OrphanSlug]

Theism is "belief in the existence of a god or gods." Why are you trying to redefine the word?

Clearly you ignored the first part of that post, I did not redefine anything.

"I don't know" can be rephrased as "could be true or could be not-true"; another word for that is 'possibly.' But you've just tried to say that acknowledging the mere possibility of gods' existence makes one a theist.

Incorrect, agnosticism is not phrased as "I do not know" but rather it cannot be known.

You're essentially saying "Agnostics are theists, so go after the theists not the agnostics."

Not at all, not even close. Get better.

 

[Mithrae]

Agnosticism on the other hand is different but also has a weak and strong category, the former saying they (as in singular) does not know if there is a God....

Incorrect, agnosticism is not phrased as "I do not know" but rather it cannot be known.

When you're directly contradicting yourself in an attempt to dig yourself out of your hole it's a reasonable indicator that you've probably gone wrong somewhere along the line...

 

[OrphanSlug]

When you're directly contradicting yourself in an attempt to dig yourself out of your hole it's a reasonable indicator that you've probably gone wrong somewhere along the line...

Everything I said is consistent, saying a person cannot know (weak) and saying no one can ever know (strong) does not open the door to the possibility. It is saying cannot be known. Neither is synonymous with "could be true or could be not-true" or "possibly."

But keep pretending you are owning us all here.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I thought agnostic was simply stating:

We can’t prove one way or the other, so I make no claim to either.

Agnosticism is the argument that you are ignorant and cannot say one-way or another what is going on. But the majority claim that gods could be possible because they are ignorant. It cannot be a rational argument that you know nothing and cannot say shit because of your own ignorance your laziness.

 

[iguanaman]

I don't believe in the possibility, primarily because I can easily see how and why early humans found reason to create Gods and make use of them, but I'm open to being proven wrong.

Yes the concept of God is obviously a human construct meant to explain things that were unexplainable. The more we explain the less the need for a God. That is evidenced by the weakening of religion in developed nations. We have come a long way from the sheepherders.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Agnostics are the only people doing it right.

God by definition is an un-testable proposition. If you argue that there is a god or is not a god, you are stating opinion, not science.

One potential problem with that thinking is it is only untestable by the current definition of God or Gods. Because the concept is fixed even if varies from polytheism to monotheism, historical up through today, you would be correct in saying arguing for or against the so called God hypothesis makes it not a hypothesis but rather which belief is applied.

However, on a philosophical level atheism does not have the burden of disproving someone else's system of belief. Theism on the other hand has the burden of proof, which it can never do by any system of process. And the core reason is systems of belief (religions) and systems of process (science) are adversarial, never complementary. This is despite the best efforts by theists to try to use various cherry-picked understandings from science to their argument advantage. Ultimately it is still a failure.

We are still left with the reality that theists cannot ever prove their case, therefor why does atheism have to do so for them with disproving God or Gods?

I still consider agnosticism to just be skepticism of it all, resigning themselves to cannot be known.

 

[Mithrae]

Everything I said is consistent, saying a person cannot know (weak) ...

That's not what you said initially, you said

Agnosticism on the other hand is different but also has a weak and strong category, the former saying they (as in singular) does not know if there is a God or Gods...

"Does not know" and "cannot know" are two distinct things. You yourself have explicitly acknowledged that they are two distinct things, because after I responded to your initial "do not know" comment, you backtracked and said

Incorrect, agnosticism is not phrased as "I do not know" but rather it cannot be known.

The obvious sticking point for you is that - as I explained - "don't know" can be rephrased as "might be true or might be not-true," and another word for that is 'possibly,' while you and @watsup are trying to insist that simply acknowledging the possibility of gods' existence somehow makes one a theist (rather than believing in gods' existence, as mere dictionaries and common usage would have it).

 

[btthegreat]

I don't believe in the possibility, primarily because I can easily see how and why early humans found reason to create Gods and make use of them, but I'm open to being proven wrong.

I absolutely agree that the creation of gods/ religion provided a competitive advantage to groups of humans that could organize collective behavior around gods. We had every reason to invent gods. But that does not actually preclude the existance of God independent of our inventing them. They are not mutually exclusive

 

[watsup]

I absolutely agree that the creation of gods/ religion provided a competitive advantage to groups of humans that could organize collective behavior around gods. We had every reason to invent gods. But that does not actually preclude the existance of God independent of our inventing them. They are not mutually exclusive

What objective, relight-based evidence is there that there is an actual God/gods/ID?