Agnosticism Is *not A Rational Position To Take*

[Asimov]

Well it's true. Unless someone can correct me on this and explain the position better, I currently think that agnosticism has got to be the most wishy-washy position to take. Not only that, but it's thrown around everywhere as some kind of catch-phrase. It's almost as if people use it in order to get out of justifying a belief system that they actually have, but don't want to really think about.

 

First, let's define agnosticism:

 

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth or falsity of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God or gods—is unknown, unknowable, or incoherent.

 

This philosophical view is entirely irrelevant.

 

Let's break this apart into the three sections: Unknown, Unkowable, and Incoherent.

 

Unknown: The existence of God is unknown. Great...that's pretty much exactly the atheistic position, that there is no evidence to suggest that a God exists and the logical argumentation in support of God is invalid. Positive argumentation against the existence of any particular concept of God is not making a statement of knowledge, but merely a falsification of said concept. Thus, within the context of this philosophical viewpoint, these types of agnostics are atheists.

 

Unknowable: To make an absolute statement like that is nearly as retarded as claiming that Elvis never did drugs. In order to make such a claim, one would have to know every single epistemic system that will ever arise. Unless there is a condition placed on this statement such as "at this time, it is unkowable if there is a God".

Of course, that is an obtuse statement. If one is to define God, then we can know whether or not, through evidence and logical argumentation whether or not this kind of God is a valid concept. If there is no evidence then we are back to square one of it being unkown and therefore the atheistic position is a natural one.

 

Incoherent: I'm assuming that by incoherent they mean that since God is undefined that it is incoherent to believe in such a being. If that is true, then automatically one should assume an atheistic position.

 

Weak atheism does not exist as a coherent concept. To clarify, atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. Providing a positive argument that falsifies a certain concept of God is just that, a falsification.

It does not mean that one contains the burden of proof, since the burden of proof rests upon the one who is making a claim regarding the nature of reality (that God exists). Negating that statement by providing an argument is not a positive claim, but a falsification of that claim.

 

Making a statement that God does not exist is not a claim about the nature of reality (that x exists), but the gainsay of the positive claim.

 

Strong atheism does not exist as a coherent concept. For much the same reason.

[Amethyst]

Arrrrrrgh.

 

You cannot logically prove or disprove the existence of a god either way.

 

And so WHAT if I don't want the baggage that calling myself an atheist would bring? I have gone through my life being treated like crap because I'm not a size 6 and will never be one. Why should I have to be treated like crap and call myself an atheist and earn people's wrath for no reason?

 

It is MY decision to call myself an agnostic. I stand by it. Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there isn't a god? Not the Christian one, we all know that one doesn't exist. But can you prove that something like the universe isn't sentient or that there isn't some kind of life force out there? No. It's unprovable and will always be unprovable. I have a right to not call myself an atheist, whether people like you and Grinch like it or not.

 

I was going to go to bed, but since you decided to be pissy, there's no fricking way I can sleep now.

 

Anyway, I AM NOT A STUPID PERSON and I highly resent being called one.

 

And where does it say this is onlyatheistsallowed.net? Last time I checked, this was a site for all deconverts.

[Biggles7268]

ahh the old if you don't agree with my position you must be a retard line. haven't heard that one in awhile.

 

atheism = there is no god

 

agnosticism = i don't know and neither do you so friggin bite me

 

 

 

p.s. fuck spell check

[Asimov]

You cannot logically prove or disprove the existence of a god either way.

 

Why?

 

And so WHAT if I don't want the baggage that calling myself an atheist would bring? I have gone through my life being treated like crap because I'm not a size 6 and will never be one. Why should I have to be treated like crap and call myself an atheist and earn people's wrath for no reason?

 

I do it, and I face absolutely no problems whatsoever...but that's just me and I don't really care what people think.

 

However, you just showed my point that it's just a catch-phrase.

 

It is MY decision to call myself an agnostic. I stand by it. Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there isn't a god? Not the Christian one, we all know that one doesn't exist. But can you prove that something like the universe isn't sentient or that there isn't some kind of life force out there? No. It's unprovable and will always be unprovable. I have a right to not call myself an atheist, whether people like you and Grinch like it or not.

 

No, and I never claimed to be able to prove it....which also goes to show that you didn't read my post and just looked at the title.

 

You can't generalize the word 'god' and say that it could apply to anything...hence the incoherent part.

 

Anyway, I AM NOT A STUPID PERSON and I highly resent being called one.

 

Where did I say that you were stupid?

 

ahh the old if you don't agree with my position you must be a retard line

 

Where did I say that?

[Amethyst]

Where did I say that you were stupid?

 

You claimed all agnostics were stupid. I'm agnostic, by your logic I'm stupid.

 

I'm sorry if I over-reacted, but I've got insomnia tonight and am probably crabby due to that.

 

Still, essentially having my intelligence insulted did not make for a good reaction.

 

As to your other questions.

 

Why?

 

Because it is a logical impossibility, at least when you're dealing with a generic god concept (unlike the Christian deity).

 

I do it, and I face absolutely no problems whatsoever...but that's just me and I don't really care what people think.

 

However, you just showed my point that it's just a catch-phrase.

 

Good for you. But not everyone lives in a place where they can do that. There is a lot of discrimination in the U.S.

 

You can't generalize the word 'god' and say that it could apply to anything...hence the incoherent part.

 

Funny, the deists do. So do the taoists and some new ager types.

[Asimov]

It's interesting to see how sensitive people are regarding their own belief systems...especially an incoherent one such as agnosticism.

 

Instead of any type of expected rational discussion regarding this I get hissy-fits and people thinking I personally insulted them.

[Amethyst]

Well, what would you do if a fundy called you stupid?

 

I will admit, I've had low self-esteem issues all my life due in a huge part to Christianity so I'm more sensitive than some. But still, the only belief system I would call stupid would be one where someone was brainwashed into it.

 

I consider myself agnostic because that's where I am right now. Logic tells me that the existance of a deist-type god is unprovable, and by definition an agnostic believes it's unprovable. Maybe in a few years I will consider myself an atheist; who knows. But this is where I am now.

[Fweethawt]

Instead of any type of expected rational discussion regarding this I get hissy-fits and people thinking I personally insulted them.

You're lying.

 

You're getting exactly what you "expected".

[Asimov]

You claimed all agnostics were stupid. I'm agnostic, by your logic I'm stupid.

 

Don't put words into my mouth. Where did I say that all agnostics are stupid?

 

Because it is a logical impossibility, at least when you're dealing with a generic god concept (unlike the Christian deity).

 

Well now you're just being wishy-washy again. You keep going from generic to a specific deity.

 

It doesn't work that way. Generic god is an undefined concept, therefore it's incoherent, therefore the only rational position is atheism.

 

Christian God is a defined and logically incoherent concept, therefore the only rational position is atheism.

 

Funny, the deists do. So do the taoists and some new ager types.

 

Yes, and they're position is irrational too, what's your point?

 

 

Instead of any type of expected rational discussion regarding this I get hissy-fits and people thinking I personally insulted them.

You're lying.

 

You're getting exactly what you "expected".

 

You're stupid!

 

Well, what would you do if a fundy called you stupid?

 

I will admit, I've had low self-esteem issues all my life due in a huge part to Christianity so I'm more sensitive than some. But still, the only belief system I would call stupid would be one where someone was brainwashed into it.

 

I consider myself agnostic because that's where I am right now. Logic tells me that the existance of a deist-type god is unprovable, and by definition an agnostic believes it's unprovable. Maybe in a few years I will consider myself an atheist; who knows. But this is where I am now.

 

I didn't call you stupid, though.

 

What would I do? Laugh in their face....are you calling me a fundy?

[Fweethawt]

Instead of any type of expected rational discussion regarding this I get hissy-fits and people thinking I personally insulted them.

You're lying.

 

You're getting exactly what you "expected".

You're stupid!

I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

[Asimov]

I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

 

Nope!

[Fweethawt]

I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

Nope!

Then shut the fuck up, dumb-ass.

[Asimov]

I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

Nope!

Then shut the fuck up, dumb-ass.

 

Stop derailing my thread!

 

[Fweethawt]

I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

Nope!

Then shut the fuck up, dumb-ass.

Stop derailing my thread!

Then don't be stupid.

 

[Asimov]

I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

Nope!

Then shut the fuck up, dumb-ass.

Stop derailing my thread!

Then don't be stupid.

 

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

Hey Man, forgive me for not reading the thread, but, strictly speaking, the only definition I was sure was approprite to true agnostics was that of someone who has examined the popular claims about god but found them lacking, and waits for a better definition. I think I am an agnostic, but I call myself an atheist because I live in Nashville, churchtown USA. I could never know whether or not a God really existed, all I know is that the popular definitions for god are impossible.

[Biggles7268]

your title is better now

[Fweethawt]

your title is better now

No it's not. It's stupid.

 

[Amethyst]

This is essentially where you called agnostics stupid:

 

Well it's true. Unless someone can correct me on this and explain the position better, I currently think that agnosticism has got to be the most wishy-washy position to take. Not only that, but it's thrown around everywhere as some kind of catch-phrase. It's almost as if people use it in order to get out of justifying a belief system that they actually have, but don't want to really think about.

 

It doesn't work that way. Generic god is an undefined concept, therefore it's incoherent, therefore the only rational position is atheism.

 

But not everyone defines god in the manner that Christians do.

 

What would I do? Laugh in their face....are you calling me a fundy?

 

No, but honestly, you are coming across in this thread as a fundy atheist. As in, atheists are right and everyone else is wrong, period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. That is the same kind of attitude that I dislike about Christian fundies. It's very arrogant, IMHO, to say you're right and everyone else is wrong, especially on a subject that cannot be proven one way or the other. At least agnostics don't do that.

 

I may very well be wrong, but I'd like very much for someone to prove it one way or the other and be done with the debate for all time.

 

I just don't see why I should have to say that there either isn't a god or there is when nobody on this planet can really prove it, especially when people's definitions of god vary so widely. On the subject of a Christian god, sure I'm an atheist. Or even a magical being sitting up in the sky with a magic wand. But something like the deist or taoist version? Who really knows?

 

See, the problem is I think that Asimov's definition is very narrow. Yet those who believe in a sentient universe or a life force or even some sort of alien intelligence (worshipping aliens is silly, I know, but people like that are out there) are willing to call it a divine entity of sorts. So it depends entirely on how you define a divine entity, and the definitions are really varied throughout the world.

[Fweethawt]

No, but honestly, you are coming across in this thread as a fundy atheist.

I was thinking something along the lines of 'dickweed'. But yeah, fundy atheist has a better ring to it, I guess.

[Guest Luci]

Hi,

I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject but I would appreciate any comments about this. It is a supposed apology that I received from my boyfriends father for calling me a gold-digger about a year ago (unfounded of course). I was hoping for an apology back then but he finally sent one today. Is it just me or does it sound a tad sarcastic and a bit forced or am I just being paranoid?

the reason I am putting this on here is because Im a regular visitor to this site and dont know any other sites to just ask a general question. Thanks.Here goes:

 

"I am given to understand that you have a major problem around ancient history & you need some reassurance that things have moved on. You will know I am referring to the "gold digger" issue which you read in my email to Nicholas a long time ago. I retract that statement & trust you will now put the matter to rest.

 

I hope you received our greetings at Christmas which were not acknowledged by you."

 

Hi,

This is a reply to this topic.

I have chatted to lots of so called agnostics and what annoys me is that agnostic is supposedly someone who doesnt believe in god/higher power yet doesnt dismiss the idea either. They are essentially sitting on the fence. Anyhow what annoys me is when I ask these people what they believe they actually do believe in a higher power and usually that higher power resembles the christian god. That sounds like a theist to me. Why do these people call themselves agnostics??

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Another thing that annoys me is that these people that I described above give atheists just as much a hard time as christians do.

Im only referring to the people who call themselves agnostic when they clearly arent.

Can someone please reply to my other post too. thanks

[Lycorth]

Asimov, I think you're a great guy but IMHO, its irrational to give a shit what people want to call themselves.

 

Agreed. It doesn't matter what people call themselves. People who make a fuss about other people's religion or religious opinions when they don't threaten anyone hasn't evolved away from the Xian mindset of needing to make a fuss because the next guy doesn't think as you do.

 

Making a big deal about Agnosticism is irrational.

[scitsofreaky]

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth or falsity of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God or gods—is unknown, unknowable, or incoherent.

Where did you get this definition? The definition I am familiar with is that God is just unknown (some seem to think that god is also unknowable, but I wouldn't consider that part of a universal definition).

Unknown: The existence of God is unknown. Great...that's pretty much exactly the atheistic position, that there is no evidence to suggest that a God exists and the logical argumentation in support of God is invalid. Positive argumentation against the existence of any particular concept of God is not making a statement of knowledge, but merely a falsification of said concept. Thus, within the context of this philosophical viewpoint, these types of agnostics are atheists.

I'd like to amend what I have highlighted: there is no current evidence to suggest that a God exists. It is irrational to think that we have all of the data. Lack of evidence does not prove or disprove anything absolutely, so it seems illogical to make an absolute conclusion (ie, God does exist, God does not exist). Because of this, believing God to be unknowable seems a bit more logical since we probably wont ever have all of the information.

Unknowable: To make an absolute statement like that is nearly as retarded as claiming that Elvis never did drugs.

Just like atheism perhaps.

In order to make such a claim, one would have to know every single epistemic system that will ever arise. Unless there is a condition placed on this statement such as "at this time, it is unkowable if there is a God".

See above.

Of course, that is an obtuse statement. If one is to define God, then we can know whether or not, through evidence and logical argumentation whether or not this kind of God is a valid concept. If there is no evidence then we are back to square one of it being unkown and therefore the atheistic position is a natural one.

See, I tend to disagree that not knowing is the same as atheism, because it doesn't seem that it is not believeing there is a god, it is not forming an opinion(conclusion) because of a lack of information. Atheism is form the opinio(conclusion) that one does not believe there is a god. See the difference?

Incoherent: I'm assuming that by incoherent they mean that since God is undefined that it is incoherent to believe in such a being. If that is true, then automatically one should assume an atheistic position.

I have no clue what "incoherent" could possibly mean in this context. It seems somewhat redundant, if god is unknowable then it is obviously not going to be coherent.

[I Broke Free]

This Atheist-Agnostic question comes up frequently and each time I find myself more confused about the issue than before I entered the fray.

 

I no longer even give the issue a second thought. On the rare occasion when the issue comes up in conversation I tell people to ask me some questions and they are free to define what I am. I just don’t care anymore. With enough questions they quickly learn that I think their god is load of crap and that is all that is important to me.

 

IBF

[Japedo]

 

 

I can no more Prove or disprove a god(s) then you can say for absolutely certain that their isn't one. Because one states their is no proof doesn't mean that proof doesn't exist. Back in the days the Sun circled the earth, and it was so strongly believed that it was declared law. Until the proof stated other wise many people believed this to be the case. The proof was always there that the earth circled the sun, it just wasn't known yet is the point I'm trying to make.

 

I don't worship any beings, however that's not to say that a higher power doesn't exist. I for one have not stopped looking for answers. I don't consider myself a Fence rider, I consider myself waiting for more poof either way before I arrive at my conclusion.

 

I think to say there is zero proof of a god(s) is just as extreme and arrogant as people believing they know Christ is god and all should comply with their stated belief. I don't believe theirs an invisible man in the sky controlling things, but on the other hand, Earth and everything on it is just to perfect for it to be accident or coincidence.