Yeah at present, agnostics believe god is inherently unknowable by definition though. Atheism still doesn't require certainty, which was the point you made. All it requires is a lack of belief. That can range from don't know to don't care, everything except "god does exist".
- you have to admit that you are agnostic ~ For those admitting agnosticism because they rely on proof does not disprove an existence and is no more valid than a belief of existence without proof. i.e. Columbus believed in land across the void whether it was ever found or not and was accomplished with sound logic before its discovery.
By that logic, can we assume that belief in something 1) acknowledges that something might not exist 2) says that due to ones logic/evidence/whatever, that something is highly likely to exist? After all disbelief is the opposite of belief. If I disbelieve you are telling the truth, it also holds true that I believe you are not telling the truth. In either situation, the allowance for being wrong is neither stated nor implied, so I'm not sure where you come up with that. When we put forward what we believe, most of us like to think we are right, and most of us will comply when proven wrong. It doesn't change the definition of the words.
The way I perceive agnosticism and atheism is that they are closely related, yet are somewhat different. Though some may disagree, my personal definition is that they represent doubt versus denial.
might exist and exist are different statements. disbelief reffers to the act of not believing. their is no need to disbelieve or not believe if something does not exist because their is nothing to disbelieve.
I know for a fact that you were not here when the universe was created. Therefore you cannot possibly know whether or not there was a "creator" of some sort or whether or not it all happened naturally. I don't need to make an assumption. I know that if the existence of God could be proven or dis-proven it would have been done by now. You may be able to provide a solid argument that the individual gods of individual religions don't exist because they were all created by man and are inherently flawed. But if you had actual proof that there is no intelligent force behind nature, evolution, or the creation of "life" then you'd be famous and there would be no religion. The problem with atheism as I see it is that they would like to take away the "answer" that religious people think they have while their replacement answer is just as flawed. Agnostics will take away that answer too but we don't claim to have the answer too. Only that we don't know and we can prove you don't either.
So if I told you that in a room there's a ball in the middle, you open the door but don't see a ball and you tell me that you don't see it, then I try again to convince you that there is, you say (again) that there isn't any ball in the middle of the room. I tell you again that there is, but you look at me funny at this point and ask me if I was okay. I said, yes I am okay, but if you close your eyes and imagine that a ball waiting to be picked up by you to bounce around in a room, wall to wall you will have joy and laughter and me to play with, now can you see a ball? Well, I really don't see a ball to be honest. I then tell you that if you cannot see the ball, then I wont be your friend anymore, now do you see a ball? I see the ball now God is the Ball in a room, for the sake of it, I think there is a ball in the room. Because I was pressured by the Society that I live in, I was lead to believe that there's actually a ball in the middle of the room, but I know it very well that there isn't.. Religion is blackmail/fraud, most people tend to just go along with the religious wackos so that they aren't blackballed/ostracize in a community.
At the same time, you weren't there either and can't "know" that the universe didn't form because a giant purple mouse farted into a pot of custard powder. The fact that you can't know that that didn't happen doesn't lend credibility to the unsupported claim that it DID happen. It's funny how you followed "i don't need to make an assumption" by what is probably the biggest assumption i have ever seen. it's almost as if you don't actually know what the word "assumption" means. What we can also do is prove that natural processes are responsible for events accredited to god. So far we have done it for sunrises, earth quakes, plagues, famine, disabilities and the diversity of life. Yeah and if you had actual proof that a giant purple mouses didn't fart in to custard powder you'd also be famous. I wonder how many times i'm going to have to point out that because something can't be disproved it doesn't make it any more likely to be the answer. many more times i'd imagine, it seems to be the fallacy that your entire argument is resting on. Religious people can believe any old bullshit they like. But if they voice that publicly, or try to teach it to my kids under the dishonest guise of "science", then they are going to get their asses handed to them, as they have so routinely already been on this forum. agnostic seems to have become a biword for atheists without balls.
Isn't it funny how Stox comes across as more rabid than the terrorist sympathizers on this forum? In another thread, he was busily supporting the use of the military to invade nations where he felt their customs were religiously oppressive. Wars of religious liberation if you will. If we could just spread Atheism by the law and the sword, the world would be a more peaceful place! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Oooga Boooga!
Maybe cowards like to sit by and watch men throw acid in the faces of children and beat women publicy, But i'm English, I can't possibly allow that to happen. Which is why i favour the war in afganistan.
Of course you are aware Afghanistan has nothing to do with religious liberation, or prevention of the types of actions you are referring to? If you were so concerned about humantiarian aide, you would be starting post after post demanding the world go in and fix situations like this one, which has little to do with religion: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16650434 That story is a spin off/sequel of some older genocide completely ignored by the world: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1288230.stm In the mean time, we(including your country) were busy righting the wrongs in Bosnia. It seems your rant has little to do with helping the downtrodden, and everything to do with religious hatred.
Absolutely we should fix the congo, also zim and countless other places. One at a time tho eh. So you girls sit tight and let the men take care of it. I love how you glase over the face that if we do nothing we allow it to continue, and even you have a hard time defending the argument that men should be allowed to continue to throw acid in the face of children inchallenged. So ill ask you directly. What should be done about people who throw acid in the faces of children?
In my country, yours, or someone elses? If in someone else's... does the nation have any natural resources I can plunder if I invade to stop the acid from being thrown into the faces of children? Seriously.
You're misconstruing my point. Giant purple mouse, God, big bang, I'm not saying any of them are right. Yes some might seem more likely than others depending on your point of view and life experiences, but knowing.... for a fact.... No, you don't and neither do I. Purple mouse, God, Big bang. You can argue about the absurdity of them all for the entire day. But you cannot disprove any of them because you weren't there. If God were to decide mankind's time was up and show himself (whatever he is) then poof. You'd have proof of God. If an alien race visited us tomorrow and showed us the truth about the natural origins of the universe then poof, you'd have proof there is no God. I know what an assumption is. Do you know what an assertion is? Because that's what I wrote. An assertion. And when we do it for "the beginning" then we'll have ourselves some proof. Until then I'm afraid you're going to have to keep on qualifying your statements with what you know... "so far". Science hasn't proven everything yet. I personally think it is more likely it will than that it won't but as an agnostic I am open to the idea that it might not. Heck by the time science does provide all the answers our level of thought will have evolved enough that, if for example, God does exist he will simply "make sense". Right now the God described in religious texts seems magical and fantastical. But by the time we have evolved to the point where we can understand God if he (or they) exists at all it won't be. My entire argument? Have you confused me with someone else? My entire argument is that you don't know.... Check out the irony... My "entire argument" puts you in the position that you (and I) put the religious believers in. I'm asking you to prove there is no intelligent force, design, or plan behind nature just like you want them to prove there is. My position is agnostic both literally and from the grammatical (pronoun) sense. There is no position to be "proven". Your inability to prove your position is my proof. Unlike your discussions with the theists, when you're asked to prove God doesn't exist you can't simply turn it around and say just because I can't prove my point doesn't make your God real. Because you see st0x you just said it yourself. I wonder how many times you're going to have to make the above statement before you realize you are admitting you cannot disprove God. I whole heartedly agree. We agnostics define atheists as stubborn followers of a belief that they know even when faced with the evident fact that they don't. It's funny because they like to fancy themselves the "logical" type. We call them agnostics who are afraid to open their minds to a simple word.... "possibility". You don't know, you believe. And to me that makes you no better than the religious believers
In any. I don't think imaginary lines on a map should influence who we protect from savage barbarians. Right, so even though you dont know that the universe was created by a big purple mouse farting in to custard powder you flat out reject it, 100%, right? Why is it you think the equally unsupported claim that a magic man in the sky done it should be afforded special treatment?
What's your definition of "proof" here? If you mean something like "a demonstration with certainty", I'd say that we have no proof of almost anything. So if the lack of proof (in this sense) implies agnosticism, then we are (or should be) agnostic on just about every subject imaginable.
~ Atheists are distinguished from agnostics by life's end at death, for atheist there is no continuance of any type where agnostics contemplate a further existence being possible - neither of which are relevant to any belief in a God. ~ The religious have enumerable examples of proof in life itself as being sustainable to hold their beliefs to be factual in regards to an after life from the present.
Well, not quite. As weird as it may sound, it is possible for an atheist to believe in life after death (J. M. E. McTaggart being one of the more famous examples). Also, belief in the existence of God does not by itself necessitate any particular view on the (non)existence of afterlife.