"I don't know" - Is that so hard to comprehend?

[Trent]

I believe in truth

My truth, when it comes to gods is - I don't know
There for I call myself agnostic

To me, the word atheist doesn't make sense. In the dictionary it says, "someone who doesn't believe in God" - which suggests God exists - but atheists just don't believe in him! How can the term seriously represent people whose lives have no connection to any religion?

I'm always correcting people who call me an atheist -

No - I cannot prove to myself that there are any gods - and I can not disprove it either - there for I must admit I don't know. (Although I have a hunch)

[Gods_Mercenary]

Isn't that what we all have?

[Jagged]

Weird, for some reason i always thought you were a theist.

You are also challenging us to challenge agnosticism. Agnosticism may be the only "status/belief/look on life" that always deserves respect. Its also simply unchallengeable.

I pretty much agree with everything you said, but i interpret it differently, as in lack of evidence might be evidence of a lack. There is also newly acquired evidence of things never pointed out by any religions, meaning some predictions religious text and such have made HAVE been proven false. This, for me, also seems to weaken the theist argument.

As isherwood and nilan3000 said, i think i see my atheism more as a personal support for logic and reasoning rather than a certain belief of a Godless world, although I am a literal atheist as well. You (kam) also appear to support raw logic and reasoning, so cheers.

Quote by: Trent I believe in truth My truth, when it comes to gods is - I don't know

Thats somewhat redundant. "I believe in truth; my truth is... thus...." Or "I believe what i think"

Quote by: Trent To me, the word atheist doesn't make sense. In the dictionary it says, "someone who doesn't believe in God" - which suggests God exists - but atheists just don't believe in him!

I don't believe in the existence of unicorns. I acknowledge that the concept of unicorns exists. Everybody understands the basic concept of a God, so its assumed that the reader of the dictionary knows what "a God" is.

No - I cannot prove to myself that there are any gods - and I can not disprove it either - there for I must admit I don't know. (Although I have a hunch)

Thats why atheism takes some --albeit less than theism-- faith. Its nice to have some. This is the "hunch" you speak of.

[Kamehameha34]

I don't, by any means, support organized religion. I don't think that's the limit of a "god" concept.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I am theisty, but more universal, I cede the huge possibility that there is no God, I have my own personal "ideas" that jive with my ideas of how the universe should be run, but take no offense at someone else saying that they can't/won't have "ideas" about God's existance.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 There's believing, there's disbelieving, and theirs a lack of belief. If you simply lack belief, because you think the idea of a god is miscellaneous and meaningless as opposed to proof, then you are a non-practicing agnostic.

There is also nonsense, there is foolishness and there is sophistry. I see a fair share of each in this sort of rambling.

I am an atheist because I do not believe in god or gods. You are an agnostic because you refuse to make up your mind.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Why would you make up your mind if you feel there is no proof either way?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Why would you make up your mind if you feel there is no proof either way?

If there is no evidence that god or gods exists, then there is no reason to believe in this vaguely and variously defined concept. If you have evidence or some rationale to offer, then I am happy to consider it. Otherwise, playing word games about there being no evidence to disprove the existence of a concept for which there is no evidence, is really a waste of time.

If you still want to believe in god, because that is the way you were brought up or because it makes you feel good, or any other reason, that is entirely up to you.

And for those who lack the ability to make up their minds, that is their choice a well.

[Kamehameha34]

Calling you opponent ridiculous doesn't constitute an argument - especially in place of refutations for arguments you have not answered.

By the way, according to your definition, you're a non-practicing agnostic.

[nilan3000]

Quote by: RickSp There is also nonsense, there is foolishness and there is sophistry. I see a fair share of each in this sort of rambling. I am an atheist because I do not believe in god or gods. You are an agnostic because you refuse to make up your mind.

But what can an agnostic do if the existing evidence is not enough to convince him/her? The facts that you have come across have been enough to convince you that god does not exist, but the existing evidence is not enough to convince us.

So why accuse us of refusing to make up our minds, when it is not our fault in the first place? The only difference between us is that you are satisfied with what you have learnt to draw a conclusion while we are not.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Why would you make up your mind if you feel there is no proof either way?

Because that is what you do in a debate forum. It is a cheap shot to choose neither side of an unprovable argument then simply claim EVERYBODY else is wrong. Its pointless.

Fine. we understand why you are agnostic. Dont ask us to argue against it or call too much attention to it. There is no point.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Calling you opponent ridiculous doesn't constitute an argument -

Your stance on this argument doesn't really constitute an argument. It's "You're all probably wrong somewhere, but because i can't physically be wrong because I'm not holding an opinion, i win." Not being wrong does not make you right. It makes you nothing.

[nilan3000]

Quote by: Jagged Because that is what you do in a debate forum. It is a cheap shot to choose neither side of an unprovable argument then simply claim EVERYBODY else is wrong. Its pointless. Fine. we understand why you are agnostic. Dont ask us to argue against it or call too much attention to it. There is no point.

If someone chooses neither side of an unprovable argument and then claims everybody else is wrong, he is not an agnostic, he is a fool. A true agnostic is in search of the answer because he hasnt found it yet, and there is no point in calling someone an agnostic if he claims that everybody else is wrong.

After all, being agnostic means that you do not know the answer, if you denounce everybody else's claims, that would mean you DO know the answer.

[Kamehameha34]

Your stance on this argument doesn't really constitute an argument. It's "You're all probably wrong somewhere, but because i can't physically be wrong because I'm not holding an opinion, i win." Not being wrong does not make you right. It makes you nothing.

My stance is that I don't know if there's a god. Don't presume to tell me that I do.

[Jagged]

I did not say that you did. That does not change the fact that you made this topic and asked people to challenge your agnostic "stance".

[Kamehameha34]

I did not say that you did. That does not change the fact that you made this topic and asked people to challenge your agnostic "stance".

By proving their own. Since they, and you, can not, you have failed.

[nilan3000]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 By proving their own. Since they, and you, can not, you have failed.

Dude, just because they havent convinced you that doesnt mean they failed, it just means that the amount of information you need to convince yourself is probably more than most people.

As an agnostic, yes I do accept criticisms from atheists that we are not strong willed enough to make a stance and that we do take the easier path by standing in the middle, but the fact still remains that neither side has managed to convince us, which is why we cannot fight for our beleifs as vehemently as atheists or theists do. We have no beleifs to fight for, that is our cross to bear (how ironic). Trust me, for people like me thats not taking the easy path, thats just being confused. But im not afraid to admit that Im confused or uncertain, thats what searching for an answer is all about.

But man, saying the rest have failed just because they havent convinced you is unfair.

[Kamehameha34]

I'm not saying that they've failed because they haven't convinced me, although they haven't. I'm saying that they've failed because they didn't provide evidence for their position, thus invalidating mine.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Zhavric Think of the god hypothesis: "there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us". It's a hypothesis like any other that needs to be logically valid and supported before it can be considered. As an agnostic, you're willing to do whatever it takes to keep this hypothesis "possible". Not proven. Not disproven. "Possible". Though you'll argue otherwise, we both know that "possible" is a positive truth claim. To be anything but an atheist is to concede god could exist. You, yourself, established belief without evidence is faith. You challenge this, stating there is "evidence for the possibility of god". Instead of evidence, you offer "what ifs". When we point out that "what ifs" aren't evidence, you stamp your feet and tell us they are and demand that god is "possible". When we point out facts that make god impossible, you fall back to more "what ifs" and/or change the god hypothesis. This is really where your argument falls apart. The more you change the god hypothesis to account for existing proven claims, the less effective the already flawed hypothesis becomes. For example, we know that energy cannot be created spontaneously. I've seen you & your cronies argue that god doesn't necessarily need to create energy. In doing so, you change the god hypothesis: "there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it except energy, including us" Now the hypothesis doesn't account for where energy comes from and is of even LESS use to us. Atheists rely on facts, logic & reason. Theists rely on personal experience, tradition and ancient texts. What do agnostics rely on? Ignoring evidence, untenable ever-changing definitions of god and pure blind faith that one of their zillions of unsupported claims could be out there. Are you familiar with Russel's teapot?

Game Set Match, the thread should have ended here
kameha has been going downhill since then. trying to get people to argue against his non-position. its a first = /

I am not for the iraq war, nor am i against it. Now who wants to challenge me?

[ItsDarts]

Kame, please answer the following;

What is your stance on the Abrahamic God(s)?

What is your stance on the gods of Greek mythology?

What is your stance on Pagan gods?

What is your stance on Egyptian gods?

What is your stance on Eastern God(s)?

Thank you.

[RickSp]

Quote by: nilan3000 But what can an agnostic do if the existing evidence is not enough to convince him/her? The facts that you have come across have been enough to convince you that god does not exist, but the existing evidence is not enough to convince us.

What evidence are you referring to? If you have "evidence" of the existence of god, please present it. If indeed there is no evidence and you still wish to believe based on faith, that is your choice as well. Choosing to make no choice is another form of faith. It has the advantage of less dogma but that is about it.

The agnostic demand to disprove the existence of something for which no evidence exists is absurd on its face. The question "how can you prove that there is no possible god?" is also equally foolish.

It gets down to basic epistemology. How do we know what we know? How do we know anything at all? If you claim that any knowledge requires an absolute knowledge of every possible universal outcome, then knowledge itself is impossible. If we need to know everything to decide on anything, then we do indeed know nothing.

I know what I know because I have evidence for my beliefs. If that evidence is proven wrong, my beliefs will change. This does not mean that I need to know or even consider all possibilities that might occur somehow, someplace, or some time. If I have no reason to believe then I will not, even if when I gain more evidence or knowledge my views may change. I will not sit paralyzed by the awareness that my views may be altered. I will not say, "Gee I don't know enough to decide what I believe," which is in essence the agnostic perspective.

Imagine applying that perspective to day to day decisions. Almost any choice would become impossible because you couldn't rule out the possibility that under some circumstances your choice might not be the right one. You certainly could never prove absolutely that you choice was correct. It is only in these sorts intellectual parlor games discussing whether or not to believe in a universal imaginary friend that agnosticism is practical.

As I suggested before, agnosticism has all the features of faith, except that one need not show up to church or drop anything in the collection plate.