Why Agnosticism is the right choice.

[newpolitics]

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?



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.



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.

Before I go on, I need to know how to "quote" as you do, breaking posts into pieces and then responding. I simply can not respond to this in one chunk. Please, if you wouldn't mind, instruct me on how to do this. Thank you.

 

[dblack]

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.

I could! In fact, I'll offer three turds. Three turds for believing what you want. The American way, baby!

 

[newpolitics]

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?

You can't define something when you don't know what it is. That's impossible. We don't know what dark energy actually is, so how can we define it?!! You're being logically absurd. At this point, Dark Energy is a name applied to an observed phenomenon. Why is this unsatisfactory to you? There are no rules that say you can't give a name to an unexplained but observable phenomenon. It seems like you are simply trying to put dark energy and god into the same category, and they are not.

 

[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.



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?



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.



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.



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.

Before I go on, I need to know how to "quote" as you do, breaking posts into pieces and then responding. I simply can not respond to this in one chunk. Please, if you wouldn't mind, instruct me on how to do this. Thank you.

I don't know if I can explain it simply. Basically, I split up your reply and wrap quote tags around various parts. I make it look fancy by using the opening quote from the beginning of your reply instead of using a simple opening quote /quote.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

You can't define something when you don't know what it is. That's impossible. We don't know what dark energy actually is, so how can we define it?!! You're being logically absurd. At this point, Dark Energy is a name applied to an observed phenomenon. Why is this unsatisfactory to you? There are no rules that say you can't give a name to an unexplained but observable phenomenon. It seems like you are simply trying to put dark energy and god into the same category, and they are not.

You just proved my point, we have no definition for dark matter because we have no idea what it is, yet we are almost positive it exists.

 

[newpolitics]

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

You can't define something when you don't know what it is. That's impossible. We don't know what dark energy actually is, so how can we define it?!! You're being logically absurd. At this point, Dark Energy is a name applied to an observed phenomenon. Why is this unsatisfactory to you? There are no rules that say you can't give a name to an unexplained but observable phenomenon. It seems like you are simply trying to put dark energy and god into the same category, and they are not.

You just proved my point, we have no definition for dark matter because we have no idea what it is, yet we are almost positive it exists.

We don't need a definition for an effect before we can give that effect a name, as this implies we must understand everything about something we know nothing about before we can define it. That is backwards, and logically impossible. It is observed to be what it is. This is really simple. What would you have us do, leave it nameless, or just call it something else? What's the difference? It's still what it is (law of identity). For the sake of reference, it is easier to call it something as opposed to nothing, especially since it is the subject of active scientific inquiry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can't define something when you don't know what it is. That's impossible. We don't know what dark energy actually is, so how can we define it?!! You're being logically absurd. At this point, Dark Energy is a name applied to an observed phenomenon. Why is this unsatisfactory to you? There are no rules that say you can't give a name to an unexplained but observable phenomenon. It seems like you are simply trying to put dark energy and god into the same category, and they are not.

You just proved my point, we have no definition for dark matter because we have no idea what it is, yet we are almost positive it exists.

We don't need a definition for an effect before we can give that effect a name, as this implies we must understand everything about something we know nothing about before we can define it. That is backwards, and logically impossible. It is observed to be what it is. This is really simple. What would you have us do, leave it nameless, or just call it something else? What's the difference? It's still what it is (law of identity). For the sake of reference, it is easier to call it something as opposed to nothing, especially since it is the subject of active scientific inquiry.

Why are you arguing with me? I am saying that a lack of definition is not proof that something does not exist, and you are saying that things exist even if we do not define them.

 

[newpolitics]

You just proved my point, we have no definition for dark matter because we have no idea what it is, yet we are almost positive it exists.

We don't need a definition for an effect before we can give that effect a name, as this implies we must understand everything about something we know nothing about before we can define it. That is backwards, and logically impossible. It is observed to be what it is. This is really simple. What would you have us do, leave it nameless, or just call it something else? What's the difference? It's still what it is (law of identity). For the sake of reference, it is easier to call it something as opposed to nothing, especially since it is the subject of active scientific inquiry.

Why are you arguing with me? I am saying that a lack of definition is not proof that something does not exist, and you are saying that things exist even if we do not define them.

We agree with each other. I misunderstood your position.

 

[Greenbeard]

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

Is there any thread you won't try to make as inane as humanly possible?

def·i·ni·tion   [def-uh-nish-uhn] Show IPA
noun
The formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, et

Dark energy and dark matter are both well-articulated theoretical constructs whose definitions are not mysterious, nor does the meaning of the phrase vary from person to person. Both exist, if only in Meinong's jungle. One can use either term and another person will know to what he's referring. See: this thread.

God can have any number of person, emotional, metaphysical, and even physical meanings to different people, with varying epistemological content. I don't know what it means to a self-described agnostic theist who may or may be removed from the Judeo-Christian understanding of a god.

I'm curious what it means to this person to profess a belief in "God," particularly when it wasn't clear he ascribes any particular meaning to the word. I'm still hoping he'll elaborate on the meaning of that statement.

 

[Aristotle]

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

I have to first start with defining what God is first.

 

[Aristotle]

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?

Because I am still trying to figure out what God is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Is there any thread you won't try to make as inane as humanly possible?

def·i·ni·tion   [def-uh-nish-uhn] Show IPA
noun
The formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, et

Dark energy and dark matter are both well-articulated theoretical constructs whose definitions are not mysterious, nor does the meaning of the phrase vary from person to person. Both exist, if only in Meinong's jungle. One can use either term and another person will know to what he's referring. See: this thread.

God can have any number of person, emotional, metaphysical, and even physical meanings to different people, with varying epistemological content. I don't know what it means to a self-described agnostic theist who may or may be removed from the Judeo-Christian understanding of a god.

I'm curious what it means to this person to profess a belief in "God," particularly when it wasn't clear he ascribes any particular meaning to the word. I'm still hoping he'll elaborate on the meaning of that statement.

You should tell NASA that they need to update their site, they obviously know less about dark energy and dark matter than you do.

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

Dark energy and dark matter are only well articulated if you don't understand science. There is an observed phenomena that lead scientists to postulate the existence of something that we call dark energy and dark matter, but no one can actually tell you what either of them is. There is not an an astrophysicist that I am aware of that doesn't accept their existence, yet not one of them can define it. Feel free to find an actual scientific paper to prove me wrong instead of referring to philosophical constructs.

Your claim was simple, if you can't define something, it is impossible to believe in it. O cannot define dark energy or dark matter, yet I believe in both of them. You, being an arrogant ignoramus, think you understand something simply because you heard a term used by someone else. unless you can describe the math and offer experimental proof that you are right, you have no more idea what either one is than anyone else.

In other words, I am challenging your underlying assumption that definition is required for belief.

By the way, just because you cannot define God does not mean He cannot be defined, anymore than the fact that you cannot define gravity somehow proves it does not exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

I have to first start with defining what God is first.

Why? Science has no searching for things it cannot define, why would a search for God be predicate on a definition of what He is?

 

[Greenbeard]

Your claim was simple, if you can't define something, it is impossible to believe in it.

I didn't make a claim, I asked the OP a question.

O cannot define dark energy or dark matter, yet I believe in both of them. You, being an arrogant ignoramus, think you understand something simply because you heard a term used by someone else. unless you can describe the math and offer experimental proof that you are right, you have no more idea what either one is than anyone else.

Step off it, dude. The first time I learned to use a radio telescope in college was to map the flatness of the Milky Way's rotation curve, using nothing other than the NRAO's Forty Foot training scope, its spectrometer, and a little math. It doesn't matter what dark matter is (or if it even exists--hence the reference to Meinong's jungle), it's understood to be shorthand notation for the resolution of the missing mass problem. Hell, I was a fan of MOND in those days, still am in many respects. And Moti Milgrom's still kicking.

But it doesn't matter if the resolution of the problem is ultimately a MOND-like construction or it's actually missing mass. Everyone knows what the words "dark matter" refer to and there's general agreement as to what its properties would be should it exist. Ditto for dark energy. If it exists, its properties are understood as those needed to make the Friedmann equations match observation.

These examples are not comparable to the amorphous, undefined, and ultimately meaningless use of "God" in question here. Words have meaning; they carry concepts and ideas along with them. In this case, that doesn't appear to be so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your claim was simple, if you can't define something, it is impossible to believe in it.

I didn't make a claim, I asked the OP a question.

O cannot define dark energy or dark matter, yet I believe in both of them. You, being an arrogant ignoramus, think you understand something simply because you heard a term used by someone else. unless you can describe the math and offer experimental proof that you are right, you have no more idea what either one is than anyone else.

Step off it, dude. The first time I learned to use a radio telescope in college was to map the flatness of the Milky Way's rotation curve, using nothing other than the NRAO's Forty Foot training scope, its spectrometer, and a little math. It doesn't matter what dark matter is (or if it even exists--hence the reference to Meinong's jungle), it's understood to be shorthand notation for the resolution of the missing mass problem. Hell, I was a fan of MOND in those days, still am in many respects. And Moti Milgrom's still kicking.

But it doesn't matter if the resolution of the problem is ultimately a MOND-like construction or it's actually missing mass. Everyone knows what the words "dark matter" refer to and there's general agreement as to what its properties would be should it exist. Ditto for dark energy. If it exists, its properties are understood as those needed to make the Friedmann equations match observation.

These examples are not comparable to the amorphous, undefined, and ultimately meaningless use of "God" in question here. Words have meaning; they carry concepts and ideas along with them. In this case, that doesn't appear to be so.

Just what the board needs, another fake scientist proving he is dumber than a fifth grader.

The fact that you can use a radio telescope might impress a fifth grader, but it doesn't impress me, nor does it prove that you can define dark energy. The words refer to something no one can define, pretending otherwise just proves you should stick to what your bosses actually pay you for.

By the way, there might be general agreement to what its properties are if it exists, but that only proves something if it exists and if the guesses are right. There are multiple theories and mathematical models, and at least a few of them describe something outside of the generally agreed descriptions.

God is only amorphous in the minds of people who insist that their definition has to trump everyone else's. Considering that most of those people claim to be atheists, yet insist they are better informed about what God is, and is not, than people that believe, it is not surprising that you insist you are right even when you are wrong.

 

[newpolitics]

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?



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.



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.

wow, I actually don't understand what you're fucking problem is what any of what I said. Either I didn't explain myself well at all, or you completely misunderstood me.

First I reject your claim that a belief necessitates any of amount of truth, it simply requires that the mind be convinced of a proposition. Whether or not that proposition is true, is irrelevant at this point, to the person holding the belief. Whether, in reality, this proposition is actually true, is a whole different story, and to my understanding, is the whole point of epistemology. We all have beliefs. The ancients all had beliefs about how the world worked, and they were nearly all, entirely wrong. There was not a shred of truth in believing that thunder was caused by the gods, yet they believed it, because they were convinced it was true, given the absence of a naturalistic explanation.

Btw, I never took philosophy, really. I have been studying it on my own because it is of great interest to me.

Also, Knowledge and belief are not interdependent. They are independent. A beliefs' truth or falsehood rests on assessing that belief alone. Either it is true, in which case, you can call it knowledge, or it is false. I don't see how this illustrates any interdependence.

Lastly, now I must ask you, why are you arguing with me? Are you asserting that being an agnostic atheist is impossible? That, those two terms can not be combined. Well, many philosophers would disagree with you. If you watched the video I linked, there's one explanation of it. I can post many more.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

wow, I actually don't understand what you're fucking problem is what any of what I said. Either I didn't explain myself well at all, or you completely misunderstood me.

First I reject your claim that a belief necessitates any of amount of truth, it simply requires that the mind be convinced of a proposition. Whether or not that proposition is true, is irrelevant at this point, to the person holding the belief. Whether, in reality, this proposition is actually true, is a whole different story, and to my understanding, is the whole point of epistemology. We all have beliefs. The ancients all had beliefs about how the world worked, and they were nearly all, entirely wrong. There was not a shred of truth in believing that thunder was caused by the gods, yet they believed it, because they were convinced it was true, given the absence of a naturalistic explanation.

You reject epistemology, yet you want to center the discussion around it. Interesting approach.

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.

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.

Btw, I never took philosophy, really. I have been studying it on my own because it is of great interest to me.

Here is a tip, philosophy exist only to argue, and nothing anyone says is ever true. There are no facts, and the only thing that matters is what you can prove, which is nothing.

Also, Knowledge and belief are not interdependent. They are independent. A beliefs' truth or falsehood rests on assessing that belief alone. Either it is true, in which case, you can call it knowledge, or it is false. I don't see how this illustrates any interdependence.

That is because you don't understand the philosophical underpinning of the debate. If I find a penny that is face up and later that day win $20 on a scratch off it is possible for me to link the two through belief and knowledge. I believe the reason I won is that I found that penny. That is based on the truth that I found that penny and the truth that I won. Does that make the belief true? Does it make the knowledge less valid because you think the two are unrelated?

This is where the third leg of epistemology comes in, justification. Is my belief that finding a penny will cause me to win at scratch off justified? Under the logic involved in epistemology, if every time I find a penny I later win the answer is yes.

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

Lastly, now I must ask you, why are you arguing with me? Are you asserting that being an agnostic atheist is impossible? That, those two terms can not be combined. Well, many philosophers would disagree with you. If you watched the video I linked, there's one explanation of it. I can post many more.

Many philosophers would agree with me, others would take another position entirely. None of them are right.

the reason I am arguing is that, in the real world, you cannot claim to believe that no gods at all exist and claim that you also believe that you don't know. I live in the real world, not in a world where philosophy works.

 

[ima]

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.

You can't be agnostic if you believe that a god exists, I think that's called a retard.
God can't be proven to exist, nor can someone prove beyond any doubt that an invisible superbeing lives in another dimension. So being agnostic (no proof of a god had ever being put forward, therefore God is but a theory, but if some is some day someone brings actual real proof of a god, I reserve the right to change my mind) is the only logical position to have, and every other position for or against a god being real are self-made delusions.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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