On Agnosticism

AtheistWorld.Com

Unregistered
A
This thread is not about the definition of agnosticism. This thread is to debate the irrational position of an agnostic.

Agnosticism should be defined by the idea that the existence of GOD is unknowable.
Click to expand...

Agnostics are the "I don't know"ers of the skeptical world.

I once put forth an argument that agnostics are simply weak people for whom logic is not of concern.

In other words they claim that god is unknowable or that the existence of god is unknowable.

My position is simple. The concept of god is simply a logical impossibility, pure and simple. Therefore, agnostics should study the principles of logic and then try to apply the scientific method and logic to any definition of god.

The conclusion will be that the agnostic will have graduated to the atheist grade.

To say that god is unknowable begs the question "what god?" and "what is god?" One first needs to explain these questions before one can claim that god is unknowable or that weather god does or does not exist is unknowable.


Max
 
We've beaten this one to death. I think you will find that most of us hold the position that agnosticism is a position of knowledge whereas theism/atheism is a position of belief.

"I don't know if god exists (agnostic), but since I don't have any reliable evidence that he does, I don't believe in him (atheist)."

"I can't prove he exists (agnostic), but I marvel at the beauty of the world and feel that god must exist (theist)."
 
I think you will find that most of us hold the position that agnosticism is a position of knowledge whereas theism/atheism is a position of belief.
Click to expand...

O'contrare, agnosticism is a postion of lack of knowledge.

"I don't know if god exists (agnostic), but since I don't have any reliable evidence that he does, I don't believe in him (atheist)."
Click to expand...
God? What god? What is god? Where is the postion of knowledge?:rolleyes:

Max
 
This thread is to debate the irrational position of an agnostic.
Click to expand...

I think it is completely rational to be agnostic. I think what they are saying is, I do not have the proper knowledge to know if there is a god or not, so I will not say one way or another. They are, by being agnostic, acknowleding their lack of knowledge on the subject. This is actually quite rational.
 
I think it is completely rational to be agnostic.
Click to expand...
So you say...:rolleyes:

I think what they are saying is, I do not have the proper knowledge to know if there is a god or not, so I will not say one way or another.
Click to expand...

WHAT GOD? WHAT IS GOD? WHAT IS a GOD?

Max
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:
WHAT GOD? WHAT IS GOD? WHAT IS a GOD?
Click to expand...
Crikey, what are you, a broken record?

The agnostic position is that those very questions you ask cannot be answered until further evidence one way or the other is obtained.

I spent a long time at the agnostic level, because I was rather insistent that god was too long-standing of a concept to write off, but too unclear to define and acknowledge.

So, I spent some time looking at all the various definitions of god(s) in various belief systems, and whether any of those were plausible. What I came up with is that there are so many ways people define god, that one true god probably doesn't exist. If there is such a god, it is not the type that regularly controls the actions in his universe. If there is one, it's so laissez-faire that discussing his existence is futile, because he never does anything. It is certainly not the nanny as defined in Christianity.
 
Well, the same can be said about the IPU.

Do agnostics hold the same position about the IPUs?

Max
 
What's an IPU and where can I buy one..... They sound rather cute........

as far as i can see, an agnostic looks at the evidence and says "i'd like to see more evidence, until then, my default is that some kind of 'god of the gaps' is possible....."
An atheist looks at the evidence and says "this is enough...I consider the case proved"
I am an atheist, because i consider that there is enough eveidence in, to support my position....... However, I accept that the agnostic has a viable point of view.
P
 
AtheistWorld.Com said:
Well, the same can be said about the IPU.

Do agnostics hold the same position about the IPUs?
Click to expand...
I repeat:

I wrote:
I spent a long time at the agnostic level, because I was rather insistent that god was too long-standing of a concept to write off, but too unclear to define and acknowledge.
Click to expand...
The belief in unicorns has not drastically affected societies over thousands of years, nor has any society put serious thought into the attributes and behaviors of unicorns.

One can study theology, there is no such thing as unicorn-ology. You can't make the comparison, and it's a weak argument. "How can you prove I don't have an invisible unicorn under my bed?" is just stoopid, I've never liked the comparison and I still don't think it's relevant. "But there's just as much evidence for unicorns as there is for god" is wrong. There is no holy book about unicorns, much less several holy books. People don't worship unicorns. Governments have not been established in the name of unicorns. Wars have not been fought for unicorns.

There's a lot more to theism than there is to the belief in unicorns. So, as I've said multiple times, you can't write off theism the same way you write off unicorns. Only after taking time to study different belief systems and see the inconsistencies and only after examining evidence can one logcially say they lack a belief in god(s).
 
an IPU is an Invisible Pink Unicorn and it is the creator of all existence and it is the supreme god of all reality.

It is a fictitious character invented by us atheists to compete with the xtian god in a humorous sense...

So are agnostics agnostic about the IPUs as well? :D

Now do you see how irrational the agnostic position is?

Agnostic: "I don't know"
Atheist: What don't you know?
Agnostic: If god exists or not.
Atheist: What god? which type?
Agnostic: Any
Atheist: Have you considered wheather it is logically possible for a god of any type to exist?
Agnostic: huh?

To put it simple, the supernatural is a logical impossibility and any god put forth by man thus far is bathed in circular reasoning.

One cannot know if the unknown does or does not exist.
 
Yes and it is irrelevant and meaningless when we are speaking of defined gods...

IF you want to speak of undefined gods than we would be practicing an excercise in futility.

That is why I asked, What god? what IS a god? etc.


ARRRRGHHHH FIXING TYPOS...
 
I have an idol in my house. I worship it, I pray to it, I sacrifice to it.

I can touch it, I can see it, taste it, smell it, and hear it if I knock on it.

I can show it to you and you can do the same.

It answers my prayers sometimes.

I call it god. I'm not going to tell you what my idol looks like, but everything I've said about it is true.

Therefore god exists. Can you possibly deny that god exists?

You can with good reason take an agnostic position about my idol, you can accept that he exists, or you can deny that he exists. The first two choices are quite reasonable, but the third is not.

So, theism and agnosticism are valid positions with regard to my idol, but atheism does not appear to be.
 
What about the "hands off" God who kicked things off and then stood back to just let things happen as they may?
 
Kullervo, we are not interested in childish reasonings... on this thread. We are speaking of the accepted forms of "gods" relevant to the nature of existance creation, evolution etc. etc.
 
What about the "hands off" God who kicked things off and then stood back to just let things happen as they may?
Click to expand...

Define this god? By what logical conclusion do deists conclude that such a beast did in fact do as they claim? and what is the nature of this god's character and person and/or characteristics?

We first need to know WHAT we are talking about not merely a label.
 
God, Gods the subject is in totality irrelevant. Meaningless.

If there is or there is not is what is an exercise in futility.

Caring what or if others believe as to a God or Gods or people not sure or people who do not believe is also an exercise in futility as much as caring about who someone/ adults may love or sleep with.


Just what I believe.
 
Pahansiri
obviously this thread is not for you.

Please stay out if you have nothing relevant to contribute?

Max
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom