Why Agnosticism is the right choice.

[dblack]

You can't be agnostic if you believe that a god exists, I think that's called a retard.

Of course you can. Agnosticism is a conviction about provability. Belief in god(s), is usually characterized by it's lack of proof. Indeed, that's what makes faith different from mundane convictions based on proof.

So you can be an agnostic and a true believer. I have a good friend who claims both positions. In fact, most religious people I've talked to will make agnostic claims, or at least admit that they can't prove the existence of gods.

And, fwiw, you can also be an atheist and an agnostic.

FYI, from Wiki, "an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively".

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heh... the first line of the opening paragraph pretty much makes my point. Did you read it?

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.[1][2][3] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2] In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.

Perhaps I should have prefaced my comments with 'in the strict sense'. Popular usage mangles many useful words, but usually - as it does in this case - also renders them incoherent. If what we mean to say is "unsure", why bother with a fancy word? Just say "unsure".

 

[ima]

Of course you can. Agnosticism is a conviction about provability. Belief in god(s), is usually characterized by it's lack of proof. Indeed, that's what makes faith different from mundane convictions based on proof.

So you can be an agnostic and a true believer. I have a good friend who claims both positions. In fact, most religious people I've talked to will make agnostic claims, or at least admit that they can't prove the existence of gods.

And, fwiw, you can also be an atheist and an agnostic.

FYI, from Wiki, "an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively".

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heh... the first line of the opening paragraph pretty much makes my point. Did you read it?

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.[1][2][3] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2] In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.

Perhaps I should have prefaced my comments with 'in the strict sense'. Popular usage mangles many useful words, but usually - as it does in this case - also renders them incoherent. If what we mean to say is "unsure", why bother with a fancy word? Just say "unsure".

Yes, "unknown and unknowable" means you can't believe in a deity and think you're agnostic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can't be agnostic if you believe that a god exists, I think that's called a retard.

Of course you can. Agnosticism is a conviction about provability. Belief in god(s), is usually characterized by it's lack of proof. Indeed, that's what makes faith different from mundane convictions based on proof.

So you can be an agnostic and a true believer. I have a good friend who claims both positions. In fact, most religious people I've talked to will make agnostic claims, or at least admit that they can't prove the existence of gods.

And, fwiw, you can also be an atheist and an agnostic.

No you can't.

By the way faith is not based on a lack of evidence, it is based on evidence, just like any other form of belief. I have faith that dark energy/dark matter exists, whatever they are, actually exists, even though it is impossible to prove because it cannot be detected and cannot be verified through experiments. That belief is based on a lot more than me having no knowledge, the evidence proves, to me, that dark energy exists.

Will science one day find a way to prove dark energy/dark matter exists? Probably, now that it is seriously looking for a way to do so.

There is also evidence that God exists. Quite a bit of the evidence I use to base my belief on is subjective, but that only makes it invalid if you assume I am lying. There is also evidence that is objective in that I can prove by using sources that it happened.

The reason most people have a problem understanding God is that idiots have told them that science can neither confirm nor deny that He exists. That is as absurd as assuming that science will never prove that dark energy/dark matter exists.

 

[Famine]

The whole point all comes down to ...a lose/lose or win/lose situation.If you do not believe in religion you die and your existence is gone but if your wrong you get to spend glorious days in Hell for eternity.If you do believe and get right with God and the bases of the Bible happen to be accurate then you either Enjoy Heaven and once again if wrong you just cease to exist.So some sort of religion including Muslim,Catholic or even Satanists should have some belief to fall back on when the final days are upon them.

 

[ima]

The whole point all comes down to ...a lose/lose or win/lose situation.If you do not believe in religion you die and your existence is gone but if your wrong you get to spend glorious days in Hell for eternity.If you do believe and get right with God and the bases of the Bible happen to be accurate then you either Enjoy Heaven and once again if wrong you just cease to exist.So some sort of religion including Muslim,Catholic or even Satanists should have some belief to fall back on when the final days are upon them.

It doesn't matter what you believe, we're all going to the same place, however unknown it is. Religion was invented because the masses are afraid of the unknown, so they feel good thinking that a paradise awaits them if they do as they are told. And so they obey. And the church takes their money. The most brilliant con game of all time.

 

[ima]

You can't be agnostic if you believe that a god exists, I think that's called a retard.

Of course you can. Agnosticism is a conviction about provability. Belief in god(s), is usually characterized by it's lack of proof. Indeed, that's what makes faith different from mundane convictions based on proof.

So you can be an agnostic and a true believer. I have a good friend who claims both positions. In fact, most religious people I've talked to will make agnostic claims, or at least admit that they can't prove the existence of gods.

And, fwiw, you can also be an atheist and an agnostic.

No you can't.

By the way faith is not based on a lack of evidence, it is based on evidence, just like any other form of belief. I have faith that dark energy/dark matter exists, whatever they are, actually exists, even though it is impossible to prove because it cannot be detected and cannot be verified through experiments. That belief is based on a lot more than me having no knowledge, the evidence proves, to me, that dark energy exists.

Will science one day find a way to prove dark energy/dark matter exists? Probably, now that it is seriously looking for a way to do so.

There is also evidence that God exists. Quite a bit of the evidence I use to base my belief on is subjective, but that only makes it invalid if you assume I am lying. There is also evidence that is objective in that I can prove by using sources that it happened.

The reason most people have a problem understanding God is that idiots have told them that science can neither confirm nor deny that He exists. That is as absurd as assuming that science will never prove that dark energy/dark matter exists.

"There is also evidence that is objective in that I can prove by using sources that it happened. " Go ahead, prove your god to us.

Science has never said that god doesn't exist, although they might have said that no actual proof exists, because none has yet to be found.

Dark matter is a THEORY until proven otherwise. if no one finds any actual dark matter, it can't be said to exist, you can only surmise that it might. Just like a god. A theory. Not a fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The whole point all comes down to ...a lose/lose or win/lose situation.If you do not believe in religion you die and your existence is gone but if your wrong you get to spend glorious days in Hell for eternity.If you do believe and get right with God and the bases of the Bible happen to be accurate then you either Enjoy Heaven and once again if wrong you just cease to exist.So some sort of religion including Muslim,Catholic or even Satanists should have some belief to fall back on when the final days are upon them.

It doesn't matter what you believe, we're all going to the same place, however unknown it is. Religion was invented because the masses are afraid of the unknown, so they feel good thinking that a paradise awaits them if they do as they are told. And so they obey. And the church takes their money. The most brilliant con game of all time.

I love people that expound on why things that happened long before they were born like they were there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course you can. Agnosticism is a conviction about provability. Belief in god(s), is usually characterized by it's lack of proof. Indeed, that's what makes faith different from mundane convictions based on proof.

So you can be an agnostic and a true believer. I have a good friend who claims both positions. In fact, most religious people I've talked to will make agnostic claims, or at least admit that they can't prove the existence of gods.

And, fwiw, you can also be an atheist and an agnostic.

No you can't.

By the way faith is not based on a lack of evidence, it is based on evidence, just like any other form of belief. I have faith that dark energy/dark matter exists, whatever they are, actually exists, even though it is impossible to prove because it cannot be detected and cannot be verified through experiments. That belief is based on a lot more than me having no knowledge, the evidence proves, to me, that dark energy exists.

Will science one day find a way to prove dark energy/dark matter exists? Probably, now that it is seriously looking for a way to do so.

There is also evidence that God exists. Quite a bit of the evidence I use to base my belief on is subjective, but that only makes it invalid if you assume I am lying. There is also evidence that is objective in that I can prove by using sources that it happened.

The reason most people have a problem understanding God is that idiots have told them that science can neither confirm nor deny that He exists. That is as absurd as assuming that science will never prove that dark energy/dark matter exists.

"There is also evidence that is objective in that I can prove by using sources that it happened. " Go ahead, prove your god to us.

Science has never said that god doesn't exist, although they might have said that no actual proof exists, because none has yet to be found.

Dark matter is a THEORY until proven otherwise. if no one finds any actual dark matter, it can't be said to exist, you can only surmise that it might. Just like a god. A theory. Not a fact.

Did I say I could prove God exists? I just said that there is evidence for His existence, just like there is for dark matter/dark energy.

Thanks for proving how stupid you are, that probably explains your rep.

 

[Hollie]

The whole point all comes down to ...a lose/lose or win/lose situation.If you do not believe in religion you die and your existence is gone but if your wrong you get to spend glorious days in Hell for eternity.If you do believe and get right with God and the bases of the Bible happen to be accurate then you either Enjoy Heaven and once again if wrong you just cease to exist.So some sort of religion including Muslim,Catholic or even Satanists should have some belief to fall back on when the final days are upon them.

Blaise Pascal would be proud of this poster!

This post is rife with fallacies, but also there is the clear and unmistakable tone of theological arrogance within these statements (usually something the religions the theist embraces insists the theist avoid) -- quite a mouthful for so few words!

So, from the top:

1. Living a life under a delusion is a sad existence. In most cases, such a belief is harmless. In many cases though, the belief is far from harmless, as the endless battles between theists historically prove. Remove the delusional belief in god from the arguments of the Jews, Moslems, and Christians and you'd end many of the conflicts taking place today, at least for any theological reasons.

From the atheistic point of view, the theist cannot withstand a world wherein humans are the final owners of our destiny, that acts need to be watched over and adjudicated by one or more gods, and that human progress is inherently hindered, impossible without the guidance of the father figure. Finally, the theist is in a psychological dilemma of superiority/inferiority -- they are so vaunted by their gods that the entire realm of existence was created exclusively for them, but they are so unworthy that they are insignificant in the sight of their deities. That is a prescription for a maladjusted personality, and again, it's evident by the seething passions that theistic belief has whipped up time and time again.

2. Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there is a god on the chance he will not send you to an eternity of torture."

Fallacies:

a. What if you have chosen the wrong god? You will spend an eternity apart from your “real” god for making such an egregious error

b. "Betting" on god displays prideful ego and might anger god, and you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error

c. God might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error

d. What if the gods deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error.

e. What if the gods are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error.

 

[newpolitics]

FYI, from Wiki, "an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively".

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heh... the first line of the opening paragraph pretty much makes my point. Did you read it?

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.[1][2][3] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2] In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.

Perhaps I should have prefaced my comments with 'in the strict sense'. Popular usage mangles many useful words, but usually - as it does in this case - also renders them incoherent. If what we mean to say is "unsure", why bother with a fancy word? Just say "unsure".

Yes, "unknown and unknowable" means you can't believe in a deity and think you're agnostic.

Ima, you are incorrect here. The two terms a/gnostic and a/theist are not mutually exclusive, as they address two different things. Agnosticism goes to knowledge, whereas atheism goes to belief. I am an agnostic atheist. The colloquial definition suggests that agnosticism is a mid-point between the two, but this is logically invalid.

 

[ima]

Heh... the first line of the opening paragraph pretty much makes my point. Did you read it?



Perhaps I should have prefaced my comments with 'in the strict sense'. Popular usage mangles many useful words, but usually - as it does in this case - also renders them incoherent. If what we mean to say is "unsure", why bother with a fancy word? Just say "unsure".

Yes, "unknown and unknowable" means you can't believe in a deity and think you're agnostic.

Ima, you are incorrect here. The two terms a/gnostic and a/theist are not mutually exclusive, as they address two different things. Agnosticism goes to knowledge, whereas atheism goes to belief. I am an agnostic atheist. The colloquial definition suggests that agnosticism is a mid-point between the two, but this is logically invalid.

Knowledge and belief, as it refers to religion, are complete opposites. Belief, or faith as it's also called in this context, is to believe in god without any actual knowledge of any proof of its existence.
You can believe that you're a believer and a non-believer at the same time if it makes you feel good, but you would be a walking delusion.

 

[newpolitics]

Yes, "unknown and unknowable" means you can't believe in a deity and think you're agnostic.

Ima, you are incorrect here. The two terms a/gnostic and a/theist are not mutually exclusive, as they address two different things. Agnosticism goes to knowledge, whereas atheism goes to belief. I am an agnostic atheist. The colloquial definition suggests that agnosticism is a mid-point between the two, but this is logically invalid.

Knowledge and belief, as it refers to religion, are complete opposites. Belief, or faith as it's also called in this context, is to believe in god without any actual knowledge of any proof of its existence.
You can believe that you're a believer and a non-believer at the same time if it makes you feel good, but you would be a walking delusion.

knowledge and belief, with regards to anything, are not opposite, they are simply different, but related. Knowledge is a sub-set of belief, being a belief that is justified, and most importantly, is actually true. It is the intersection between truth and belief that makes it knowledge. Imagine a Venn Diagram. Therefore, not all belief is knowledge, but all knowledge exists as a belief. So, you can believe something without knowing it to be true (such as "leprechauns exist"), but you can't know something without believing it. I can't know that the declaration of independence was signed on 1776 without believing it.

Likewise with god. I can believe that a god exists, without believing that this claim is actually knowable. Or I can not believe that a god exists, and not believe this claim is knowable. They are two separate issues, although related, but differentiable, necessarily.

 

[ima]

Ima, you are incorrect here. The two terms a/gnostic and a/theist are not mutually exclusive, as they address two different things. Agnosticism goes to knowledge, whereas atheism goes to belief. I am an agnostic atheist. The colloquial definition suggests that agnosticism is a mid-point between the two, but this is logically invalid.

Knowledge and belief, as it refers to religion, are complete opposites. Belief, or faith as it's also called in this context, is to believe in god without any actual knowledge of any proof of its existence.
You can believe that you're a believer and a non-believer at the same time if it makes you feel good, but you would be a walking delusion.

knowledge and belief, with regards to anything, are not opposite, they are simply different, but related. Knowledge is a sub-set of belief, being a belief that is justified, and most importantly, is actually true. It is the intersection between truth and belief that makes it knowledge. Imagine a Venn Diagram. Therefore, not all belief is knowledge, but all knowledge exists as a belief. So, you can believe something without knowing it to be true (such as "leprechauns exist"), but you can't know something without believing it. I can't know that the declaration of independence was signed on 1776 without believing it.

Likewise with god. I can believe that a god exists, without believing that this claim is actually knowable. Or I can not believe that a god exists, and not believe this claim is knowable. They are two separate issues, although related, but differentiable, necessarily.

If you believe that a god exists, you can't be agnostic. You're a theist.
If you believe that a god doesn't/can't exist, you're an atheist.
if you believe that a god hasn't been proven either way to exist or to not exist is to be an agnostic.

You're confusing ordinary belief (as in, I believe that it's correct to say that 2+2=4) with religious belief, which is the belief in something with no facts to support it.

 

[newpolitics]

Quantum Windbag:


First of all, philosophy does not exist merely to make arguments. Logic and argumentation is only a part of philosophy, although a very important and useful part. Logic itself can be considered the "method" of philosophizing, and arguments can be made to demonstrate points or truths, but it does not encompass philosophy.

Epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy and other parts of philosophy do not exist simply to argue. They exist to understand truth, not to argue.

Philosophy is "the love of wisdom" and was developed by the greeks to understand the world naturally, and rationally. You're claim about nothing being true in philosophy is also wrong. For the most part, claims are inconclusive, because the questions that are asked are simply too abstract or can not verified empirically, but for example, the laws of logic can be considered "true" descriptions of our universe, which falsifies your point.

"This is why I refuse to use philosophy for anything other than a tool to make philosophers look silly."

So, you don't even care about philosophy. Obviously, you have not kept up on it, because whatever you studied in college, you have clearly let fade. You're understanding of epistemology is off.

I think its laughable when you said I reject epistemology. I fully embrace epistemology, and all of philosophy, because it addresses questions seen no where else, which I enjoy immensely. You obviously find no use for it. Fine. I do.

The simple fact is knowledge and belief are interchangeable in a true philosophical debate. I am guarantee that you know something that is demonstrably false. Given enough time, I could convince you of that observation by providing multiple examples, but all I have to do is prove that you don't know what you just sated is a fact.

I reject your claim that two different terms with distinct definitions are ever fully interchangeable in a "truly philosophical debate." Belief and knowledge may be very closely related, they are not the same. If you are referring to discussions of the abstract where nothing can truly be known, then I may be willing to grant you this, but this is a special case or kind of discussion in which all of the subjects are and are so incredibly abstract, such as morality, that invoking the concept of knowledge is hard to do. Further, I don't believe that any philosopher would consider any beliefs about morality, for instance, to be knowledge, in a philosophical discussion. I have heard this, and I have listened to many "purely philosophical discussions" (The Partially-Examined Life podcast). This is the essence of epistemology, and asks the questions "what is knowledge?" "How do we know if something is true?" "When are we justified in believing something?"

The idea of justification is an important one, simply because can't truly know much of anything, with any certainty. All we have are logic, reason, and evidence. Without these, we could believe anything with full justification and we would all be insane, literally.

What evidence do you have that the ancients, whoever you think they are, believed that thunder was caused by the gods? Is it based on first hand interviews with them? Writings that were handed down from that time? Do you have any actual facts to back up that statement?

Of course you don't. the best you can come up with is experts writing thousands of years later about how our scared ancestors must have huddled under rocks whenever lightning lit up the sky, and how they invented gods to explain it. These were the same people that could easily take a professional football player and toss him around like a rag doll, my guess is they were not nearly as afraid as the experts who claim to understand them.

I have reasoned evidence and inductive logic to conclude that the ancients believed that thunder was caused by the gods. It is probabilistic proposition, as is always the case with an inductive argument. They were humans like we are. They lacked scientific knowledge, and so the only information they had to inform them of the natural world, was their religious beliefs, and indeed, we see this all over the ancient world, and any time prior to the scientific age. This is nothing new. To say that the ancients were special and didn't consult their religions to explain the natural world would require an entirely different epistemology for this one group of people. What justifcation do you have for that???

We see evidence of their beliefs about thunder explicitly in their writing, and knowing what we know about their religious beliefs, and their lack of scientific knowledge about the natural world, it is justifiable to conclude that they believed thunder was caused by the gods, as they did about earthquakes, and the stars, the sun, the moon, space (the "heavens"). Certainly within history there are different standards of evidence we use. I can't know anything that happened before this present moment, technically. The past could have been an illusion, but the evidence we do have, if you accept that assumption that the universe is not some kind of simulation or that we are simply "brains in a vat," points to the ancients clearly believing what I have said.

This doesn't simply come down to experts making claims about the ancients without evidence. They do have evidence, and it all comes back to evidence. Justification of belief relies on some kind of evidence. That's a key point. Sure, we don't KNOW that they believed this. They could actually have believed something entirely different, but not written about it, and instead, purposely deceived future generations, by writing about something they didn't at all believe knowing that later others would read their writing and be deceived, but this is highly implausible, and is what you're logic might suggest. This is absurd.

 

[newpolitics]

Knowledge and belief, as it refers to religion, are complete opposites. Belief, or faith as it's also called in this context, is to believe in god without any actual knowledge of any proof of its existence.
You can believe that you're a believer and a non-believer at the same time if it makes you feel good, but you would be a walking delusion.

knowledge and belief, with regards to anything, are not opposite, they are simply different, but related. Knowledge is a sub-set of belief, being a belief that is justified, and most importantly, is actually true. It is the intersection between truth and belief that makes it knowledge. Imagine a Venn Diagram. Therefore, not all belief is knowledge, but all knowledge exists as a belief. So, you can believe something without knowing it to be true (such as "leprechauns exist"), but you can't know something without believing it. I can't know that the declaration of independence was signed on 1776 without believing it.

Likewise with god. I can believe that a god exists, without believing that this claim is actually knowable. Or I can not believe that a god exists, and not believe this claim is knowable. They are two separate issues, although related, but differentiable, necessarily.

If you believe that a god exists, you can't be agnostic. You're a theist.
If you believe that a god doesn't/can't exist, you're an atheist.
if you believe that a god hasn't been proven either way to exist or to not exist is to be an agnostic.

You're confusing ordinary belief (as in, I believe that it's correct to say that 2+2=4) with religious belief, which is the belief in something with no facts to support it.

First of all, there is no distinction in the "kinds of beliefs." A belief is a belief is a belief. It is simply defined as a proposition you hold to be true, whatever the subject: god, or simple arithmetic. Whether you are justified in holding that belief is a separate thing. There may be different standards of evidence applied to different claims, embodied in the carl sagan quote "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Beliefs with no facts to support it could simply be considered an "unjustified belief." But, who's is to say something is unjustified to someone else? You can't. If someone is convinced of a proposition, they believe, and at least to themselves, are justified. Whether they have empirical justification for this is an entirely different proposition altogether, and in the case of god, "empirical" becomes a grey area, because personal experience, to that person, is evidence of a god. An extraordinary feeling they have never before experienced and directly associated with god may be evidence of enough to form belief, especially if "god" saves them from a lot of pain and existential torment that is normal for humans who understand their own mortality. I'm not saying god exists. I don't believe that, but I don't think it is knowable either way.

You're definitions don't hold up to logical scrutiny or epistemic understanding. The colloquial definition of agnosticism is meaningless. Either you believe in a god, or you don't. There is no middle ground. If you do not possess a positive belief that a god exists, you are an atheist. Saying you're agnostic is answering a different question entirely, namely, do you believe that the existence of a god can be known or proven?

I think the most obvious distinction can be shown by using the terms a priori and a posteriori. Whether you possess a belief about something that exists, can be known, a priori. You simply ask yourself if you belief in god, and would mean that you either are, or are not, convinced by the proposition: "a god exists." This process describes theism and atheism.

Whether or not a god actually exists in the universe (given some adequate definition of god, here I mean it to be the creator), is something that could only be known a posteriori, or with evidence or observation. There is no way to have a posteriori knowledge of god, because there is no empirical evidence, aside from personal testimony, but personal testimony is justification to believe for that person alone, not for someone else. This ability to know or prove that god actually exists is described by the terms agnosticism and gnosticism.

In essence, it is the difference between what exists in your brain as a belief, and what actually exists in the universe. They are two separate things, in my opinion, and I think this can be easily demonstrated.

 

[ima]

knowledge and belief, with regards to anything, are not opposite, they are simply different, but related. Knowledge is a sub-set of belief, being a belief that is justified, and most importantly, is actually true. It is the intersection between truth and belief that makes it knowledge. Imagine a Venn Diagram. Therefore, not all belief is knowledge, but all knowledge exists as a belief. So, you can believe something without knowing it to be true (such as "leprechauns exist"), but you can't know something without believing it. I can't know that the declaration of independence was signed on 1776 without believing it.

Likewise with god. I can believe that a god exists, without believing that this claim is actually knowable. Or I can not believe that a god exists, and not believe this claim is knowable. They are two separate issues, although related, but differentiable, necessarily.

If you believe that a god exists, you can't be agnostic. You're a theist.
If you believe that a god doesn't/can't exist, you're an atheist.
if you believe that a god hasn't been proven either way to exist or to not exist is to be an agnostic.

You're confusing ordinary belief (as in, I believe that it's correct to say that 2+2=4) with religious belief, which is the belief in something with no facts to support it.

First of all, there is no distinction in the "kinds of beliefs." A belief is a belief is a belief. It is simply defined as a proposition you hold to be true, whatever the subject: god, or simple arithmetic. Whether you are justified in holding that belief is a separate thing. There may be different standards of evidence applied to different claims, embodied in the carl sagan quote "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Beliefs with no facts to support it could simply be considered an "unjustified belief." But, who's is to say something is unjustified to someone else? You can't. If someone is convinced of a proposition, they believe, and at least to themselves, are justified. Whether they have empirical justification for this is an entirely different proposition altogether, and in the case of god, "empirical" becomes a grey area, because personal experience, to that person, is evidence of a god. An extraordinary feeling they have never before experienced and directly associated with god may be evidence of enough to form belief, especially if "god" saves them from a lot of pain and existential torment that is normal for humans who understand their own mortality. I'm not saying god exists. I don't believe that, but I don't think it is knowable either way.

You're definitions don't hold up to logical scrutiny or epistemic understanding. The colloquial definition of agnosticism is meaningless. Either you believe in a god, or you don't. There is no middle ground. If you do not possess a positive belief that a god exists, you are an atheist. Saying you're agnostic is answering a different question entirely, namely, do you believe that the existence of a god can be known or proven?

I disagree with your concept of belief. Religious belief is by itself, much removed from ordinary life, it's also known as faith, which is the belief of something with no proof. The pseudo proof that you mention, "an extraordinary feeling" isn't by any measure, any kind of proof of anything, except maybe an adrenalin rush.

I'm an agnostic because I consider that no real and actual proof has ever been put forward to show that a god exists, nor has any ever been put forward to definitively prove that a god cannot exist. I'm not sure if a god can be proven, perhaps it can. Who's to say what'll happen in 1000 or 10000 or 10 000 000... years?

 

[newpolitics]

Knowledge and belief, as it refers to religion, are complete opposites. Belief, or faith as it's also called in this context, is to believe in god without any actual knowledge of any proof of its existence.
You can believe that you're a believer and a non-believer at the same time if it makes you feel good, but you would be a walking delusion.

knowledge and belief, with regards to anything, are not opposite, they are simply different, but related. Knowledge is a sub-set of belief, being a belief that is justified, and most importantly, is actually true. It is the intersection between truth and belief that makes it knowledge. Imagine a Venn Diagram. Therefore, not all belief is knowledge, but all knowledge exists as a belief. So, you can believe something without knowing it to be true (such as "leprechauns exist"), but you can't know something without believing it. I can't know that the declaration of independence was signed on 1776 without believing it.

Likewise with god. I can believe that a god exists, without believing that this claim is actually knowable. Or I can not believe that a god exists, and not believe this claim is knowable. They are two separate issues, although related, but differentiable, necessarily.

If you believe that a god exists, you can't be agnostic. You're a theist.
If you believe that a god doesn't/can't exist, you're an atheist.
if you believe that a god hasn't been proven either way to exist or to not exist is to be an agnostic.

You're confusing ordinary belief (as in, I believe that it's correct to say that 2+2=4) with religious belief, which is the belief in something with no facts to support it.

I've already posted this, but I'm going to post it again. It explains this really well.

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

and this does too...

 

[ima]

I don't watch videos. If you need someone else to explain your point, then you need work on your communication skills.

 

[newpolitics]

If you believe that a god exists, you can't be agnostic. You're a theist.
If you believe that a god doesn't/can't exist, you're an atheist.
if you believe that a god hasn't been proven either way to exist or to not exist is to be an agnostic.

You're confusing ordinary belief (as in, I believe that it's correct to say that 2+2=4) with religious belief, which is the belief in something with no facts to support it.

First of all, there is no distinction in the "kinds of beliefs." A belief is a belief is a belief. It is simply defined as a proposition you hold to be true, whatever the subject: god, or simple arithmetic. Whether you are justified in holding that belief is a separate thing. There may be different standards of evidence applied to different claims, embodied in the carl sagan quote "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Beliefs with no facts to support it could simply be considered an "unjustified belief." But, who's is to say something is unjustified to someone else? You can't. If someone is convinced of a proposition, they believe, and at least to themselves, are justified. Whether they have empirical justification for this is an entirely different proposition altogether, and in the case of god, "empirical" becomes a grey area, because personal experience, to that person, is evidence of a god. An extraordinary feeling they have never before experienced and directly associated with god may be evidence of enough to form belief, especially if "god" saves them from a lot of pain and existential torment that is normal for humans who understand their own mortality. I'm not saying god exists. I don't believe that, but I don't think it is knowable either way.

You're definitions don't hold up to logical scrutiny or epistemic understanding. The colloquial definition of agnosticism is meaningless. Either you believe in a god, or you don't. There is no middle ground. If you do not possess a positive belief that a god exists, you are an atheist. Saying you're agnostic is answering a different question entirely, namely, do you believe that the existence of a god can be known or proven?

I disagree with your concept of belief. Religious belief is by itself, much removed from ordinary life, it's also known as faith, which is the belief of something with no proof. The pseudo proof that you mention, "an extraordinary feeling" isn't by any measure, any kind of proof of anything, except maybe an adrenalin rush.

I'm an agnostic because I consider that no real and actual proof has ever been put forward to show that a god exists, nor has any ever been put forward to definitively prove that a god cannot exist. I'm not sure if a god can be proven, perhaps it can. Who's to say what'll happen in 1000 or 10000 or 10 000 000... years?

You also lack a positive belief that a god exists, therefore, you are also an atheist, by definition. Whether you believe a god is knowable or provable has nothing to do whether there exists a belief in your head that god does exist.

It's really simple. Theists are making a claim that a god exists. You can only believe , or disbelieve that positive claim. Atheism is not another positive claim that a god does not exist. It is simply the rejection of the claim that one does. If you do not believe in a god, you are an atheist. If you are not convinced by the proposition that a god exists, you are an atheist. Agnosticism is ill-conceived as a neutral state.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

What the fuck ever....