Why are you Agnostic?

[Enginuity]

Hmm, what are you if you do not have any religion? Agnostic?

Put it this way. If god exists, and never does anything to intervene in our world, then what does it really matter? If god doesn't exist, then it will never do anything to intervene in our world anyway.
Now, if god exists and did something to intervene in our world, how would we really know?
Therefore theres no purpose to believe either in god, or not to believe in god, because neither is more beneficial than the other, so it doesn't really matter.
At least, that is my opinion.

[ledwix]

Originally Posted by Enginuity

Hmm, what are you if you do not have any religion? Agnostic?

Put it this way. If god exists, and never does anything to intervene in our world, then what does it really matter? If god doesn't exist, then it will never do anything to intervene in our world anyway.
Now, if god exists and did something to intervene in our world, how would we really know?
Therefore theres no purpose to believe either in god, or not to believe in god, because neither is more beneficial than the other, so it doesn't really matter.
At least, that is my opinion.

If god exists, then what we do in this life could determine how we spend eternity. It sounds like there's a lot at stake, to me.

[fido123]

Originally Posted by Enginuity

Hmm, what are you if you do not have any religion? Agnostic?

Put it this way. If god exists, and never does anything to intervene in our world, then what does it really matter? If god doesn't exist, then it will never do anything to intervene in our world anyway.
Now, if god exists and did something to intervene in our world, how would we really know?
Therefore theres no purpose to believe either in god, or not to believe in god, because neither is more beneficial than the other, so it doesn't really matter.
At least, that is my opinion.

The whole eternity thing doesn't make me want to know it's just something I feel I should know. How was this universe created? What is the essence of life?

[Reach]

Originally Posted by JasonKey

I am shocked to actually agree with a Tokzic post ...

Atheism is faith. Extreme faith actually. As extreme as any bible thumping zealot on TV shouting about their flavor of the day.

Agnosticism admits one is open minded and undecided... if somewhat apathetic even to the actual answer.

I would say you're wrong. You're missing the burden of proof. Here's a good example...

I'm going to make a claim. I claim that there is a magic monkey in the corner of my room that dances at night. Only I can see him, and only I can confirm that the magic monkey exists. He is not testable so the monkey cannot be proven or disproven.

So, are you agnostic towards the dancing monkey? What about the giant harry version of jewpin that lives at the bottom of the ocean? Are you going to remain undecided about that as well?

That's where the problem arises. Can you really be undecided about everything that isn't testable? The answer is no, and you rightfully shouldn't be, because of the burden of proof.

If you make a claim, you have to back it up with evidence. If you can't there's no reason to believe you. In the case of God, it isn't a testable entity...so, case in point*** >__>. God could definitely exist...but Santa Claus could also be coming to town...


Essentially it's pretty binary. You simply can't be agnostic about everything. You have to decide yes or no, or you'd never be able to have even a single perception that you can decide is real or not. This argument fails on this premise...you are applying the very logic I talked about when you look at your monitor and read what I've typed. Apply it to God as well and you'll see why it's possible to be Atheistic without faith. Atheism isn't faith because I don't have to have any faith to not acknowledge something you havn't given me a reason to believe in.

Alternatively, you can phrase it the other way around. You can only have faith in something when you generate a belief that you can't substantiate.

[banditcom]

Originally Posted by Reach

I would say you're wrong. You're missing the burden of proof. Here's a good example...

I'm going to make a claim. I claim that there is a magic monkey in the corner of my room that dances at night. Only I can see him, and only I can confirm that the magic monkey exists. He is not testable so the monkey cannot be proven or disproven.

So, are you agnostic towards the dancing monkey? What about the giant harry version of jewpin that lives at the bottom of the ocean? Are you going to remain undecided about that as well?

That's where the problem arises. Can you really be undecided about everything that isn't testable? The answer is no, and you rightfully shouldn't be, because of the burden of proof.

If you make a claim, you have to back it up with evidence. If you can't there's no reason to believe you. In the case of God, it isn't a testable entity...so, case and point >__>. God could definitely exist...but Santa Claus could also be coming to town...

Yep, completely true.

That wherein lies the difference between faith and non-faith. Faith is where you don't need that proof. It's simply faith. Logic and reasoning does not work with that. Agnosticism is failing or choosing not to see both logic/reasoning and faith. Or are just unsure.




I used to be agnostic. It didn't affect me one way or the other. I didn't care to try to have faith nor try to use logic and reasoning. None of faith made sense, and I didn't bother finding the facts. I eventually did, through my own thought-process, and realized I'm atheist. Been that way since and I feel stronger every day towards atheism, especially the more information I find out about science and life.

[tsugomaru]

There's a difference between science and atheism. An atheist simply doesn't believe in god, no where does it state they are hard-core scientist, evolutionist, or strong believers in scientific theory. It would make sense because they have nowhere to go, but it isn't always the case.

I for on, am atheist, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying the bible. I also believe in the scientific method and its laws.

EDIT: Being atheist doesn't mean you can't have faith in science, you just don't have faith in a supreme power.

~Tsugomaru

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Reach

...so, case and point >__>.

In before grammar police.

(It's supposed to be "case in point")

Also everyone, remember, there are two distinct versions of atheism: strong atheism, which asserts the statement "There is no God" to be true, and weak atheism, which is a superset of agnosticism, because it is, according to Wikipedia, "any sort of non-theism which falls short of this standard." Basically, saying "I don't believe in a god because I just haven't seen any evidence towards one" is weak atheism, saying "I know there is no such thing as a god" is strong atheism.

And then you have weak and strong agnosticism, etc. It gets kind of confusing, so just Wiki it. Just know that agnostics are atheists by definition.

[banditcom]

I went from about mid-range agnosticism to strong atheism.

[Enginuity]

Originally Posted by ledwix

If god exists, then what we do in this life could determine how we spend eternity. It sounds like there's a lot at stake, to me.

Yeah, but it begs the question of whether or not eternal life (due to some higher being, and where your choices in life determine your eternal life) exists.
If it does not, then theres no mistake in assuming eternity does not exist. On the other hand, if you assumed/thought that eternal life exists, would you have spent life differently? (eg. praying, church, etc.)
If it does, and you assume that it does not exist, then there is a chance that your eternal life would be bad. If you assumed it did exist, and behaved properly, then it's good for you.
Then because we cannot know for sure whether it exists, it basically comes down to risking a life without worrying about eternal life, at the stake of having a bad eternal life.

In addition, what the heck are you going to do with an eternal life?!? I mean, won't there be a point where you get bored with living?

[ledwix]

Originally Posted by Enginuity

In addition, what the heck are you going to do with an eternal life?!? I mean, won't there be a point where you get bored with living?

No.

[Tails99]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

No. Not me, at least.

I'm agnostic because I find it downright idiotic to believe or not believe in something that we have absolutely no proof supporting either way.

Mmmhmm. Sounds like my answer. People believe in what makes them feel better though no proof is ever given.

[Conorn]

i used to just believe in god, and i used to try and "trick" him by praying for something and seeing if it happens. nope.. now im athiest because i said to.

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by Reach

Essentially it's pretty binary. You simply can't be agnostic about everything. You have to decide yes or no, or you'd never be able to have even a single perception that you can decide is real or not. This argument fails on this premise...you are applying the very logic I talked about when you look at your monitor and read what I've typed. Apply it to God as well and you'll see why it's possible to be Atheistic without faith.

Being agnostic isn't making a claim, unless you consider "both sides of the argument are plausible" as such. You can't make an argument against it with solid fact because there is no solid fact. The very nature of the argument targets the unknown. Saying "there is definitely no god" is the exact same blind grope at nonsense as "there is definitely a god".

You can't say "burden of proof lol" when I observe that an absolute answer cannot be grasped while living. If you disagree with me, you're going to be wrong, or you're going to have some very revolutionary evidence on your side.

Atheism isn't faith because I don't have to have any faith to not acknowledge something you havn't given me a reason to believe in.

You believe the opposite is true. Note that you don't know the opposite is true.

That's faith, genius.

[OrganisM]

This thread is getting more and more intelligent as we go.

[Tokzic]

ya were prety smart

[All_That_Chaz]

i have to disagre with reach. the entire nature of the realm of belief is that there is no burden of proof to be satisfied. all "proof" for the existence of a higher power is founded upon belief itself. it's up to the individual to decide whether, without the support of empirical evidence but only with the faith-based evidence purported by the believers, the claim of the existence of a god, magic monkey, or bottom-dwelling sasquatch jewpin is plausible or not.

here lies the difference between agnostics and (rational) atheists. agnostics have come to the conclusion that the existence of a god is plausible within the realm of belief, while atheists do not.

[OrganisM]

So you're taking belief as proof? That's my biggest problem.

Conviction in something concocted out of thin air makes it truth.

[All_That_Chaz]

no. you missed the point entirely. belief is accepting something without proof. agnostics say that belief in a god is plausible, not absolute because people believe in it.

[devonin]

Okay, many replies in one. Surely tl;dr but hey, I'll take the chance.

Originally Posted by Agent000 77

I am not agnostic...and no I am not going to preach to you. Being agnostic has many reasons some of which actually have a good point. I just wanted to state that evolution is wrong. YOU ARE ALL SHEEP!!!

You can't make such a strong claim with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. The body of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is immense, and you'd pretty well have to conclusively disprove each and every bit of it to forward your claim. Further, belief in evolution doesn't necessarily require you to have one or another religious stance. I can reconcile evolution with theism and atheism easily.

Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time.
This is a false statement without any scientific support.

We turned wolves into chihuahuas and great danes just within a few hundred years. Clearly life can evolve and change.

They are taught that a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and would type Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet if given enough time. This is nonsense. These government educated kids(at least, some of the more "mentally challenged") actually believe this nonsense, just ask one of them. Time does not make impossible things possible.

Er...for one, this proposal has -not one thing- to do with evolution, and for two, is intrinsically correct and provably so. The situation you're describing is phrased such that the monkey has an -infinitely- long amount of time to work. Given an infinite amount of time, every possible string of outputs will eventually come up, because no matter how unlikely each output string is to occur, over an infinite amount of time, the probability becomes '1 in 1'

As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26 letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.

Proof please? Further...a computer running through all 35 trillion attempts did so, I'm sure, rather quickly. Given more time it could easily have finished. Also...If you're going to compare this experiment to evolution, the correct way to do it would have been that once it got those 14 letters (Comperable to a strong evolutionary choice was that carried through generations) that means the next time you run the test, you -start- from "N" so now you only need 12 more correct letters to be done. Evolution doesn't start from scratch.

What are the odd that a simple single cell organism could evolve with the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places?

Rather high, but not impossibly high.

Never in eternity.

Go spend eternity trying, see if it works, then you can make this ridiculous claim.

Evolution in the long term has been proven false. Simple as that.
If you need more evidence I will post it.

Yes post it. Do so in Critical Thinking in a thread entitled "Conclusive proof that Evolution is false" and see how it goes for you.

Moving along

Originally Posted by Enginuity

Put it this way. If god exists, and never does anything to intervene in our world, then what does it really matter?

The claim has been forwarded that God -has- intervened in the world, but having seen the problems with doing so, now simply left a set of guidelines to follow, and has left us to exercise our own free will.

If god doesn't exist, then it will never do anything to intervene in our world anyway. Now, if god exists and did something to intervene in our world, how would we really know?

Depends on the type of intervention I suppose. Fifty foot high words of flame appearing in the sky would be a pretty solid play from a God wanting to reassert its existance.

Therefore theres no purpose to believe either in god, or not to believe in god, because neither is more beneficial than the other, so it doesn't really matter.

As Reach pointed out, and Pascal stated quite nicely, the "safe" view is in fact exactly the opposite. If there is no god, it doesn't matter what you do. If there is a god, you risk eternal damnation as opposed to eternal paradise, so acting as if there -was- a God is the better choice.

Originally Posted by Reach

I'm going to make a claim. I claim that there is a magic monkey in the corner of my room that dances at night. Only I can see him, and only I can confirm that the magic monkey exists. He is not testable so the monkey cannot be proven or disproven.

So, are you agnostic towards the dancing monkey? What about the giant harry version of jewpin that lives at the bottom of the ocean? Are you going to remain undecided about that as well?

There's a flaw in your attempted objection here though. You stated as a condition of the exercise that the existance of the monkey is not testable, and cannot be proven or disproven. If you'd -only- said "There's a magic monkey in my room that only I can see" there are -all kinds of ways- to test whether it exists or not.

Strong Agnostics say that it doesn't matter whether you could prove or disprove Gods existance, because God, if real, would exist outside the human ability to comprehend anyway. Weak agnostics say "Just because we have no proof -now- doesn't mean we never will"

That's where the problem arises. Can you really be undecided about everything that isn't testable? The answer is no, and you rightfully shouldn't be, because of the burden of proof.

Once again, just because you can't think of a way to test for the existance of God (Nor can I) doesn't mean nobody will ever develop one. And weak agnostics are prepared to wait and see. To conclude that something is false simply because it hasn't been proven true is a logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by Conorn

i used to just believe in god, and i used to try and "trick" him by praying for something and seeing if it happens. nope.. now im athiest because i said to.

Prayer: "A request that God suspend the rules of the universe on behalf of the petitioner, confessedly unworthy."

If God grants mankind free will to do as it wishes, and then turns around and directly modifies the world because you asked nicely, that necessarily removes free will. Prayers for intercession are functionally impossible to have granted, and it amuses me to no end how many very devout christians will defend that God gave them free will, but constantly ask God to interfere on their behalf.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

Being agnostic isn't making a claim, unless you consider "both sides of the argument are plausible" as such. You can't make an argument against it with solid fact because there is no solid fact. The very nature of the argument targets the unknown. Saying "there is definitely no god" is the exact same blind grope at nonsense as "there is definitely a god".

You can't say "burden of proof lol" when I observe that an absolute answer cannot be grasped while living. If you disagree with me, you're going to be wrong, or you're going to have some very revolutionary evidence on your side.



You believe the opposite is true. Note that you don't know the opposite is true.

That's faith, genius.

The claim is being made by the religious people. I said nothing about a claim being made by agnostics.

And you missed my point entirely. The problem here is you still don't quite get the point of faith and the burden or proof. Simplying not knowing for certain is not faith. In order to have faith in something there has to be acknowledgment of a claim that cannot be substantiated. There is no claim in atheism because it's a negative, essentially (weak atheism, according to this thread. I was talking about weak atheism all along, if that changes anything). I can prove to you that this is true.

When you are born, do you have faith in say, the fact that the boogyman doesn't exist? And the tooth fairy? And the ect ect ect. The answer is no because you havn't yet acknowledged any of these entities and your absence of recognition isn't faith. You're born an atheist (a weak one anyway).

I quite clearly stated that God could exist, but this is entirely different from whether or not the claim is absurd. What I did do from here is apply the very logic we depend on for our existance to the existance of God to suggest that you have no good reason to believe in it...because the claim is absurd. Not only on the basis on the burden of proof, but on the basis of it violating occam/parsimony in order to maintain its supernatural status.


As for the second point, I can apply the burden of proof. Religious people are making a claim and I can give the burden of proof to any claim. The fact that you can't know while living is a part of the supernatural aspect of God that makes the claim unfalsifiable.

Once again, just because you can't think of a way to test for the existance of God (Nor can I) doesn't mean nobody will ever develop one. And weak agnostics are prepared to wait and see. To conclude that something is false simply because it hasn't been proven true is a logical fallacy.

It's true I can't state for certain, however what you're saying violates occam. Another reason why we *shouldn't* believe even though we cannot acknowledge for sure that it doesn't exist.

So...ok, since nothing can be known for certain I am essentially uncertain about the dancing monkeys testability from my example...so it's possible there could also eventually be something to test for it too. And everything else you can possibly imagine.

Simply inventing things ad nauseum to suggest that you can't know for sure is in plain violation of occams razor/parsimony. You're just increasing the number of assumptions you have to make and thus you increase the absurdity of your claim.