Agnosticism requires faith

[Zhavric]

Pure agnosticism of "I don't know" is the only stance that does not require faith. Anything more than that requires nearly as much faith as theists.

Considering god a possibility (ANY form of god) requires faith because it is a positive belief unsupported by evidence. Not only do we not have any evidence of god, we have no evidence god is possible.


I eagerly await to see the Superman argument from theists & agnostics.

[Kamehameha34]

Considering god a possibility (ANY form of god) requires faith because it is a positive belief unsupported by evidence. Not only do we not have any evidence of god, we have no evidence god is possible.

That's theism. Agnostics don't consider either stance. Agnostics, by definition, only consider evidence.

Pure agnosticism of "I don't know" is the only stance that does not require faith.

You just defined agnosticism. There's no need to specify it as "pure".

[another day]

Yep...agnostics need to stop taking this "safe approach"...I think 99% of agnostics actually are full blown atheists, but they use the label of agnosticism to protect their position from being attacked and claim they are the most rational/logical thinkers of all.. Kamahemaha for instance, I'm sure doesn't believe in god at all. You use the agnostic label to protect yourself in a debating scenario, yet I am sure you know that no gods exist.

There is no reason to think that gods could exist or could not exist. It's not a 50/50 chance. If you are going to give credit to that idea of gods maybe existed, you must also give credit to EVERY SINGLE IDEA that can possibly be imagined ABOUT ANYTHING. Therefore making it an intellectually bankrupt position with no reason behind it.

Like I said before, agnosticism is a position of knowledge. It makes no sense to say you are an agnostic. EVERYONE IS AGNOSTIC. Nobody has knowledge of gods. And that lack of knowledge of gods, that lack of evidence, should default your believe to atheism, if you want to claim rationality, that is.

[Fonceai]

Question:

Topic: Agnosticism requires faith

OP: Pure agnosticism of "I don't know" is the only stance that does not require faith.

Please elaborate on the difference.

Because isn't saying "I don't know" the equivalent of saying that either is equally possible, existence or non-existence?

we have no evidence god is possible.

You are going to get more comments about that statement than you will about the topic.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's theism. Agnostics don't consider either stance. Agnostics, by definition, only consider evidence.

That's not necessarily the case. Real agnosticism believes that it is inherently impossible for man to know anything about the existence or characteristics of gods, hence evidence is meaningless, there simply cannot be any evidence in this question.

Atheists only consider evidence, except for those rare, strong atheists who take a faith-based stand that there cannot be god(s), period. Otherwise, what everyone is describing is weak atheism, not agnosticism.

[Kamehameha34]

Traditionally, agnostics only hold true that humans don't presently know.

Atheism, by definition, is the positive assertion that no gods exist. "Weak atheism", the way you describe it, is agnosticism.

You either believe that a god could or does exist, or you believe that a god can not exist. Pick a horse and ride it. Don't shift around the terminology to paint bulls-eyes around your points.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's theism. Agnostics don't consider either stance. Agnostics, by definition, only consider evidence.

Nope. You're thinking of atheists. Agnostics do not concern themselves with evidence as is demonstrated in two ways:

Agnostics will draw a 50-50 likelyhood between natural & supernatural explanations even when the supernatural explantions are horrifically problematic (such as contradicting existing scientific law).

Agnostics assert that god (a claim which contradicts existing proven scientific law by virtue of his attributes) is possible. Claims which contradict existing proven claims are not "possible". They're "false until proven true".

If you were interested in evidence, you'd assert god is "false until proven true".

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Question: Topic: Agnosticism requires faith OP: Pure agnosticism of "I don't know" is the only stance that does not require faith. Please elaborate on the difference.

"I don't know" =/= "God could exist."

The first is an admission of ignorance. The second is a half-hearted truth claim.

Because isn't saying "I don't know" the equivalent of saying that either is equally possible, existence or non-existence?

In my experience, saying "I don't know" is the equivalent of saying "I don't know".

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Don't shift around the terminology...

After making this declaration don't you dare let me catch you changing the definition of god to escape an untenable argument.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric Nope. You're thinking of atheists. Agnostics do not concern themselves with evidence as is demonstrated in two ways: Agnostics will draw a 50-50 likelyhood between natural & supernatural explanations even when the supernatural explantions are horrifically problematic (such as contradicting existing scientific law). Agnostics assert that god (a claim which contradicts existing proven scientific law by virtue of his attributes) is possible. Claims which contradict existing proven claims are not "possible". They're "false until proven true". If you were interested in evidence, you'd assert god is "false until proven true".

Stop trolling your "gods contradict scientific law" pontiffication. You have yet to name one that the concept of "creator of the universe" violates.

Also, there is no assertion in agnosticism other than "we do not know if there is a god".

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric After making this declaration don't you dare let me catch you changing the definition of god to escape an untenable argument.

Fine, I'll stick with this one:

"Creator of the universe"

One that I've never changed, and one the is confirmed by the dictionary.

Just note that "creator of the universe" =/= "creator of all of the matter in the universe", just as a carpenter doesn't "create" all of the matter in a chair, but still "creates" the chair.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric "I don't know" =/= "God could exist." The first is an admission of ignorance. The second is a half-hearted truth claim.

The second is half theistic. That's your problem. You are lumping theism in with agnosticism.

In my experience, saying "I don't know" is the equivalent of saying "I don't know".

Based on the agnostic stance of no evidence for either claim, while one claim must be right, they are equally likely until there's evidence for one over the other.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Stop trolling your "gods contradict scientific law" pontiffication. You have yet to name one that the concept of "creator of the universe" violates.

Of course I have. A creator of the universe needs omnipotence & omnipotence contradicts not only the creation of energy, but nearly every scientific law we have.

Also, there is no assertion in agnosticism other than "we do not know if there is a god".

Of course there is. You're asserting that god is a possible outcome when you have no evidence supporting god to be possible. Provide evidence god is possible or concede to your own definition of faith.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 "Creator of the universe" One that I've never changed, and one the is confirmed by the dictionary. Just note that "creator of the universe" =/= "creator of all of the matter in the universe", just as a carpenter doesn't "create" all of the matter in a chair, but still "creates" the chair.

This is not a tenable position. The universe includes energy & a carpenter does not create the materials he works with. As stated above, god must be omnipotent or we have no business referring to him as god.

Again, where is your evidence this carpenter god is possible? Also, how is this carpenter god a creator of the universe if he cannot create energy? Who created the energy?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The second is half theistic.

That's exactly what agnosticism is. By your own admission, it's half theistic because you've awarded a 50% likelyhood to the god hypothesis. And you've done so without the slightest shred of evidence making your stance (like theism) one of faith.

Based on the agnostic stance of no evidence for either claim, while one claim must be right, they are equally likely until there's evidence for one over the other.

I and others have consistently explained why this is not the case and you've consistently ignored our arguments. You seem bound and determined to anoint any absurdity equal footing with a natural explanation simply because said absurdity can be imagined. Key gnomes (by your logic) are just as "valid" as losing one's keys.

I'm sorry, Kame, but common sense & sound logic win out here.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Atheism, by definition, is the positive assertion that no gods exist. "Weak atheism", the way you describe it, is agnosticism.

No, atheism, by definition, is not believing in god(s).

a - without
theos - belief in god(s)

Agnosticism, as it's being described, is really weak atheism.

You either believe that a god could or does exist, or you believe that a god can not exist. Pick a horse and ride it. Don't shift around the terminology to paint bulls-eyes around your points.

Or you believe it is impossible to know whether or not a god exists (agnosticism), or you just don't give a damn (ignosticism). You're trying to paint a black and white world where none exists.

[Osborn F Enready]

In my opinion, as an agnostic:

I put reality before belief when it comes to the origin of life.

Neither side can be proved, though one can, more than others. (nature)

As an agnostic, I see no sense in creating polarization based on beliefs that reside within an individual.

Religion is an INDIVIDUAL belief, and it is not a "political" or "system" with which we use to operate our nation.

A lot of people who are agnostic, are so, because they don't CARE what others say, they know what THEY believe, and that is all that is WORTH discussing to them since we all have an individual right to make that choice about religion.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Zhavric Considering god a possibility (ANY form of god) requires faith because it is a positive belief unsupported by evidence. Not only do we not have any evidence of god, we have no evidence god is possible.

This is true, if you switch the word "consider" with "believe," and switch athiesm with "evolutionism." You don't need faith to consider a possibility, you need faith to take a stance in the argument or to completely believe on a side. Additionally, atheists that simply dont believe in god, but also simply dont have ANY other ideas or values towards creation and why we are here don't have faith in anything. Thus People who are atheists for chosen reasons do require faith, while those that are simply nothing but non-god believers are indeed faithless.

I guess there are so few atheists that are atheists for no reason exist that you can consider your statement may hold iff you switch word consider with "believe"

[rez]

Quote by: Jagged This is true, if you switch the word "consider" with "believe." You don't need faith to consider a possibility, you need faith to take a stance in the argument or to completely believe on side.

That is correct Jagged. The word "belief " reflects hope and the word "consider" describes predicting. This logic was proposed to Kamehameha34 in the thread "Agnosticism is the only non-faith", but he willfully ignored it.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Osborn A lot of people who are agnostic, are so, because they don't CARE what others say, they know what THEY believe, and that is all that is WORTH discussing to them since we all have an individual right to make that choice about religion.

Nicely put.