Why Agnosticism is the right choice.

[Aristotle]

I firmly believe that the values of religious/metaphysical beliefs regarding a specific deity, or deities are unknown. I understand that faith in the unknown of an incoporeal deity is paramount to any metaphysical faith, but frankly there are too many loopholes in religion. I would like to consider myself an Agnostic-Theist in the sense that I do believe that God exist, but the definition of God is unknown. I firmly believe that there is a deity that exist and is above all others in the universe but I do not know, nor can define, what this deity is. i guess you can say like people of religious faith, have a faith-like belief in something unknowable. But I firmly believe Agnosticism is probably the most logical thinking. Monotheism, like atheism is fine but there is no proof for either, just philosophical arguments for proof and disproof.

No true atheist can prove a negative and neither a theist can prove the existence of an incoporeal deity.

 

[The Infidel]

No true atheist can prove a negative and neither a theist can prove the existence of an incoporeal deity.

Believe what ya want to.... I couldn't give two turds.



Agnostic enough for ya?

 

[Aristotle]

No true atheist can prove a negative and neither a theist can prove the existence of an incoporeal deity.

Believe what ya want to.... I couldn't give two turds.



Agnostic enough for ya?

Maybe without the turds, but you cared enough to respond....Thanks!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I firmly believe that the values of religious/metaphysical beliefs regarding a specific deity, or deities are unknown. I understand that faith in the unknown of an incoporeal deity is paramount to any metaphysical faith, but frankly there are too many loopholes in religion. I would like to consider myself an Agnostic-Theist in the sense that I do believe that God exist, but the definition of God is unknown. I firmly believe that there is a deity that exist and is above all others in the universe but I do not know, nor can define, what this deity is. i guess you can say like people of religious faith, have a faith-like belief in something unknowable. But I firmly believe Agnosticism is probably the most logical thinking. Monotheism, like atheism is fine but there is no proof for either, just philosophical arguments for proof and disproof.

No true atheist can prove a negative and neither a theist can prove the existence of an incoporeal deity.

Agnostics believe that, as far as can be judged, all metaphysical claims are unknowable. Theists believe that there is a God that is in control of the everyday operation of the universe. You cannot be both an agnostic and a theist.

The rest of your post makes as much sense as your claim to be an antagonistic theist, ie, none.

 

[Aristotle]

Sigh*

Quantum Douchebag you idiot, I just defined agnosticism in the first sentence. I also highlighted that I am an agnostic-theist. Are you really that stupid?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

 

[Avatar4321]

Or you could put in the effert and search for God and seek revelation and blessings from His hand.

 

[Greenbeard]

I would like to consider myself an Agnostic-Theist in the sense that I do believe that God exist, but the definition of God is unknown.

If you don't have a definition for the concept you're describing, what does it mean to say you believe it exists?

 

[BreezeWood]

No true atheist can prove a negative and neither a theist can prove the existence of an incorporeal deity.

The Garden is the Physical Presence and Proof of Gods Existence.

 

[newpolitics]

I firmly believe that the values of religious/metaphysical beliefs regarding a specific deity, or deities are unknown. I understand that faith in the unknown of an incoporeal deity is paramount to any metaphysical faith, but frankly there are too many loopholes in religion. I would like to consider myself an Agnostic-Theist in the sense that I do believe that God exist, but the definition of God is unknown. I firmly believe that there is a deity that exist and is above all others in the universe but I do not know, nor can define, what this deity is. i guess you can say like people of religious faith, have a faith-like belief in something unknowable. But I firmly believe Agnosticism is probably the most logical thinking. Monotheism, like atheism is fine but there is no proof for either, just philosophical arguments for proof and disproof.

No true atheist can prove a negative and neither a theist can prove the existence of an incoporeal deity.

Agnostics believe that, as far as can be judged, all metaphysical claims are unknowable. Theists believe that there is a God that is in control of the everyday operation of the universe. You cannot be both an agnostic and a theist.

The rest of your post makes as much sense as your claim to be an antagonistic theist, ie, none.

Yes, you can be an agnostic theist. the two terms are not mutually exclusive, as a/gnosticism refers to knowledge, and a/theism addresses belief, and knowledge is a sub-set of belief. I am an agnostic atheist. To be a gnostic anything is epistemological hubris.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sigh*

Quantum Douchebag you idiot, I just defined agnosticism in the first sentence. I also highlighted that I am an agnostic-theist. Are you really that stupid?

Agnostic theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How does the fact that you created a Wiki Article somehow legitimize your position? If I create a Wiki article that talks about Christian-Satanism, would that somehow negate the point that it is inherently impossible to be both at the same time?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would like to consider myself an Agnostic-Theist in the sense that I do believe that God exist, but the definition of God is unknown.

If you don't have a definition for the concept you're describing, what does it mean to say you believe it exists?

Science did not have a definition for dark energy when it was first proposed, does that somehow prove that it doesn't exist?

 

[newpolitics]

I would like to consider myself an Agnostic-Theist in the sense that I do believe that God exist, but the definition of God is unknown.

If you don't have a definition for the concept you're describing, what does it mean to say you believe it exists?

Science did not have a definition for dark energy when it was first proposed, does that somehow prove that it doesn't exist?

That is different. Dark energy is a term to denote an effect that we see, that is real, in the universe, and measurable. We just gave it a name so we could talk about it. God is a hypothetical entity that exists no where demonstrable, and needs to be defined by those that propose it. Dark energy does not need to be defined, apart from it being a description of an observable and measurable effect: the acceleration of the universe outward.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I firmly believe that the values of religious/metaphysical beliefs regarding a specific deity, or deities are unknown. I understand that faith in the unknown of an incoporeal deity is paramount to any metaphysical faith, but frankly there are too many loopholes in religion. I would like to consider myself an Agnostic-Theist in the sense that I do believe that God exist, but the definition of God is unknown. I firmly believe that there is a deity that exist and is above all others in the universe but I do not know, nor can define, what this deity is. i guess you can say like people of religious faith, have a faith-like belief in something unknowable. But I firmly believe Agnosticism is probably the most logical thinking. Monotheism, like atheism is fine but there is no proof for either, just philosophical arguments for proof and disproof.

No true atheist can prove a negative and neither a theist can prove the existence of an incoporeal deity.

Agnostics believe that, as far as can be judged, all metaphysical claims are unknowable. Theists believe that there is a God that is in control of the everyday operation of the universe. You cannot be both an agnostic and a theist.

The rest of your post makes as much sense as your claim to be an antagonistic theist, ie, none.

Yes, you can be an agnostic theist. the two terms are not mutually exclusive, as a/gnosticism refers to knowledge, and a/theism addresses belief, and knowledge is a sub-set of belief. I am an agnostic atheist. To be a gnostic anything is epistemological hubris.

Yes,m it is possible to believe in something you cannot believe in, but no sane person would do that. That makes anyone that declares themselves to believe in the unbelievable a liar, or crazy.

By the way it is also impossible to be an agnostic atheist, unless you believe that it is possible to deny possibility of something wile simultaneously admitting that it is possible.

You need to stop denying reality by pointing to reality, it makes you look as crazy as proving that ghost exist by pointing to the fact that ghost hunters exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you don't have a definition for the concept you're describing, what does it mean to say you believe it exists?

Science did not have a definition for dark energy when it was first proposed, does that somehow prove that it doesn't exist?

That is different. Dark energy is a term to denote an effect that we see, that is real, in the universe, and measurable. We just gave it a name so we could talk about it. God is a hypothetical entity that exists no where demonstrable, and needs to be defined by those that propose it. Dark energy does not need to be defined, apart from it being a description of an observable and measurable effect: the acceleration of the universe outward.

No, it is not different. Greenbeard claims that it is impossible to describe something unless you can define it. Dark energy can be described, yet is not defined.

 

[Greenbeard]

Science did not have a definition for dark energy when it was first proposed, does that somehow prove that it doesn't exist?

That is different. Dark energy is a term to denote an effect that we see, that is real, in the universe, and measurable. We just gave it a name so we could talk about it. God is a hypothetical entity that exists no where demonstrable, and needs to be defined by those that propose it. Dark energy does not need to be defined, apart from it being a description of an observable and measurable effect: the acceleration of the universe outward.

No, it is not different. Greenbeard claims that it is impossible to describe something unless you can define it. Dark energy can be described, yet is not defined.

Dark energy does have a definition. That's how you can use the term and I can know exactly what you're referring to.

"God," as used in the OP has no such definition (by his own admission). I thus have no idea what meaning he ascribes to the word, what his words are meant to convey to us, and how we're supposed to understand his statement. Which is why I asked.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is different. Dark energy is a term to denote an effect that we see, that is real, in the universe, and measurable. We just gave it a name so we could talk about it. God is a hypothetical entity that exists no where demonstrable, and needs to be defined by those that propose it. Dark energy does not need to be defined, apart from it being a description of an observable and measurable effect: the acceleration of the universe outward.

No, it is not different. Greenbeard claims that it is impossible to describe something unless you can define it. Dark energy can be described, yet is not defined.

Dark energy does have a definition. That's how you can use the term and I can know exactly what you're referring to.

"God," as used in the OP has no such definition (by his own admission). I thus have no idea what meaning he ascribes to the word, what his words are meant to convey to us, and how we're supposed to understand his statement. Which is why I asked.

Really? What is it? Because the last time I looked it is nothing more than a hypothesis that was made up to explain the fact that science cannot explain something that is actually happening. It is undetectable and unprovable, yet it exists, because if it doesn't, the universe doesn't work. That sounds a lot like what some believers use to define God, doesn't it?

By the way despite the fact that the OP is a complete idiot, he did not say that God does not have a definition, he just said that he has no idea what it is.

 

[newpolitics]

Agnostics believe that, as far as can be judged, all metaphysical claims are unknowable. Theists believe that there is a God that is in control of the everyday operation of the universe. You cannot be both an agnostic and a theist.

The rest of your post makes as much sense as your claim to be an antagonistic theist, ie, none.

Yes, you can be an agnostic theist. the two terms are not mutually exclusive, as a/gnosticism refers to knowledge, and a/theism addresses belief, and knowledge is a sub-set of belief. I am an agnostic atheist. To be a gnostic anything is epistemological hubris.

Yes,m it is possible to believe in something you cannot believe in, but no sane person would do that. That makes anyone that declares themselves to believe in the unbelievable a liar, or crazy.

By the way it is also impossible to be an agnostic atheist, unless you believe that it is possible to deny possibility of something wile simultaneously admitting that it is possible.

You need to stop denying reality by pointing to reality, it makes you look as crazy as proving that ghost exist by pointing to the fact that ghost hunters exist.

Wow, you're wrong. In a nutshell, belief and knowledge are NOT the same thing.

To correct you, it is logically impossible to believe in something you don't believe in, because that is a contradiction (and violates the law of noncontradiction) and has nothing to do with being liar or crazy. It's not an option, logically.

You simply don't have your epistemology at all correct. Knowledge and belief are two different categories, therefore, not mutually exclusive. Knowledge can be said to be justified true belief, and is therefore a sub-set of belief. Therefore, all knowledge is made of beliefs, but all beliefs are not necessarily knowledge, because they are not all true. I can believe that a square is a circle, but that would not be true simply because I believe it to be true, and is in fact demonstrably false because it is a logical contradiction.

However, if I know something, I also believe it. It just happens to be a true belief, and therefore counts as knowledge. I know that I exist, because I also believe it, although many would argue this isn't truly knowable either, and I would agree. Descartes made this notion popular with "I think, therefore I am."

Therefore, for something like god, because of its characteristics, many believe that it is not knowable whether one actually exists. Therefore, they are termed agnostic. However, just because one doesn't know god exists, doesn't mean they can't believe, as demonstrated above. Others think they have sufficient evidence to "know" that god exists, and are classified as gnostic theists. I do not believe in a god, but I also do NOT think it is possible to KNOW that no gods exist, because would be almost impossible to establish this empirically, given that I would need exhaustive knowledge of the entire universe in order to know this, because proving a negative is much more difficult.

People disagree on this, because the colloquial definition of agnosticism has come to mean something meaningless in addressing the question of belief.




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk]Lack of belief in gods - YouTube[/ame]

 

[newpolitics]

Science did not have a definition for dark energy when it was first proposed, does that somehow prove that it doesn't exist?

That is different. Dark energy is a term to denote an effect that we see, that is real, in the universe, and measurable. We just gave it a name so we could talk about it. God is a hypothetical entity that exists no where demonstrable, and needs to be defined by those that propose it. Dark energy does not need to be defined, apart from it being a description of an observable and measurable effect: the acceleration of the universe outward.

No, it is not different. Greenbeard claims that it is impossible to describe something unless you can define it. Dark energy can be described, yet is not defined.

Yes, it is!!! When describing the physical universe, we don't always know what we are looking at, but must give it a name simply so we can discuss it and mention it. The name would refer to this phenomenon. That is the definition of dark energy: the observed phenomenon of galaxies accelerating despite gravity. This is not the same as discussing a supernatural being that has no verifiable effect within this universe. We don't have to actually know what Dark Energy is before we can give it a name. That's preposterous. According to your logic then, we would never be able to talk about anything that we didn't understand fully, and we would never have progressed one iota as a species technologically from hunter gather days. This is the absurdity of what you pose.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wow, you're wrong. In a nutshell, belief and knowledge are NOT the same thing.

I never said they were, did I? You are the one that wants to insist you know the answer while declaring that you don't. I suppose you think that makes you honest, but it just makes you silly.

To correct you, it is logically impossible to believe in something you don't believe in, because that is a contradiction (and violates the law of noncontradiction) and has nothing to do with being liar or crazy. It's not an option, logically.

Now you want to play like you know philosophy. This is going to be fun.

Tell me something, how does saying I am correct that it is impossible to believe in two opposite things at the same time prove I am wrong to say it is impossible to believe in two different things at the same time? If we assume that the universe is logical, which would be the only way the law of contradiction would apply, wouldn't anyone who claims to believe in the impossible be lying? If they actually believed it it, which is a possibility, wouldn't that prove they were crazy? Doesn't the law of the excluded middle prohibit any other explanation?

You simply don't have your epistemology at all correct. Knowledge and belief are two different categories, therefore, not mutually exclusive. Knowledge can be said to be justified true belief, and is therefore a sub-set of belief. Therefore, all knowledge is made of beliefs, but all beliefs are not necessarily knowledge, because they are not all true. I can believe that a square is a circle, but that would not be true simply because I believe it to be true, and is in fact demonstrably false because it is a logical contradiction.

I don't have anything wrong, you are trying to apply it to a logical universe that excludes belief and non belief at the same time while insisting that you have the power to do both and remain both sane and logical.

That said, lets see where we get if we apply epistemology to your claim. Since you have no justified true belief to apply, since you have no real evidence either way about the existence, or non existence, of God, we can ignore any arguments that use justified true belief as a basis.

Epistemology teaches us that all belief has to be based, at least in part, in truth. In other words, despite your assertion that knowledge and belief are separate, they are actually interdependent. Any belief we have has to be based, at least in part, in truth.

If we take your belief in a square being a circle, the fact that it is a logical contradiction is irrelevant here, all that matters to the matter of this being a belief is if any part of it is true.

I suggest you go back to your philosophy teacher and request a refund.

However, if I know something, I also believe it. It just happens to be a true belief, and therefore counts as knowledge. I know that I exist, because I also believe it, although many would argue this isn't truly knowable either, and I would agree. Descartes made this notion popular with "I think, therefore I am."

Almost.

The problem here is that you being correct that you knowing something means you believe it does not prove that your belief is actually valid unless it is based on truth. For instance, you probably know that English has three tenses. That belief is based in the knowledge imparted to you through many years of education. Unfortunately, that knowledge was based on the fact that teachers lied to you, there are 12 tenses in English.

Therefore, for something like god, because of its characteristics, many believe that it is not knowable whether one actually exists. Therefore, they are termed agnostic. However, just because one doesn't know god exists, doesn't mean they can't believe, as demonstrated above. Others think they have sufficient evidence to "know" that god exists, and are classified as gnostic theists. I do not believe in a god, but I also do NOT think it is possible to KNOW that no gods exist, because would be almost impossible to establish this empirically, given that I would need exhaustive knowledge of the entire universe in order to know this, because proving a negative is much more difficult.

The fact that many people believe something does not make it true. Even if it is true, that does not justify you using their belief to argue that your belief is true unless you know that it is.

Parsing agnosticism in an attempt to justify different levels of saying "I don't know" is stupid. If you don't know you don't know. Your lack of belief in the premise that God does not exist does not change the simple fact that you don't know.

People disagree on this, because the colloquial definition of agnosticism has come to mean something meaningless in addressing the question of belief.

I don't give a fuck.



I never said they were, did I? You are the one that wants to insist you know the answer while declaring that you don't. I suppose you think that makes you honest, but it just makes you silly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is different. Dark energy is a term to denote an effect that we see, that is real, in the universe, and measurable. We just gave it a name so we could talk about it. God is a hypothetical entity that exists no where demonstrable, and needs to be defined by those that propose it. Dark energy does not need to be defined, apart from it being a description of an observable and measurable effect: the acceleration of the universe outward.

No, it is not different. Greenbeard claims that it is impossible to describe something unless you can define it. Dark energy can be described, yet is not defined.

Yes, it is!!! When describing the physical universe, we don't always know what we are looking at, but must give it a name simply so we can discuss it and mention it. The name would refer to this phenomenon. That is the definition of dark energy: the observed phenomenon of galaxies accelerating despite gravity. This is not the same as discussing a supernatural being that has no verifiable effect within this universe. We don't have to actually know what Dark Energy is before we can give it a name. That's preposterous. According to your logic then, we would never be able to talk about anything that we didn't understand fully, and we would never have progressed one iota as a species technologically from hunter gather days. This is the absurdity of what you pose.

Excuse me? How is a name equal to a definition? Does calling a boy Sue define that boy as a girl?