It's all very simple: agnostics don't care about the unprovable. What I find laughable about your viewpoint, Stox, is that you do care - to an incredibly impassioned level - about the very thing you claim you don't believe in. Your logic is grossly flawed. And neither do agnostics. Kalvin was right, however, to say that so long as you admit the impossibility of proving god (or any supernatural being - your Thor, Santa, teapot) doesn't exist, you admit the possibility he, she, it does. I am agnostic towards things that are unprovable. I would check my freezer, and my car, to see whether your claim that an elephant has taken up residence in my freezer, or a resurrected Di was stealing my car. Blankly: if you admit it is impossible to know whether god (any version will do) does or doesn't exist, you are agnostic. As to some sky-God, that can't be seen or otherwise ascertained empirically, I don't believe - but admit it is impossible to prove non-existence. This makes me an agnostic. As you are, providing you admit the same. If you don't admit the same, and categorically deny something you cannot prove to not exist, you are making a statement of faith, are therefore religious, and are therefore no atheist.
the modern Atheist movement has very little to do with the belief in god, But rather the influence the belief has over other people and the actions those people take based on that belief. We could sit around discussing the existence of god and we may have a very enjoyable time pretending to be philosophers, But that wouldn't actually get us anywhere, because while we are doing that there are still people killing abortion clinic workers, Still people performing suicide bombings, Still people pumping creationist filth in to children, Still people holding back stem cell research because of their unprovable, evidence free beliefs and still people stirring up middle east conflicts in an attempt to ensure end-days occurs during their lifetime. It seems the only difference between agnostics and atheists is the agnostic likes to emphasise that they "don't know" and concede the possibility, While atheists don't emphasise it and instead emphasise that the people making outlandish claims don;t actually have any evidence to support their claim and as such the claim isn't going to be believed. I have to questions the agnostics motives for emphasising such a trivial point. agnostics would do themselves a favour by focusing on the weaknesses in the claim being made, Not on their own inability to falsify that claim. Would you really? Honesty? If i made the claim that there was an elephant in your freezer or that princess Di was stealing your car you would go and check before disbelieving it? I highly doubt that.
Rather than seeking to divine intents, I prefer to stick with facts. I don't "like to emphasize I don't know." I honestly don't give a damn. I am too concerned with the here and now to make the question itself worth a moment's reflection. You have vociferously stated how "agnostics" are "fence-sitters," etc. You distinguish atheists from agnostics, so the terms apparently mean a good deal to you. That being so, it is impossible to avoid a debate on the merits of the terms. Agnostics say it is unprovable, the existence or non-existence of god. Atheists, if they are honest, categorically deny said existence. Since I don't see a way to categorically disprove deity by empirical means, I call that a leap of faith, and therefore, by definition, a religious viewpoint.
Of course there is a difference between the terms. As i have explained, The agnostic focuses on their own inability to falsify someones claim, the Atheist focuses on the claim makers ability to prove it. I deny the existence of god just like you, if you are honest, Deny the existence of a zombie princess Di stealing your car. The Atheists stance is plain and simple. If a claim offers no evidence, it will not be believed. Regardless if it's a claim about a god, an elf or a teapot. The Atheist isn't in the business of giving credence to a claim based on their own inability to falsify it. The agnostic, however, Is.
Ignoring a post doesn't count as debate, Stox. I don't focus on anyone's inability to prove a deity's non-existence. I say it is impossible to disprove god, but actually don't care about the question of god or not; quite the contrary to giving credence to deism. I find both categorically stating deity's existence, or deity's non-existence, faith-based statements beyond reason. It's a simple question. Can you prove deity's non-existence, any more than a deist can prove deity's existence?
No i can't disprove it. But that doesn't have any bearing on my belief of it's nonexistence, Just like your inability to disprove right this second that zombie princess Di is stealing your car has any bearing on your belief that she isn't (you do believe that she isn't, right?) This is the point. You only use this deceitful language and contrived questioning when it comes to god, but you wouldn't use it any any other instance when countering an equally preposterous claim. Your selective use of this "reasoning" makes you appear to be a religious apologist. You either believe in a god or you don't, And if you don't say so and stop highlighting your inability to prove a negative and labeling yourself according to that inability. I have never claimed to be able to prove the nonexistence of a god. My position is that i don't believe that it exists because the people making the claim offer no evidence for their claim. What i don't do is give their claims credence by making a point of my inability to prove a negative, Instead i focus on their inability to prove their claim of a positive.
Ridiculous. You named agnostics "cowardly fence sitters." By definition, you are an agnostic. You can clamor to anything you would wish, but it changes nothing. I don't believe in god, but I am not able to prove my disbelief. Simple. Such a viewpoint holds across many, many things, not limited to god or deity. You may call me a "cowardly fence sitter," and I call atheists, such as would like to call yourself, religious freaks.
By definition, you are an Atheist. You can clamor to anything you wish, but it changes nothing. You don't believe in god, Your inability to prove it means nothing. Atheist: a disbelief in the existence of deity Agnostic: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god So which words best fit our positions on the existence of god? We have both said that we don't believe a god exists, And neither of us appear to be undecided. So not only am I not agnostic, Neither are you.
Guess we can do a pissing match on definitions - but why is it so important? I'm not interested in waging a religious war, Stox. "God" isn't on my radar, as he, she, it appears to be on yours. If you'll look through this thread, you'll see I already made your argument - I don't believe, therefore, I'm atheist (like you). But I admit it is impossible to prove either god's existence or non-existence. So, that makes me a dictionary agnostic (as it does you). The fact I don't care makes me someone who doesn't need a war standard, in waging a religious debate.
Your quote mining work regarding the definition of Agnosticism has let you down. There is a difference between not being able to disprove that god exists and thinking it's impossible to know whether god does exist at all. It seems what you have done is decide that you are going to be agnostic and are now trying to crowbar your beliefs in to the agnosticism box. First you didn't know what agnosticism was, Then you post a definition that doesn't reflect your views (no doubt those views will now get changed to fit). No it doesn't make me agnostic at all. If god did exist i believe it could be possible to know it and to prove it. I believe things that exist have evidence and reality is provable. Which very much puts the faith-ball in their court. The laws of logic alone prevent me proving a negative, Nothing stopping them proving their positive though.
Really? Please tell me the difference between being unable to prove god doesn't exist and thinking it is impossible to know whether deity does or doesn't exist. Your attempt at sophistry will get you nowhere, Stox. I won't bother repeating the same information, as you are incapable of understanding what has been said, and said very clearly, already. As always, your are enshrouded in your religious viewpoints such that you cannot deal with facts outside your particular Platonic cave.
I have conceded, As have you, That i can't prove a negative. At no point did i, Or yourself, Say that even if god does exist it would be impossible to know. And that is clearly the definition that you posted. An agnostic, According to the definition that you posted, Is someone who thinks the existence of god can not be known, regardless if it actually does exist or not. it doesn't define an agnostic as "One who believes that it is impossible to prove there is no God" I can't prove there isn't a god. but i believe that if there was i would be able to prove it. An agnostic would say proof is impossible regardless if god exists or not. That is the difference.
Guess in my world, Stox, "can not be known" and "impossible to prove" are the same thing. You are spinning in a tautology, in my mind. You start from a belief there is no deity, then say, if there was, I'd be able to prove it. Let me ask you this, to put it plainly and at another, hopefully more limpid, angle: you have already indicated you cannot disprove deity. At the end of your empirical inquiry, do you acknowledge you, or someone, may find proof of deity?
let's make it simple. Do you believe that even if god exists if would be impossible to know? As we look at the word "agnosticism" it became apparent that it has very little to do with no belief in a god and a lot to do with the accessibility of god, should it exist. If your position is still "i don't believe god exists" perhaps you should assess your use of the word agnostic and maybe find a more fitting word to describe your lack of belief in a deity, I suggest "Atheist". You know, The accurate word to describe your belief. It's possible.
Simple is great. Once again: Please distinguish "cannot be known" from "impossible to prove," for this simple mind? If you're asking me my belief, you have apparently forgotten: In other words, there are things I cannot know. From all I do know, I do not believe in deity.
If there are things you can not know, Like the agnostic god, Why would the amount you do know have any bearing on your decision to believe or not? If being unknowable was a property of god it would make no difference how much you knew, You still wouldn't be able to know whether there is a god. So specifically what part of what you "do know" has lead you to disbelieve in something that is, By your own admission, Unknowable? The fact that you have used what you "do know" to justify a lack of belief leads me to suspect that you don't really believe god would be unknowable should it exist. what i suspect you actually believe is that god is currently unknowable for no other reason than that it doesn't exist, Which leads you to disbelieve in it just like i do and for the same reasons. No evidence. because you can't use lack of evidence to justify a disbelief if the entity you disbelieve in is inherently unprovable.
I'll leave you with the last word and the whrring of your own wheels, Stox, because I tire of repeating. Believe what you will, I'll do the same, and all the best, as usual.
I wasn't going to post in this thread again, but i really would like to know what your reasons for disbelieving in a god are if you really are a "dictionary agnostic" and believe that the existence or nonexistence of god can never be known. What reason could you possibly have for disbelieving if it's unknowable either way? Did you put bits of paper in a hat and pull one out? To me, that is a much greater "leap of faith". Disbelieving in a god for no reason is almost on par with believing in a god for no reason.