NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is the arguement on religion always firmly divided on the "specific belief"/"athiest" line?

Is it because us agnostics aren't a good target for either side?

Why is the arguement on religion always firmly divided on the "specific belief"/"athiest" line?

Is it because us agnostics aren't a good target for either side?
Probably ... though to be fair when it comes down to an arguement I am very logical which leads me to take an athiest side of the specific arguement (not always) so most just think I am athiest
What I believe and what I have a tendancy to argue do not exactly line up especialy when the arguement is along the belief/disbelief line ... I have a natural tendancy to argue the disbelief (a lot of it has to do with the christian ... if you are not with us you are against us (and unsaved) perspecitve)

Why do you need it?

Its hard to argue with someone who admits they don't know. What are we going to say, "You know, you're just not telling us!"

Its because agnoticism is a very rational belief. And Rational and competant thought has no place in the babbling insanity that is NS. So people just tend to ignore it.

Imo, If i ask most of my friends, they don't know what an Agnostic is. They'll just bunch you guys with Atheist, or call you guys 'free thinkers'.

Why do you need it?

Its hard to argue with someone who admits they don't know. What are we going to say, "You know, you're just not telling us!"
There's more to agnosticism than just not knowing; I think many agnostics believe it doesn't matter whether there's a deity or not. I, at least, think that even if we somehow decided that a deity/creator/supernatural being existed (i.e. by taking Pascal's wager), there's absolutely no logical way for us to conclude anything about the being, because it lies completely outside the realm of our experience.
Most religions tend to assume that the being is humanlike in some way, but the only reason we have to think that is that in the real world, every conscious entity we've communicated with and deemed capable of creating great things was human. Similarly, we think that the being has a moral code similar to ours, and that it punishes or rewards us according to this code in the afterlife. These are all very human-like ideas; there are many humans who, if they magically became supernatural, would behave similarly. But all of this inductive reasoning becomes unfounded as we step outside of the realm of experience. I don't see why the being might not have exactly the opposite set of morals, or why there might not be 17 of it, or why we might not all be sent in our afterlives to a little purple room where we chew on pine needles and occasionally huge ants step on us.
Since we have no way of concluding anything about the supernatural being, there is no reason to believe in it, due to Occam's razor. It still might exist, but even if it does, that doesn't tell us anything; in "the average case" (this is very very vague), it has no effect on us whatsoever.
I apologize if any of the above beliefs, which are mine, cannot be ascribed to mainstream agnosticism.

Why do you need it?

Its hard to argue with someone who admits they don't know. What are we going to say, "You know, you're just not telling us!"
The correct statement is it's hard to argue against someone who admits they don't have faith. Not that they don't know. No one knows, unless they're dead.

The correct statement is it's hard to argue against someone who admits they don't have faith. Not that they don't know. No one knows, unless they're dead.
No one knows, even if they are dead, but they might [claim to] have logical reason to believe something, in which case you could argue against them. A person who admits that they just have faith is difficult to argue against.

Out of the three, the position of the agnostic is the only one that is entirely rational.

Both theism and atheism at some point require the proponent to make a leap of faith. Since the existence of a Supreme Being can neither be proven nor disproved, both the atheist and the theist must come to rely on some combination of reason and non-reasoned belief.

The agnostic, who can only speak in degrees of likelihood, is the only one of the three who can speak without at some point needing to fall back on a belief rather than an rational assertion.

Its pretty hard to argue with that.

Also, as has been noted, atheists and theists alike tend to lump agnostics into another group.

"Its because agnoticism is a very rational belief"


je je je that´s fun

agnoticism is rational only from agnoticism point of view



faith is different that know

If I have Faith i´m believer, If i haven´t i´m atheism

If i don´t know .........

????????????


No body know if god exist, people believe or not.

How can you say you don´t know if you believe ?


You can say that you don´t know if exist or not, but you can´t say you don´t know what you think



It´s comodity say I don´t know what i think !!!!!!!!

"Its because agnoticism is a very rational belief"
je je je that´s fun

agnoticism is rational only from agnoticism point of view

No, agnosticism is the only option of the three that does not require you to make a decision about the existence or non-existence of the transcendant.

The transcendant is, by definition, non-rational.

Agnostics will not definitively pronounce on this, theists and atheists will. So, again, only agnoticism is entirely rational.

That is, unless someone has a proof for the existence or non-existsnce of God they would like to share with the rest of us...

Agnostics are cool.

Atheists are idiots. An atheist's whole religion can be killed by word: "Why".

For example: Why do opposites attract?

Why is the arguement on religion always firmly divided on the "specific belief"/"athiest" line?

Is it because us agnostics aren't a good target for either side?
It's because agnostics don't take any specific stand. I wonder how many agnostics are consistent in their position. How many agnostics are agnostic about dragons, leprechauns, faeries, the Loch Ness monster, etc.?

Why do you need it?

Its hard to argue with someone who admits they don't know. What are we going to say, "You know, you're just not telling us!"

THAT'S IT! It's a conspiracy!

...actually, part of it I believe has to do with the breadth of the term. Depending on how connotative a definition of agnosticism you use, some atheists are agnostics and a heck of a lot of Christians (including myself) are too. At least one interpretation of agnosticism (correct or not) is that agnostics are those who say the existence of a deity cannot be proven or disproven.

In an argument over whether a deity exists or not, how the heck do you dispute with someone who says they believe one way or the other but don't believe it can be proved? Unless you have proof, of course...and then you find the obstacle that no proof of the nonexistence of God will ever sway most Christian agnostics, and when the atheist agnostics and the Supreme Being are introduced there won't be much point in arguing anymore.

Agnostics are cool.

Atheists are idiots. An atheist's whole religion can be killed by word: "Why".

For example: Why do opposites attract?
I disagree.
1 Atheism isn't a religion.

2 "Why" has no bearing on an atheist's position on the existance of god(s).

3 Opposites don't always attract, and even if they did what does that have to do with atheism?

No, agnosticism is the only option of the three that does not require you to make a decision about the existence or non-existence of the transcendant.

The transcendant is, by definition, non-rational.

Agnostics will not definitively pronounce on this, theists and atheists will. So, again, only agnoticism is entirely rational.

That is, unless someone has a proof for the existence or non-existsnce of God they would like to share with the rest of us...
Atheism is the default position. Nobody is born beleiving in a god. Some ammount of evidence, or some strong logical argument is needed to move from this position. Atheism is therefore the reasonable choice provided that no evidence for the existance of god is provided. Agnosticicm is a way to weasle out of examining the issue.

No, agnosticism is the only option of the three that does not require you to make a decision about the existence or non-existence of the transcendant.
Oh, btw, something that has bugged me for some time: what does it even mean for something to exist? In the tangible, real world we get a sense of it, although I'm having trouble formulating a criterion by which to decide. But outside that world, what does it mean? This isn't only interesting from the viewpoint of whether <deity> exists; there are many mathematical objects which should exist, and given a rather intuitive axiom do exist, but which can't be computed or "used" even in theory.

"No, agnosticism is the only option of the three that does not require you to make a decision about the existence or non-existence of the transcendant."


And what is it ?????
Rationality or cowardry to decide your own opinion ?


Agnosticism is rationality or incapacity to take a personal decision ???


always easy say : I don´t know !




"Agnostics are cool.

Atheists are idiots. An atheist's whole religion can be killed by word: "Why".

For example: Why do opposites attract? "


First :

idiots .... come on be educated. I don´t insult you


Second :

Atheism haven´t religion


Third :

Why do opposites attract?

Funny question, Who say that ??

Oposite attract is sometimes true ( magnetism ) and others no

But is a phrase that didn´t mean nothing


God is faith, nothing with rationality

"2 "Why" has no bearing on an atheist's position on the existance of god(s).

3 Opposites don't always attract, and even if they did what does that have to do with atheism?"

You dont get it, I want you to answer that question. Then you will see where I am going.

"2 "Why" has no bearing on an atheist's position on the existance of god(s).

3 Opposites don't always attract, and even if they did what does that have to do with atheism?"

You dont get it, I want you to answer that question. Then you will see where I am going.
Answer the question "why do opposites attract?"? Ok, some people theorize that we've evolved to find opposites attractive because it encourages us to mix our genetic material with someone who has different genetic material and produce offspring less likely to carry genetic defects due to inbreeding. Still, I don't think opposites attract all that much.

Why is the arguement on religion always firmly divided on the "specific belief"/"athiest" line?

Is it because us agnostics aren't a good target for either side?

Because most people know what a specific religion is, and THINK they know what Atheism means.

Most people are, unfortunatley, wrong about that.

And, even fewer know what Agnosticism is.

Thus - the terms Atheist, and Agnostic are confused, used in the wrong places, or used interchangably.

To be honest, the Implicit Atheist (also called Soft or Weak Atheist) is very close to the Agnostic perspective... or vice versa.

To be honest, the Implicit Atheist (also called Soft or Weak Atheist) is very close to the Agnostic perspective... or vice versa.
True, but there is one major difference. The atheist is as consistent in his beleif about god as he is in his beleif about unicorns. The agnostic usually is not.

One question for agnostics


If I say that djinn exist or that Zeus or Odin exist. If I say elf exist but that can´t be seeing

Many people could say i´m a stupid, others could believe me

BUT people that say agnosticism is the rational way could say I don´t know and take no position for me or again me


Is it rational ????


Atheism people don´t believe in god in the same way that we can say we don´t believe in elf or gnomes ( perhaps some believe )

Are we less rational because we don´t believe in gnomes ?
And there are the same proves that god exist than gnomes exist

It's because agnostics don't take any specific stand. I wonder how many agnostics are consistent in their position. How many agnostics are agnostic about dragons, leprechauns, faeries, the Loch Ness monster, etc.?
Unline a diety thoes things you listed if they are real exist within the scope of the universe and phisical laws ... they can be tested for

Third :

Why do opposites attract?

Funny question, You don´t know science. Do you ?


----- gravity ( or more specific if you want curvature of the space-time )

Of course you can ask why space time is curved And i can answer, but you can ask why again and again and ....


And you will ask why and i will say I don´t know. But it doesn´t mean nothing about god.

But it means that there is some force that exists that we cannot comprehend and something that just makes the things the way they are. This, essentially, can be called God. And thats how I disprove Atheism.

True, but there is one major difference. The atheist is as consistent in his beleif about god as he is in his beleif about unicorns. The agnostic usually is not.

Not sure I agree.

I am an Implicit Atheist. I do not believe in any gods... I hear the stories, but I don't 'buy it'.... although, maybe, one day I might - if I heard a story that convinced me.

An Agnostic (by definition) must 'not know'... the Agnostic line is that it is impossible to know either way... so - Agnostics don't 'buy it'... and don't think they ever COULD buy it, because they don't think it is possible to KNOW.

The Explicit Atheist, on the other hand, believes there is NO 'god' - which is a belief as consistent as that of any 'religion'. I prefer to refer to Explicit Atheists as 'Antitheists'.

One question for agnostics


If I say that djinn exist or that Zeus or Odin exist. If I say elf exist but that can´t be seeing

Many people could say i´m a stupid, others could believe me

BUT people that say agnosticism is the rational way could say I don´t know and take no position for me or again me


Is it rational ????


Atheism people don´t believe in god in the same way that we can say we don´t believe in elf or gnomes ( perhaps some believe )

Are we less rational because we don´t believe in gnomes ?
And there are the same proves that god exist than gnomes exist

Ok english must not be your main language ... I am having issues with your layout of thoughts

It is rational because your "zuse" if he exists ... does so outside the laws of the phisical. therefore cant be tested for

Unlike gnomes which exist within the phisical (as gnomes are not a diety) and can be tested for

I have to say that i gave this answer because i misunderstood something, after read again i change my text

I understand why mass attract and no why opposite attract that was the real question.


But

"But it means that there is some force that exists that we cannot comprehend and something that just makes the things the way they are. This, essentially, can be called God. And thats how I disprove Atheism. "


If you call god to every thing you do´´t understand you do the same that the antiquity people that call god to the sun because they didn´t understand

If you don´t understand Tv ( as some old people ) you say Tv is God

Your argument is not acceptable in a rational way

Third :

Why do opposites attract?

Funny question, You don´t know science. Do you ?


----- gravity ( or more specific if you want curvature of the space-time )

Of course you can ask why space time is curved And i can answer, but you can ask why again and again and ....


And you will ask why and i will say I don´t know. But it doesn´t mean nothing about god.

But it means that there is some force that exists that we cannot comprehend and something that just makes the things the way they are. This, essentially, can be called God. And thats how I disprove Atheism.

Not logical, I'm afraid.

"I Don't Know" does not automatically equal "Thus, there is a God".

Agnosticism is the only of the three to apply the knowledge that it is rationally impossible to speak about a Supreme Being in any meaningful way.

It's not a measure of intellectual cowardice to assume that there are things to which our capacity for reason cannot speak.

It is true that by 'default' we are born not believeing in God. We are also born with no catergorical knowledge and the cognitive skills of poodle.

Atheism and theism are equally consistent, but they bear a non-rational component (as opposed to irrational, I'm not suggesting that).

True, but there is one major difference. The atheist is as consistent in his beleif about god as he is in his beleif about unicorns. The agnostic usually is not.

God is a transcendant concept, a unicorn is not.

Agnosticism is the only of the three to apply the knowledge that it is rationally impossible to speak about a Supreme Being in any meaningful way.

It's not a measure of intellectual cowardice to assume that there are things to which our capacity for reason cannot speak.

It is true that by 'default' we are born not believeing in God. We are also born with no catergorical knowledge and the cognitive skills of poodle.

Atheism and theism are equally consistent, but they bear a non-rational component (as opposed to irrational, I'm not suggesting that).

You are still lumping Implicit and Explicit Atheists together, thus your premise is flawed.

The Implicit Atheist DOES accept that there is much he/she does not know, and can never know.

"Ok english must not be your main language ... I am having issues with your layout of thoughts

It is rational because your "zuse" if he exists ... does so outside the laws of the phisical. therefore cant be tested for

Unlike gnomes which exist within the phisical (as gnomes are not a diety) and can be tested for "


I´m spanish

I apologize for all problems my bad english cause


As Zeus ( mythological god ) is out of physic and can´t be tested then is logical say that you can accept and can´t deny him

Jeje jeje

Then you can say that about many things


A easy and comodity and coward position


There are millions god ..... I don´t know
There is a angel in this house ..... I don´t know

If you don´t accept things that can´t be proved you take and active position Atheism


If you only say : I don´t know you take a coward position Agnosticism

Unline a diety thoes things you listed if they are real exist within the scope of the universe and phisical laws ... they can be tested for
Not unless you search every part of the earth in close detail. There are always people reporting strange things, little people, monsters, etc. There's some doubt. You can't definitively say that they've been proven not to exist. Proving a negative is damn near impossible.

In that regard there's just as good a case for the existance of those mythical beasts as there is for god(s).

Not logical, I'm afraid.

"I Don't Know" does not automatically equal "Thus, there is a God".

Then what does it equal?

God is a transcendant concept, a unicorn is not.

That rather depends on what you mean... do you mean the 'unicorn' as a horse-with-a-horn, or the 'unicorn' as a symbolic entity?

Third :

Why do opposites attract?

Funny question, You don´t know science. Do you ?


----- gravity ( or more specific if you want curvature of the space-time )

Of course you can ask why space time is curved And i can answer, but you can ask why again and again and ....


And you will ask why and i will say I don´t know. But it doesn´t mean nothing about god.

But it means that there is some force that exists that we cannot comprehend and something that just makes the things the way they are. This, essentially, can be called God. And thats how I disprove Atheism.
Your random supposition and unproven assertion can disprove atheism? I think I'm done with you.

Then what does it equal?

"I Don't Know" should equal "I Don't Know".

You shouldn't be basing conclusions on the mere fact of uncertainty.

To do so, is flawed logic.

(Unless your conclusion is something along the lines of "There is too much uncertainty"...)

:)

You are still lumping Implicit and Explicit Atheists together, thus your premise is flawed.

The Implicit Atheist DOES accept that there is much he/she does not know, and can never know.
True (I usually call them soft and hard atheism) the “soft” atheists (which I am borderline with) says “I don’t know so I am not going to assume the positive until proven” so by default are left with the no god position

The difference between !(belief in god) and belief in!(god) (sorry realized I am a computer geek … the ! = no … so no belief in god and belief in no god)

Really when you think about it soft atheists are damn close to us agnostics … they just follow scientific reasoning by not assuming the positive at all

You are still lumping Implicit and Explicit Atheists together, thus your premise is flawed.

The Implicit Atheist DOES accept that there is much he/she does not know, and can never know.

No, your definition is flawed. What you call an implicit atheist, I call an agnostic. Agnosticism allows for the possibility of proof, it just claims that do far, no such proof has been provided. The distinction between implicit and explicit in this case seems false, as it relates to degree and not to kind.

If God descended from on high surrounded by the Choir Invisible, I would be inclined to take that into account.

By your definition, I would be an Implicit atheist.

Not unless you search every part of the earth in close detail. There are always people reporting strange things, little people, monsters, etc. There's some doubt. You can't definitively say that they've been proven not to exist. Proving a negative is damn near impossible.

In that regard there's just as good a case for the existance of those mythical beasts as there is for god(s).
But it IS possible even if we have not done it yet unlike a deity

God is a transcendant concept, a unicorn is not.
Ok, then are you agnostic about a world populated with polergeists, djinn, ghosts, demons, angels, etc? BTW, even though a unicorn isn't a transcendant concept, you can't really prove they don't exist. That's pretty much the argument thrown out by many theists when discussing atheism. By that standard unicorns and god are on the same evidentiary footing.

That rather depends on what you mean... do you mean the 'unicorn' as a horse-with-a-horn, or the 'unicorn' as a symbolic entity?

Doesn't matter - not the same kind of thing either way.

Then what does it equal?
It only equals a lack of knowledge. Let's say your wallet goes missing. Did god need an extra few bucks? If "I don't know" automatically equals "god did it", then to be consistent in your position you must assume he took it.

Ok, then are you agnostic about a world populated with polergeists, djinn, ghosts, demons, angels, etc? BTW, even though a unicorn isn't a transcendant concept, you can't really prove they don't exist. That's pretty much the argument thrown out by many theists when discussing atheism. By that standard unicorns and god are on the same evidentiary footing.
No they aren’t a deity transcends the possible to detect unicorns do not

Nothing but another deity is in a position to transcend all physical rules therefore be un testable
Haven’t tested != posability to test for

Ok, then are you agnostic about a world populated with polergeists, djinn, ghosts, demons, angels, etc? BTW, even though a unicorn isn't a transcendant concept, you can't really prove they don't exist. That's pretty much the argument thrown out by many theists when discussing atheism. By that standard unicorns and god are on the same evidentiary footing.

This is partly true - and as a rule, I am not willing absolutely exclude something; it's very hard to prove a negative. But I can state that it is very, very unlikely.

A unicorn, if it existed, should leave evidence consistent with other extinct species, it has not.

There is a very, very small chance that an animal that coincides with the myth did exist and simply left no evidence of any kind. But it is a very low degree of probability.

There is no verifiable standard to apply to a statement about a transcendant god.

No, your definition is flawed. What you call an implicit atheist, I call an agnostic. Agnosticism allows for the possibility of proof, it just claims that do far, no such proof has been provided. The distinction between implicit and explicit in this case seems false, as it relates to degree and not to kind.

If God descended from on high surrounded by the Choir Invisible, I would be inclined to take that into account.

By your definition, I would be an Implicit atheist.

The only real difference between Implicit Atheism (what I 'am'), and Agnosticism (as exemplified by, for example, UpwardThrust):

is that the Agnostic says it is not POSSIBLE to decide... there is no way to know.

The Implicit Atheist just doesn't buy any of the available stories.

The two positions ARE very close.... and there is overlap.

I am an Implicit Atheist, tending toward Agnosticism...

UpwardThrust is an Agnostic, tending toward Implicit Atheism.

The only real difference between Implicit Atheism (what I 'am'), and Agnosticism (as exemplified by, for example, UpwardThrust):

is that the Agnostic says it is not POSSIBLE to decide... there is no way to know.

The Implicit Atheist just doesn't buy any of the available stories.

The two positions ARE very close.... and there is overlap.

I am an Implicit Atheist, tending toward Agnosticism...

UpwardThrust is an Agnostic, tending toward Implicit Atheism.

Exactly they are really pretty close ... :fluffle:

But it IS possible even if we have not done it yet unlike a deity
Then untill we've conducted a complete and thorough search you are agnostic about leprechauns, elves, faeries, sea monsters, bigfoot, etc.?

This is partly true - and as a rule, I am not willing absolutely exclude something; it's very hard to prove a negative. But I can state that it is very, very unlikely.

A unicorn, if it existed, should leave evidence consistent with other extinct species, it has not.

There is a very, very small chance that an animal that coincides with the myth did exist and simply left no evidence of any kind. But it is a very low degree of probability.

There is no verifiable standard to apply to a statement about a transcendant god.

Only holds if you assume that a unicorn is LITERALLY just a horse-with-a-spikey-head.

If, however, you look at the unicorn 'mythology' as describing concepts like purity; the merging of the 'primitive' with the 'wise'; the dichotomy of gender; the concept of immortality; the update of the 'cornucopia' and 'panacea' mythologies...

No they aren’t a deity transcends the possible to detect unicorns do not

Nothing but another deity is in a position to transcend all physical rules therefore be un testable
Haven’t tested != posability to test for
Why would you accept the existance of something that can't be tested for or detected in any way? How is that thing different from nothing at all?

Exactly they are really pretty close ... :fluffle:

"Impicit Atheists" and "Agnostics" are pretty close.... aww, how cute!

lol.

:fluffle:

:)

The only real difference between Implicit Atheism (what I 'am'), and Agnosticism (as exemplified by, for example, UpwardThrust):
is that the Agnostic says it is not POSSIBLE to decide... there is no way to know.
The Implicit Atheist just doesn't buy any of the available stories.
The two positions ARE very close.... and there is overlap.
I am an Implicit Atheist, tending toward Agnosticism...
UpwardThrust is an Agnostic, tending toward Implicit Atheism.

But both are saying that the issue cannot be diecided based on what is presently known. I don't know, and have never heard it asserted that agnosticism is not open to proof.

I don't see a real distinction here.

"Agnostics Get No Love!"

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

:D

Why would you accept the existance of something that can't be tested for or detected in any way? How is that thing different from nothing at all?
I dont believe in anything that can not be tested for? hence unicorns can be tested for ... and have been searched for

So far nothing found ... it is still a posibility but a very small one


A deity I can not test for ... it can NEVER be proven so I do not place my belief in it ... but it can not be ruled out ... my agnosticism alows me to say that

"I dont think so ... but it has not been ruled out" and cant be

But both are saying that the issue cannot be diecided based on what is presently known. I don't know, and have never heard it asserted that agnosticism is not open to proof.

I don't see a real distinction here.

The 'difference', is that the Agnostic doesn't think it WILL be possible for a proof to arise... they are a-gnostic... they cannot know.

The Implicit Atheist doesn't believe in any gods... but, if one dropped into their garden, then maybe they would.

It's not a big jump from Implicit Atheism to Agnosticism, or vice versa.

The 'difference', is that the Agnostic doesn't think it WILL be possible for a proof to arise... they are a-gnostic... they cannot know.


Agnosticism applies to present knowledge, they cannot know based on the present scope of knowledge. While an agnostic may not think that proof will be forthcoming, we do not exclude the possibility.If they do not exclude the possibility, the god that drops into your garden may also drop into mine.

Nothing in agnosticism denies the inclusion of new information.

There is no distinction here.

edit

Unless atheists are trying to bump their numbers up? ;)

I dont believe in anything that can not be tested for? hence unicorns can be tested for ... and have been searched for

So far nothing found ... it is still a posibility but a very small one


A deity I can not test for ... it can NEVER be proven so I do not place my belief in it ... but it can not be ruled out ... my agnosticism alows me to say that

"I dont think so ... but it has not been ruled out" and cant be
To be an atheist doesn't mean that you have to beleive gods are impossible. You just have to beleive there aren't any. There are two types of atheists. Strong atheism says gods are impossible. Weak athiests say they don't beleive that there are any without some evidence. I belong to the latter group.

Weak athiests say they don't beleive that there are any without some evidence. I belong to the latter group.

This is an agnostic. Agnostics are open to proof.

To be an atheist doesn't mean that you have to beleive gods are impossible. You just have to beleive there aren't any. There are two types of atheists. Strong atheism says gods are impossible. Weak athiests say they don't beleive that there are any without some evidence. I belong to the latter group.
I know the difference :) infact I think I just posted it like 10 posts ago :)(I called it hard and soft athiesm but thoes are just names)

Agnosticism applies to present knowledge, they cannot know based on the present scope of knowledge. While an agnostic may not think that proof will be forthcoming, we do not exclude the possibility.If they do not exclude the possibility, the god that drops into your garden may also drop into mine.

Nothing in agnosticism denies the inclusion of new information.

There is no distinction here.

edit

Unless atheists are trying to bump their numbers up? ;)

Lol... I would have thought it would be the other way...

Are there not more Atheists than Agnostics?

The Implicit Atheist doesn't think it is unknowable... they just do not believe.

The Agnostic doesn't believe (either way), but thinks it is unknowable.

Small distinction... but religions have warred over lesser ones.

This is an agnostic. Agnostics are open to proof.
While open to proof I think you have your deffinitions confused ... you sound more soft atheist

This is an agnostic. Agnostics are open to proof.

But believe it impossible to know, either way.

This is the point I was making earlier...Agnostics 'get no love', because most people don't know what they 'are'!

While open to proof I think you have your deffinitions confused ... you sound more soft atheist
Indeed - I think our friend, here, is actually a Soft (Implicit) Atheist.

It only equals a lack of knowledge. Let's say your wallet goes missing. Did god need an extra few bucks? If "I don't know" automatically equals "god did it", then to be consistent in your position you must assume he took it.

You dont get it either. There are some things that just cannot be answered. Those things dont have reasons of the way they are so the last reason we can use is the existence of some omnipotent force or God or whatever you wanna call it.

Something as irrelevant as losing a wallet can be answered like "Oh i must have dropped it" or "A person might have stolen it". Living in a rational and logical world that we live in (I hope), those are valid reasons. Its like " I do remember a guy ram into me while i was walking". Those things can be answered but something like the reason why it happens like that cannot and that is when you use the last reason of there being an omnipotent force.

But believe it impossible to know, either way.

This is the point I was making earlier...Agnostics 'get no love', because most people don't know what they 'are'!
:) Hey you see me I can argue either side of the issue I think I confuse people lol

Snip

But you don't know what actually happened. Therefore God ran off with your wallet.

:) Hey you see me I can argue either side of the issue I think I confuse people lol

I USUALLY end up arguing the 'atheist' argument... but have also argued the 'other' side, occasionally.

Our good friend PR once told me I'd make a good Christian... :)

(With a capital "C").

I'm thinking agnostics get as much play as a Millie Vanili record because they're ending the argument right there. It's the same line with people that won't decide if we have freedom or not. They don't know if it's freedom or determinist constructs that brought them to that belief so they GIVE UP. Being an agnostic is not permanent but if you accept that label you can choose it forever. There are rational proofs against the existence of the popular gods but an agnostic can choose to ignore those, comfortable in their project of safety on a subject that only strips you of your freedom. If you are an agnostic then you cannot make decisions on if there is freedom either since you cannot decide whether there is a God that determines all, a God that does not determine, or no God at all (though it doesn't make a diference on the reality of it). The diference it does make is how it affects you. If you cannot choose if there is a God or not, then you cannot make a decision on if there is freedom which strips you of the reality in your mind. You will walk through life like a jack-in-the-box never knowing if you made a decision or if you were forced to.

While open to proof I think you have your deffinitions confused ... you sound more soft atheist

Agnostics allow for proof, but find it very unlikely that humanity should ever have the capacity to gather such proof. Since the agnostic cannot rule out God, they cannot rule out that God might not act direct to manifest its existence. Agnostics are logically compelled to alolow for proof just as they are compelled to allow for the existence of a god.

Soft Atheists on the other hand do not know, but are open to being convinced.

This is only a very small difference in degree, and not in kind. I'm perfectly clear on what the definitions mean, I'm simply asserting that the term 'soft atheist' is a means to sweep agnostics into the same tent.

It's a very dubious line to bother drawing.

I think the way many people feel about agnostics is that we are undecided. The argument between atheists and theists, therefore, becomes a battle to win the belief of agnostics. As an agnostic, however, I believe that when theists say "I know that there is a God." they are kidding themselves and that when atheists say "Believing in God is pointless." they do not consider that some people really do get something out of that kind of hope. I don't find God's existance important one way or the other, but if a theist says to me "I hope there is a God and that is why I believe" then I feel that that is an entirely legitimate approach to theism. Atheists would not feel the same way as they believe that knowledge is the only legitimate way to belief, but if an atheist said to me "I think believing in God only detracts the wonderful things that we humans have done for ourselves and therefore I do not believe." I would also find that approach to atheism entirely legitimate as well. As I have said before, however, I do not care for the existence of God either way, and so I consider myself agnostic.

You dont get it either. There are some things that just cannot be answered. Those things dont have reasons of the way they are so the last reason we can use is the existence of some omnipotent force or God or whatever you wanna call it.

Something as irrelevant as losing a wallet can be answered like "Oh i must have dropped it" or "A person might have stolen it". Living in a rational and logical world that we live in (I hope), those are valid reasons. Its like " I do remember a guy ram into me while i was walking". Those things can be answered but something like the reason why it happens like that cannot and that is when you use the last reason of there being an omnipotent force.

Your argument seems to be, that because YOU don't know how gravity works (for example), it MUST be 'god' doing it?

Agnosticism is a nonsense position. You don't need to be absolutely sure of the existence of god. But if you don't know if you have a belief in god, then you are very confused. How can you NOT know what you do or do not believe?

Here's a metaphor for understanding what I mean. Let's say someone asks three people if they have keys in their pockets.

Keyist: "Yes, I have keys."
Agnostic: "It is impossible to know if there are keys or not."
Akeyist: "No, no keys here."

Of the three, the Akeyist is the only one who actually bothers to put their hand into their pocket and check first.

No, your definition is flawed. What you call an implicit atheist, I call an agnostic. Agnosticism allows for the possibility of proof, it just claims that do far, no such proof has been provided. The distinction between implicit and explicit in this case seems false, as it relates to degree and not to kind.

If God descended from on high surrounded by the Choir Invisible, I would be inclined to take that into account.

By your definition, I would be an Implicit atheist.

This looks like a good time for an Explicit atheist to enter the conversation. If you asked me the question, "Do you have a belief in god?", I would answer "no." That puts me in the atheist category, along with the implicit atheist. If you asked me, "Is there a god?", my answer again would be, "no." This is where the implicit and explicit atheist differs. The implicit atheist would qualify the response to some degree, but basically answer, "I don't think so."

The agnostic maintains that he is keeping an open mind, so that if convincing evidence were presented that supported the notion of a god, they would be ready to accept it. This is no different from the implicit atheist. It is also no different from the explicit atheist. The intellectual high ground the agnostic claims simply isn't there. Atheism, implicit or explicit, is a conclusion based on an examination of the available evidence, and the two positions are separated only by a level of certainty. There is no "leap of faith" in any way. And when new evidence is made available, the atheist reconsiders their position in regards to the new evidence.

I USUALLY end up arguing the 'atheist' argument... but have also argued the 'other' side, occasionally.

Our good friend PR once told me I'd make a good Christian... :)

(With a capital "C").
Yeah I have issues arguing organized religion ... but Deism is a different matter :)

Hell I am a stoic member of googleism myself :-D

I think the way many people feel about agnostics is that we are undecided. The argument between atheists and theists, therefore, becomes a battle to win the belief of agnostics. As an agnostic, however, I believe that when theists say "I know that there is a God." they are kidding themselves and that when atheists say "Believing in God is pointless." they do not consider that some people really do get something out of that kind of hope. .

1. That's very arrogant.

2. Atheists don't say it's pointless to believe in God. They say God does not exist.

Agnostics allow for proof, but find it very unlikely that humanity should ever have the capacity to gather such proof. Since the agnostic cannot rule out God, they cannot rule out that God might not act direct to manifest its existence. Agnostics are logically compelled to alolow for proof just as they are compelled to allow for the existence of a god.

Soft Atheists on the other hand do not know, but are open to being convinced.

This is only a very small difference in degree, and not in kind. I'm perfectly clear on what the definitions mean, I'm simply asserting that the term 'soft atheist' is a means to sweep agnostics into the same tent.

It's a very dubious line to bother drawing.

Your assertion is still flawed... Agnostics are NOT 'compelled to allow for proof'.

The very term 'Agnostic' means that they cannot 'know'... thus, the default is almost the exact opposite of what you are saying...

A 'true' Agnostic NEVER expects to find proof, because they do not accept it CAN be proved.

You dont get it either. There are some things that just cannot be answered. Those things dont have reasons of the way they are so the last reason we can use is the existence of some omnipotent force or God or whatever you wanna call it.

Something as irrelevant as losing a wallet can be answered like "Oh i must have dropped it" or "A person might have stolen it". Living in a rational and logical world that we live in (I hope), those are valid reasons. Its like " I do remember a guy ram into me while i was walking". Those things can be answered but something like the reason why it happens like that cannot and that is when you use the last reason of there being an omnipotent force.
No, you don't get it. I don't know means only that. You don't get to assert that some invisible being did it without having some evidence of that being's existance. If you can do that, then you must also assume that there can be an infinite number of gods, none of them omnipotent but all of them with unique and extraordinary powers. You must also admit the possibility of some cause that you haven't thought of. Perhaps one with no mind or will, just some natural force. Perhaps something completely different. Your answer isn't an answer at all, it's a random guess, and completely without evidentiary support. It's meaningless.

Agnosticism is a nonsense position. You don't need to be absolutely sure of the existence of god. But if you don't know if you have a belief in god, then you are very confused. How can you NOT know what you do or do not believe?

Here's a metaphor for understanding what I mean. Let's say someone asks three people if they have keys in their pockets.

Keyist: "Yes, I have keys."
Agnostic: "It is impossible to know if there are keys or not."
Akeyist: "No, no keys here."

Of the three, the Akeyist is the only one who actually bothers to put their hand into their pocket and check first.



Wrong agnisticism is not about not knowing what you believe it is all about not being able to prove it one way or another

And in your example you pick something that CAN be tested for ... god can not. Very flawed example.



This looks like a good time for an Explicit atheist to enter the conversation. If you asked me the question, "Do you have a belief in god?", I would answer "no." That puts me in the atheist category, along with the implicit atheist. If you asked me, "Is there a god?", my answer again would be, "no." This is where the implicit and explicit atheist differs. The implicit atheist would qualify the response to some degree, but basically answer, "I don't think so."

The agnostic maintains that he is keeping an open mind, so that if convincing evidence were presented that supported the notion of a god, they would be ready to accept it. This is no different from the implicit atheist. It is also no different from the explicit atheist. The intellectual high ground the agnostic claims simply isn't there. Atheism, implicit or explicit, is a conclusion based on an examination of the available evidence, and the two positions are separated only by a level of certainty. There is no "leap of faith" in any way. And when new evidence is made available, the atheist reconsiders their position in regards to the new evidence.

You sir dont understand agnositcism it is not about lack of proof ... it is all about ability to prove

Yeah I have issues arguing organized religion ... but Deism is a different matter :)

Hell I am a stoic member of googleism myself :-D

Ah yes... but we have evidence to support 'googleism'. :)

This looks like a good time for an Explicit atheist to enter the conversation. If you asked me the question, "Do you have a belief in god?", I would answer "no." That puts me in the atheist category, along with the implicit atheist. If you asked me, "Is there a god?", my answer again would be, "no."

Actually, the implicit atheist would need to reply, "no, but...". This seems to be more of a statement of probability, rather than denial of existence.

Your assertion is still flawed... Agnostics are NOT 'compelled to allow for proof'.

The very term 'Agnostic' means that they cannot 'know'... thus, the default is almost the exact opposite of what you are saying...

A 'true' Agnostic NEVER expects to find proof, because they do not accept it CAN be proved.
Exactly ... we differ from soft athiesm in our expectation of ability to prove ... that is the biggest difference

Your assertion is still flawed... Agnostics are NOT 'compelled to allow for proof'.

The very term 'Agnostic' means that they cannot 'know'... thus, the default is almost the exact opposite of what you are saying...

A 'true' Agnostic NEVER expects to find proof, because they do not accept it CAN be proved.

Cannot be proved given the current condition of human knowledge.

It is not an absolute and universal statement. A statement of uncertainty cannot be made infallibly.

Wrong agnisticism is not about not knowing what you believe it is all about not being able to prove it one way or another

And in your example you pick something that CAN be tested for ... god can not. Very flawed example.



You sir dont understand agnositcism it is not about lack of proof ... it is all about ability to prove

Exactly.

You beat me to it.

Our friend here is correct, vis-a-vis Explicit and Implicit Atheism, but is in error over what an Agnostic 'is'.

As you so eloquently stated, it isn't about lack of proof, it's about ability to prove.

Well said. :)

Exactly ... we differ from soft athiesm in our expectation of ability to prove ... that is the biggest difference

But it is a difference of probability, and therefor the same kind of assertion.

The two positions are not mutually exclusive.

Cannot be proved given the current condition of human knowledge.

It is not an absolute and universal statement. A statement of uncertainty cannot be made infallibly.
No can not be proven PERIOD by deffinition we can not prove something that exists beyond the boundries of phisical laws

Not unless humans trancend themselfs

But it is a difference of probability, and therefor the same kind of assertion.

The two positions are not mutually exclusive.
Nor are they the same

No can not be proven PERIOD by deffinition we can not prove something that exists beyond the boundries of phisical laws

Not unless humans trancend themselfs

Which the agnostic, who cannot prove otherwise, must allow for.

Nor are they the same

And as a result, differ in degree and not in kind.

Variations on a theme, not different concepts.

Cannot be proved given the current condition of human knowledge.

It is not an absolute and universal statement. A statement of uncertainty cannot be made infallibly.

Just grabbed the "New World Dictionary", it was the nearest I had to hand.

"Agnostic: A person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena".


So:

The difference between (Implicit) Atheist and Agnostic is that the Agnostic believes he/she CAN NOT know whether 'god' CAN exist.

It IS an absolute statement, I'm afraid... an absolute statement that the Agnostic CAN NOT know.

Which the agnostic, who cannot prove otherwise, must allow for.
Not just allow for ... the whole position of agnosticism is based on the never being able to be proved by humans theme

Just grabbed the "New World Dictionary", it was the nearest I had to hand.

"Agnostic: A person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena".


So:

The difference between (Implicit) Atheist and Agnostic is that the Agnostic believes he/she CAN NOT know whether 'god' CAN exist.

It IS an absolute statement, I'm afraid... an absolute statement that the Agnostic CAN NOT know.

Exactly ... our friend deffinatly sound more like an Implicit Atheist then Agnostic

"Agnostic: A person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena".
So:
The difference between (Implicit) Atheist and Agnostic is that the Agnostic believes he/she CAN NOT know whether 'god' CAN exist.
It IS an absolute statement, I'm afraid... an absolute statement that the Agnostic CAN NOT know.

Well, Merriam Webster says this;
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable;

A statement of uncertainty, cannot be made universally and with certainty.It cannot exclude the alternative to that which it holds to be uncertain.

By definition, a statement of uncertainty must allow for the possibility of certainty.

The agnostic allows for the existnce of a god, and therefor must allow for a manifestation of god - even if it is on the smallest order of probability.

Wrong agnisticism is not about not knowing what you believe it is all about not being able to prove it one way or another

And in your example you pick something that CAN be tested for ... god can not. Very flawed example.

Wrong. A theist proposes a model which it calls "god," and specifies certain properties of that god. Those properties can then be tested for.

And, logically, the idea of a god simply does not work, collapsing in an infinite loop. If the universe required a creator, then who created the creator? Who created the creator's creator? Who created....?

The theist counters by saying the god created himself... which also does not work. A creator would have to be orders of magnitude more complex than that which he creates, because he needs to be able to contain the blueprint of the universe in his own head. The theist argues that there must be a creator because the odds of the universe and spontaneous life are so incredible that it cannot possibly have happened by accident. But the odds of a creator spontaneously emerging are so astronomically remote that it makes universes and life forms look commonplace by comparison. God is sliced away into the logical ether with a swift stroke of Occam's Razor.

edited above, sorry.

and now I have to go. Thanks for the debate...

And, logically, the idea of a god simply does not work, collapsing in an infinite loop. If the universe required a creator, then who created the creator? Who created the creator's creator? Who created....? Typically, theists would respond to this by saying that their deity exists beyond the frail human concepts of time and space. We can't grap that, so the question is born out of our own inability to concieve of something existing without the fourth dimension.

Not saying I agree with that, just sayin'...

Exactly ... we differ from soft athiesm in our expectation of ability to prove ... that is the biggest difference

Once again... ability to prove and what you believe are not the same thing. Equivocation.

Wrong. A theist proposes a model which it calls "god," and specifies certain properties of that god. Those properties can then be tested for.


Not nessisarily ... a generic deist or theist can propose that there jsut IS a deity ... they dont HAVE to give specifics


And, logically, the idea of a god simply does not work, collapsing in an infinite loop. If the universe required a creator, then who created the creator? Who created the creator's creator? Who created....?

I agree with the logical flaws (along with issues of omni... anything)


The theist counters by saying the god created himself... which also does not work. A creator would have to be orders of magnitude more complex than that which he creates, because he needs to be able to contain the blueprint of the universe in his own head. The theist argues that there must be a creator because the odds of the universe and spontaneous life are so incredible that it cannot possibly have happened by accident. But the odds of a creator spontaneously emerging are so astronomically remote that it makes universes and life forms look commonplace by comparison. God is sliced away into the logical ether with a swift stroke of Occam's Razor.

Once again... ability to prove and what you believe are not the same thing. Equivocation.
Could you try to restate? I am not understanding where you are going with this

Could you try to restate? I am not understanding where you are going with this

Sure.

The statement I quoted was that an agnostic does not believe that god can be conclusively proven either way. I'm an explicit atheist, and I agree with that statement (because you can't logically prove a negative). Based on the available evidence, however, I have concluded that there is no god. That is my belief.

The question of theism/agnosticism/atheism is not a question about proof, it is a question about belief. "I believe that the existence of god cannot be proven" does not answer the question of whether you believe in his existence or not. We are not asking what you can prove, we are asking what you believe.

Sure.

The statement I quoted was that an agnostic does not believe that god can be conclusively proven either way. I'm an explicit atheist, and I agree with that statement (because you can't logically prove a negative). Based on the available evidence, however, I have concluded that there is no god. That is my belief.

The question of theism/agnosticism/atheism is not a question about proof, it is a question about belief. "I believe that the existence of god cannot be proven" does not answer the question of whether you believe in his existence or not. We are not asking what you can prove, we are asking what you believe.
In that way (and this is what makes most of us close to implicit athiests) is that I dont believe in thus said diety without proof

But I dont think it can proven so I guess I dont TOTALY accept that there is no god but I dont see a way of prooving so I assume the negitive

We really are implicit athiests in belief with the addition of "cant know" in there

In that way (and this is what makes most of us close to implicit athiests) is that I dont believe in thus said diety without proof

But I dont think it can proven so I guess I dont TOTALY accept that there is no god but I dont see a way of prooving so I assume the negitive

We really are implicit athiests in belief with the addition of "cant know" in there

There you go, then. You don't have a belief in god. Therefore, you are an atheist.

This wasn't an attempt to score points off of you, but to illustrate a historical point I wanted to bring up. The term "agnostic" was invented only after the term "atheist" had been smeared by religious folks. Atheists have an undeserved negative connotation, often compared to uncivilized pagans and satanists by religious polemicists, and considered to be morally bankrupt. When atheist Charles Bradlaugh was elected to Parliament six times in the mid-19th century, and each time refused to be seated because he would not swear allegiance "so help me God," Thomas Huxley created the word "agnostic" to distance himself from Bradlaugh.

There really isn't any difference between atheism and agnosticism. They're two words that mean pretty much the same thing, with the only real difference being one of connotation.

This has been bothering me since I left for lunch.

As an agnostic, I am asserting that the human intellect does not have the capacity to prove or disprove the existence of god. As such I must accept both the premise that god exists, and that god does not exist.

This is applied both generally and specifically. I cannot confirm or deny the existence of a generic god, or for example, a triune god as taught by certain sects of Christianity.

If I accept that god (as popularly conceived) might exist, then I must also accept that god, if it chose to, could manifest itself to me in a manner that I would be compelled to accept. This is not a function of my ability to prove the existence of god, or that of the collective human race, but rather of god’s ability which could very well be infinite.

So an agnostic must accept the possibility of proof, because to not do so requires that we reject the omnipotence and therefore the existence of god.

Agnostic; I’m don’t know that god exists, but it is at least possible that it does.

Implicit Atheist; I don’t tend to believe that god exists, but I would if I were shown different.

These are fundamentally just different iterations of the same statement.

There you go, then. You don't have a belief in god. Therefore, you are an atheist.

This wasn't an attempt to score points off of you, but to illustrate a historical point I wanted to bring up. The term "agnostic" was invented only after the term "atheist" had been smeared by religious folks. Atheists have an undeserved negative connotation, often compared to uncivilized pagans and satanists by religious polemicists, and considered to be morally bankrupt. When atheist Charles Bradlaugh was elected to Parliament six times in the mid-19th century, and each time refused to be seated because he would not swear allegiance "so help me God," Thomas Huxley created the word "agnostic" to distance himself from Bradlaugh.

There really isn't any difference between atheism and agnosticism. They're two words that mean pretty much the same thing, with the only real difference being one of connotation.

But there is a difference we dont fall under the umbrell a of athiesm because agnosticism does not nesessitate the way I fell (athiest with agnostic tendancies)
I could have easily been a Deist with agnostic tendancies (I have a general belief but it can not be proven)

This has been bothering me since I left for lunch.

As an agnostic, I am asserting that the human intellect does not have the capacity to prove or disprove the existence of god. As such I must accept both the premise that god exists, and that god does not exist.

This is applied both generally and specifically. I cannot confirm or deny the existence of a generic god, or for example, a triune god as taught by certain sects of Christianity.

If I accept that god (as popularly conceived) might exist, then I must also accept that god, if it chose to, could manifest itself to me in a manner that I would be compelled to accept. This is not a function of my ability to prove the existence of god, or that of the collective human race, but rather of god’s ability which could very well be infinite.

So an agnostic must accept the possibility of proof, because to not do so requires that we reject the omnipotence and therefore the existence of god.

Agnostic; I’m don’t know that god exists, but it is at least possible that it does.

Implicit Atheist; I don’t tend to believe that god exists, but I would if I were shown different.

These are fundamentally just different iterations of the same statement.


But you atribute omnipotentce to god when not all deffinitions of gods fit that deffinition
You could have a diety that just existed outside the realm of the phisical without omni-potence

So we can very well reject omni-potence without rejecting the possibility of a deity

Agnostics don't need no love.

As an agnostic, I am asserting that the human intellect does not have the capacity to prove or disprove the existence of god. As such I must accept both the premise that god exists, and that god does not exist.

This is where the explicit atheist differs from the implicit/agnostic. I do not believe the two premises are equal. A theist makes a positive statement regarding the existence of a god or gods. The theist then assumes the burden of proof, and disbelief is the only rational default position to occupy until the theist proves their case.

This is a necessary process. Otherwise, people would believe all sorts of nonsense. For instance, I could say a family of invisible gnomes live in my pants. You can't prove they don't exist, but you'd be foolish to believe that they do.

Of course, people DO believe in all sorts of nonsense, but they really should know better.

Agnostic; I’m don’t know that god exists, but it is at least possible that it does.

Implicit Atheist; I don’t tend to believe that god exists, but I would if I were shown different.

These are fundamentally just different iterations of the same statement.

We appear to be agreed on this point, then.

But you atribute omnipotentce to god when not all deffinitions of gods fit that deffinition
You could have a diety that just existed outside the realm of the phisical without omni-potence

So we can very well reject omni-potence without rejecting the possibility of a deity

If I cannot reject God generally, what basis do I have for rejecting that existence specifically?

A diety which is omnipotent is no more or less likely than a diety that is not.

As such, I must remain open to the possbility. There is no basis to allow for one but not the other.

1. That's very arrogant.

2. Atheists don't say it's pointless to believe in God. They say God does not exist.
How was I arrogant? I simply said that, as an agnostic, I am open to other systems of belief aside from those based on knowledge and that I do not care about the exist of God. Am I being arrogant by not caring about something that has never effected me?
Only strong atheists believe that God does not exist. Weak atheists do not believe that God exists. In fact I didn't even say that atheists in general say that it is pointless to believe in God. I only said that those who do are ignoring the personal fulfillment that others might get from their belief.

If I cannot reject God generally, what basis do I have for rejecting that existence specifically?

A diety which is omnipotent is no more or less likely than a diety that is not.

As such, I must remain open to the possbility. There is no basis to allow for one but not the other.
It is logicaly less likly (if applying logic is an option at all) there are logical issues with omni-potence

We appear to be agreed on this point, then.

This much is good.

I fully understand the position of the explicit atheist. You are highlighting the divergence between belief and certain knowledge - at a certain point probability must take the day. This is why we do not state all of our declarative sentences provisionally.

At supper this evening, I will not say to my wife, "Thanks, by all obvious indicators I appear to have enjoyed that."

Your point is well taken, and if the explicit atheist will state that they pursue a premise which is probable, but not entirely certain from time to time, I would be satisfied. From time to time, the inclusion of the probability is also good.

It is logicaly less likly (if applying logic is an option at all) there are logical issues with omni-potence

Actually, it is not less likely as I think your supposition that logic might not apply is probably correct.

Regardless, it cannot be excluded.

To paraphrase Yann Martel, from Life of Pi:

Choosing agnosticism as a system of belief is akin to choosing immobility as a form of transportation.

Thoughts?

The omniscient wiki says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

To paraphrase Yann Martel, from Life of Pi:

Choosing agnosticism as a system of belief is akin to choosing immobility as a form of transportation.

Thoughts?

I do this only very, very rarely but I do think that when put in context the label of 'agnostic' is pretty redundant. I think that it is entirely co-terminus with implicit atheist, and that the latter term makes more sense.

From now on, its implicit atheist for me. I stand corrected and feel better for it.

Heh.

Agnostics will be the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes.

We have ways of making them decide. Yes, we do. :p ;)

Agnosticism it might be or maybe not. However Christians get no loving till that ring is on the finger. Then what if he or she don't like it after all that time and expense, you kept yourself "pure" for nuffin.




Actually why are mainstream religions so obsessed with stopping people having sex???? It seems to become the only measure of morality. OK OK become obscenely rich by exploiting things people need (good example housing), but so long as you don't have sex rapacious capitalism is great. In fact your wealth got on the backs of others is a gift from God.

Why is the arguement on religion always firmly divided on the "specific belief"/"athiest" line?

Is it because us agnostics aren't a good target for either side?

Perhaps because agnosticism isn't a third option distinct from theism/atheism.

Theism is a statement on whether you possess belief in a deity. ANY belief in a deity.

Atheism is a statement that you do NOT possess any such belief.

It's a binary state of affairs, you either possess such a belief placing you in the first category, or you do not placing you in the other category.

Agnosticism on the other hand is a statement about whether or not you believe that it can be known whether a deity exists. This label can be applied to either theists or atheists, but it does not change the fact that they ARE either theist or atheist.

I really REALLY wish people would stop thinking:

Theism = "There's a God"
Atheism = "There's no God"
Agnostisism = "I'm neutral! I'm not either one!"

Agnosticism says exactly squat about whether or not you believe in a deity. Being an agnostic does not set you aside from the two other categories!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnosticism

To put it in simpler terms. Answer the following question:

Do you possess a belief in the existence of a deity? ANY belief of ANY degree whatsoever?

If the answer is Yes you're a theist.
If the answer is No you're an atheist.
If the answer is "I don't know" you've just claimed you don't even know the content of your own thoughts.

That doesn't make a person an agnostic. An agnostic would answer either yes or no and qualify it with the statement that they do not believe that it can ever be known for sure whether or not such a deity really does exist. Answering "I don't know" to the previous question makes a person someone with either multiple personality disorder who isn't sure what their alternate personality believes but still considers that alternate personality to be "themself" and so doesn't feel they can answer the question... or perhaps someone with pronounced amnesia who can't remember what they might or might not believe... or some other option which does not speak well of the state of affairs inside their head..

Perhaps because agnosticism isn't a third option distinct from theism/atheism.

Theism is a statement on whether you possess belief in a deity. ANY belief in a deity.

Atheism is a statement that you do NOT possess any such belief.

It's a binary state of affairs, you either possess such a belief placing you in the first category, or you do not placing you in the other category.

Agnosticism on the other hand is a statement about whether or not you believe that it can be known whether a deity exists. This label can be applied to either theists or atheists, but it does not change the fact that they ARE either theist or atheist.

I really REALLY wish people would stop thinking:

Theism = "There's a God"
Atheism = "There's no God"
Agnostisism = "I'm neutral! I'm not either one!"

Agnosticism says exactly squat about whether or not you believe in a deity. Being an agnostic does not set you aside from the two other categories!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnosticism

To put it in simpler terms. Answer the following question:

Do you possess a belief in the existence of a deity? ANY belief of ANY degree whatsoever?

If the answer is Yes you're a theist.
If the answer is No you're an atheist.
If the answer is "I don't know" you've just claimed you don't even know the content of your own thoughts.

That doesn't make a person an agnostic. An agnostic would answer either yes or no and qualify it with the statement that they do not believe that it can ever be known for sure whether or not such a deity really does exist. Answering "I don't know" to the previous question makes a person someone with either multiple personality disorder who isn't sure what their alternate personality believes but still considers that alternate personality to be "themself" and so doesn't feel they can answer the question... or perhaps someone with pronounced amnesia who can't remember what they might or might not believe... or some other option which does not speak well of the state of affairs inside their head..


Agreed ... though with the "I dont know" could just be a person still working it out in their head and not willing to share untill they get themselfs resonably figured out :)

I am an Implicit athiest/agnostic :) and proud of it

Agreed ... though with the "I dont know" could just be a person still working it out in their head and not willing to share untill they get themselfs resonably figured out :)

Possibly... but if that is any more than a purely transitory state of affairs I would take that as cause for concern. If a person finds themselves so persistently incapable of identifying their own beliefs... spends so much time mired in that state that it actually warrants coming up with a special name to identify their perpetual state of confusion regarding the content of their own thoughts as it's very own philosophical stance... something ain't right.

And of course in any case they should come up with their own name for it instead of hijacking a word that already has it's own rather different meaning. ;)

Eh, having been one, I love all of ya! ;)

To the intent of the thread: Most people who are either theist or atheist consider the agnostic not worth their time, as regards a debate upon the metaphysical. It's kind of hard to sway an individual to believe as you do if they dismiss all your arguments as hearsay, conjecture and circumstance.

To the reality of the thread:

http://skepdic.com/atheism.html
http://skepdic.com/agnosticism.html

I think we're good with those. In this case, I may be forced to accept the definition of agnostic as that which believes God is unknowable, and by doing so avail myself of the title, on the grounds, first, that I take into account the possibility of evidence someday proving or disproving the supernatural, perhaps even that which matches at least one society's definition of God, and second, that there is no point in accepting a differing definition of agnostic if it only serves to confuse those who have a divergent or no definition of the word.

In any case, if the realm of agnosticism is limited to those who believe the very knowledge of a transcendant entity or other superphysical phenomenon(a) is itself impossible, then those who leave the subject open to evidence, while scientifically more valid, are not fit for any of the three schools of belief, as by this definition even the agnostic is dependent upon a leap of faith (that no definitive body of evidence shall ever tip the conclusion either toward or away from the validation of the immaterial) which the skeptic would not accept.

I guess in that way, I would be a categorical skeptic.

This has been bothering me since I left for lunch.

As an agnostic, I am asserting that the human intellect does not have the capacity to prove or disprove the existence of god. As such I must accept both the premise that god exists, and that god does not exist.

This is applied both generally and specifically. I cannot confirm or deny the existence of a generic god, or for example, a triune god as taught by certain sects of Christianity.

If I accept that god (as popularly conceived) might exist, then I must also accept that god, if it chose to, could manifest itself to me in a manner that I would be compelled to accept. This is not a function of my ability to prove the existence of god, or that of the collective human race, but rather of god’s ability which could very well be infinite.

So an agnostic must accept the possibility of proof, because to not do so requires that we reject the omnipotence and therefore the existence of god.

Agnostic; I’m don’t know that god exists, but it is at least possible that it does.

Implicit Atheist; I don’t tend to believe that god exists, but I would if I were shown different.

These are fundamentally just different iterations of the same statement.

You ARE getting closer... but are still missing the key point about Agnosticism, which is why I wonder if perhaps you are pigeon-holing yourself in the wrong group.

Agnostics - by definition (the term was coined by (Thomas?) Huxley in 1870, specifically to describe this one characteristic) believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a human mind to know if 'god' is real or not.

Thus - if you think about it, the Agnostic REALLY denies that any evidence could EVER change his/her mind.

The Implicit Atheist just doesn't believe - but we still accept that it would be POSSIBLE to know for sure, with the right evidence.