Agnosticism makes more since than atheism

[Blackrook]

Agnosticism makes more sense than atheism, at least to me.

It seems that the main argument atheists assert against the existence of God or gods is that God/gods cannot be proven to exist.

The counterargument I would make is that there is no proof either way. One cannot be certain that God/gods exist and one cannot be certain that they don't exist.

This assumes that all eye-witness testimony of miracles is rejected, on the assumption that such eye-witness testimony must be mistaken because miracles are impossible.

So the agnostic position is not completely on solid ground either, since it rejects all eye-witness testimony of miracles based on an assumption that may or may not be true, i.e. miracles are impossible.

I think the most rational position is to keep the mind open to all possibilities.

 

[MaxGrit]

Atheists will tell you that all agnostics are atheists.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I agree. Although to be fair , negative proofs are a lot harder.
Prooving there is a white elephant is rather easy. But ridiculous as it may sound prooving a pink elephant doesn't exist is a lot harder , because you would have to sample every single elephant.
The same happens when trying to proove god doesn't exist ... it is really hard.

Perhaps which religion should one pusue ?
The Old testament tends to point out to a vengefull god inclined to favor the jews.
The New testament speaks of a loving god who teaches us to love each other
Hinduism talks about many gods.

 

[Blackrook]

The only rational position is to start out believing anything is possible, and starting an investigation to determine which religion, if any, is true.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well duh.

 

[Judicial review]

Well duh.

some people here and abroad need to learn the common sense stuff first before they can move on to the actual discussion. You know how it is..

 

[PratchettFan]

Agnosticism makes more sense than atheism, at least to me.

It seems that the main argument atheists assert against the existence of God or gods is that God/gods cannot be proven to exist.

The counterargument I would make is that there is no proof either way. One cannot be certain that God/gods exist and one cannot be certain that they don't exist.

This assumes that all eye-witness testimony of miracles is rejected, on the assumption that such eye-witness testimony must be mistaken because miracles are impossible.

So the agnostic position is not completely on solid ground either, since it rejects all eye-witness testimony of miracles based on an assumption that may or may not be true, i.e. miracles are impossible.

I think the most rational position is to keep the mind open to all possibilities.

I think Agnosticism is more of an acceptance of reality than an actual belief system. It is an acceptance that we just do not know, one way or the other. Atheism and Theism are belief systems. It is quite possible to be an Agnostic and either a Theist or Atheist. It is only when one confuses belief with knowledge that you can't be both.

 

[Syriusly]

Agnosticism makes more sense than atheism, at least to me.

It seems that the main argument atheists assert against the existence of God or gods is that God/gods cannot be proven to exist.

The counterargument I would make is that there is no proof either way. One cannot be certain that God/gods exist and one cannot be certain that they don't exist.

This assumes that all eye-witness testimony of miracles is rejected, on the assumption that such eye-witness testimony must be mistaken because miracles are impossible.

So the agnostic position is not completely on solid ground either, since it rejects all eye-witness testimony of miracles based on an assumption that may or may not be true, i.e. miracles are impossible.

I think the most rational position is to keep the mind open to all possibilities.

There is a fine line between agnosticism and atheism.

I do not believe in any god- but hey- if ever I find some reason to believe in a god then I will- it is not impossible.

I do not believe in any god because my rational mind refuses to. No more than I can believe in unicorns or leprechauns.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Atheists will tell you that all agnostics are atheists.

which shows you atheists aren't as bright as agnostics.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

There is a fine line between agnosticism and atheism.
.

and that line is choosing to believe something.....the same line that separates agnostics and theists......

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Agnosticism makes more sense than atheism, at least to me.

It seems that the main argument atheists assert against the existence of God or gods is that God/gods cannot be proven to exist.

The counterargument I would make is that there is no proof either way. One cannot be certain that God/gods exist and one cannot be certain that they don't exist.

This assumes that all eye-witness testimony of miracles is rejected, on the assumption that such eye-witness testimony must be mistaken because miracles are impossible.

So the agnostic position is not completely on solid ground either, since it rejects all eye-witness testimony of miracles based on an assumption that may or may not be true, i.e. miracles are impossible.

I think the most rational position is to keep the mind open to all possibilities.

There are people who claim to have witnessed miracles or experienced them from every religion. Do you deny that those miracles from Allah, or a Hindu god, or a Buddhist spirit, or whatever religion are not valid because they aren't Christian miracles?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The only rational position is to start out believing anything is possible, and starting an investigation to determine which religion, if any, is true.

Or to determine that religious beliefs or any beliefs in the same sense can be proved to be true with the current available information.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Atheists will tell you that all agnostics are atheists.

Atheists argue with eachother exactly what the term's defintion really means. Most agnostics would also claim not to believe in a supreme being, doesn't that make them atheists?

I've learned to just label myself a non-believer to avoid confusion.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Agnosticism makes more sense than atheism, at least to me.

It seems that the main argument atheists assert against the existence of God or gods is that God/gods cannot be proven to exist.

The counterargument I would make is that there is no proof either way. One cannot be certain that God/gods exist and one cannot be certain that they don't exist.

This assumes that all eye-witness testimony of miracles is rejected, on the assumption that such eye-witness testimony must be mistaken because miracles are impossible.

So the agnostic position is not completely on solid ground either, since it rejects all eye-witness testimony of miracles based on an assumption that may or may not be true, i.e. miracles are impossible.

I think the most rational position is to keep the mind open to all possibilities.

There are people who claim to have witnessed miracles or experienced them from every religion. Do you deny that those miracles from Allah, or a Hindu god, or a Buddhist spirit, or whatever religion are not valid because they aren't Christian miracles?

????.....unless you are arguing that every thing claimed to be a miracle must be a miracle, why would it surprise you that a person could believe in some and reject others?.........

 

[PostmodernProph]

Most agnostics would also claim not to believe in a supreme being, doesn't that make them atheists?

.

no.....

 

[Hollie]

Agnosticism makes more sense than atheism, at least to me.

It seems that the main argument atheists assert against the existence of God or gods is that God/gods cannot be proven to exist.

The counterargument I would make is that there is no proof either way. One cannot be certain that God/gods exist and one cannot be certain that they don't exist.

This assumes that all eye-witness testimony of miracles is rejected, on the assumption that such eye-witness testimony must be mistaken because miracles are impossible.

So the agnostic position is not completely on solid ground either, since it rejects all eye-witness testimony of miracles based on an assumption that may or may not be true, i.e. miracles are impossible.

I think the most rational position is to keep the mind open to all possibilities.

I think Agnosticism is more of an acceptance of reality than an actual belief system. It is an acceptance that we just do not know, one way or the other. Atheism and Theism are belief systems. It is quite possible to be an Agnostic and either a Theist or Atheist. It is only when one confuses belief with knowledge that you can't be both.

You're perpetually confused about both Atheism and belief systems. A belief system would require rituals, customs and practices which don't exist as part of a conclusion that gawds do not exist. Such a conclusion would apply to your gawds as well as the gawds of others.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Agnosticism makes more sense than atheism, at least to me.

It seems that the main argument atheists assert against the existence of God or gods is that God/gods cannot be proven to exist.

The counterargument I would make is that there is no proof either way. One cannot be certain that God/gods exist and one cannot be certain that they don't exist.

This assumes that all eye-witness testimony of miracles is rejected, on the assumption that such eye-witness testimony must be mistaken because miracles are impossible.

So the agnostic position is not completely on solid ground either, since it rejects all eye-witness testimony of miracles based on an assumption that may or may not be true, i.e. miracles are impossible.

I think the most rational position is to keep the mind open to all possibilities.

There are people who claim to have witnessed miracles or experienced them from every religion. Do you deny that those miracles from Allah, or a Hindu god, or a Buddhist spirit, or whatever religion are not valid because they aren't Christian miracles?

????.....unless you are arguing that every thing claimed to be a miracle must be a miracle, why would it surprise you that a person could believe in some and reject others?.........

Accepting only those eye witness accounts of miracles that go along with your own religious beliefs while rejecting all eye witness accounts of miracles of other faiths is an arbitrary, disingenuous, and not rationally defensible position.

To a nonbeliever, it makes rational sense that the reasons Christians reject non-Christian miracles, and that Jews reject non-Jewish miracles, and Islam, and the various major world religions reject eachother's miracles, as well as all the weird, little sub-denominations, and cults - all of them rejecting all other miracles except their own religion's: all of those reasons combined are why nonbelievers aren't convinced any miracles have actually ever happened.

That and the complete and total lack of any kind of substantiated evidence.

 

[PratchettFan]

Agnosticism makes more sense than atheism, at least to me.

It seems that the main argument atheists assert against the existence of God or gods is that God/gods cannot be proven to exist.

The counterargument I would make is that there is no proof either way. One cannot be certain that God/gods exist and one cannot be certain that they don't exist.

This assumes that all eye-witness testimony of miracles is rejected, on the assumption that such eye-witness testimony must be mistaken because miracles are impossible.

So the agnostic position is not completely on solid ground either, since it rejects all eye-witness testimony of miracles based on an assumption that may or may not be true, i.e. miracles are impossible.

I think the most rational position is to keep the mind open to all possibilities.

I think Agnosticism is more of an acceptance of reality than an actual belief system. It is an acceptance that we just do not know, one way or the other. Atheism and Theism are belief systems. It is quite possible to be an Agnostic and either a Theist or Atheist. It is only when one confuses belief with knowledge that you can't be both.

You're perpetually confused about both Atheism and belief systems. A belief system would require rituals, customs and practices which don't exist as part of a conclusion that gawds do not exist. Such a conclusion would apply to your gawds as well as the gawds of others.

A belief system only requires belief. That is why it is called a belief system. You're just rationalizing why your belief system is somehow superior to other belief systems.

 

[Hollie]

Agnosticism makes more sense than atheism, at least to me.

It seems that the main argument atheists assert against the existence of God or gods is that God/gods cannot be proven to exist.

The counterargument I would make is that there is no proof either way. One cannot be certain that God/gods exist and one cannot be certain that they don't exist.

This assumes that all eye-witness testimony of miracles is rejected, on the assumption that such eye-witness testimony must be mistaken because miracles are impossible.

So the agnostic position is not completely on solid ground either, since it rejects all eye-witness testimony of miracles based on an assumption that may or may not be true, i.e. miracles are impossible.

I think the most rational position is to keep the mind open to all possibilities.

I think Agnosticism is more of an acceptance of reality than an actual belief system. It is an acceptance that we just do not know, one way or the other. Atheism and Theism are belief systems. It is quite possible to be an Agnostic and either a Theist or Atheist. It is only when one confuses belief with knowledge that you can't be both.

You're perpetually confused about both Atheism and belief systems. A belief system would require rituals, customs and practices which don't exist as part of a conclusion that gawds do not exist. Such a conclusion would apply to your gawds as well as the gawds of others.

A belief system only requires belief. That is why it is called a belief system. You're just rationalizing why your belief system is somehow superior to other belief systems.

No, a belief system is a collection of shared Interests, customs, practices, traditions, beliefs and often, shared goals.

You have never been able to identify any of the above attributes as they apply to a conclusion regarding the non-existence of gawds. You're simply side-stepping and waffling around your inability to make rational conclusions about your belief in the supernatural.

You make the mistake common among supernaturalists in not understanding that your belief systems that incorporate absurdities of nature, spirit worlds, disembodied entities, etc., are reinventions of various superstitions that have haunted mankind for thousands of years.

So, we still are awaiting your description of the customs, rituals, practices and traditions that simply don't exist as part of a conclusion that gawds do not exist.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Agnosticism makes more sense than atheism, at least to me.

It seems that the main argument atheists assert against the existence of God or gods is that God/gods cannot be proven to exist.

The counterargument I would make is that there is no proof either way. One cannot be certain that God/gods exist and one cannot be certain that they don't exist.

This assumes that all eye-witness testimony of miracles is rejected, on the assumption that such eye-witness testimony must be mistaken because miracles are impossible.

So the agnostic position is not completely on solid ground either, since it rejects all eye-witness testimony of miracles based on an assumption that may or may not be true, i.e. miracles are impossible.

I think the most rational position is to keep the mind open to all possibilities.

I think Agnosticism is more of an acceptance of reality than an actual belief system. It is an acceptance that we just do not know, one way or the other. Atheism and Theism are belief systems. It is quite possible to be an Agnostic and either a Theist or Atheist. It is only when one confuses belief with knowledge that you can't be both.

You're perpetually confused about both Atheism and belief systems. A belief system would require rituals, customs and practices which don't exist as part of a conclusion that gawds do not exist. Such a conclusion would apply to your gawds as well as the gawds of others.

A belief system only requires belief. That is why it is called a belief system. You're just rationalizing why your belief system is somehow superior to other belief systems.

No, a belief system is a collection of shared Interests, customs, practices, traditions, beliefs and often, shared goals.

You have never been able to identify any of the above attributes as they apply to a conclusion regarding the non-existence of gawds. You're simply side-stepping and waffling around your inability to make rational conclusions about your belief in the supernatural.

You make the mistake common among supernaturalists in not understanding that your belief systems that incorporate absurdities of nature, spirit worlds, disembodied entities, etc., are reinventions of various superstitions that have haunted mankind for thousands of years.

So, we still are awaiting your description of the customs, rituals, practices and traditions that simply don't exist as part of a conclusion that gawds do not exist.

Actually, what you are defining as a belief system more closely resembles culture:

1cul·ture \ˈkəl-chər\ noun : the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time : a particular society that has its own beliefs, ways of life, art, etc. : a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization (such as a business).

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

If you Google "belief system definition" you get a lot of different results which more closely resemble what PratchettFan is saying.

Sorry, Hollie. I luv ya, but you're wrong on this one.