You can not be Agnostic.

[Scrotum]

The definition of Agnosticism is:

A person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)

Or

Uncertain of all claims to knowledge

...


The General population calling themselves Agnostic, claim that you cant prove Gods existence, and you can not Disprove it (logical fallacy).


The problem here is, of course, That there is two groups, Atheist, and Theists.

That is all. There is no middle ground as the Agnostics claim. As you have to choose to be Theist or Atheist, you cant say "I am Agnostic", and claim that to be the answer. No, you have not answered the question, period.


Either you are a Theist Agnostic, or Atheist Agnostic, it is truly Either Or. Either you believe in God (Theist), but you claim it cant be Proven / Disproven, or you Do not believe in God (Atheist), and claim you cant Prove it / Disprove it.


Of course, its a fallacy to be an Theist without proof, as anyone claiming anything, and do not have evidence for it is either sick or crazy. Thats just how it is. And interestingly enough, Religion has for some reason gotten a "free pass" for this disturbing behaviour, as Unicorn Believers, or other developmentally challenged (mentallity retarded) people can be put into Institutions for the same. Why not Religious people? They claim the same, Why do they get a Free Card?



In the end, the fact is, Agnosticism is not an answer to "Are you Theist, or Atheist", is simply not an answer. So why do they continue to say such rubbish? What are they afraid of? Are they so afraid of taking a stance that they refuse to answer the Question, and in the end, even giving excuses for the position they take ("Agnosticism is a valid position" etcetera).


Thoughts?

[Scrotum]

In the end, the fact is, Agnosticism is not an answer to "Are you Theist, or Atheist", is simply not an answer. So why do they continue to say such rubbish? What are they afraid of? Are they so afraid of taking a stance that they refuse to answer the Question, and in the end, even giving excuses for the position they take ("Agnosticism is a valid position" etcetera).

What nonsense. There is no "fear" of taking a position. The most logical thing to do is to not take a position. If someone makes an assertion that makes no sense or for which there is no evidence for, you don't have to agree or disagree. Even denying the assertion is an acceptance of the premise. And the premise is unacceptable.

You can set up experiments if they could be called for. You could do some investigation on your own. But in the absence of valid evidence, there is no conclusion to come to. The Theist says that X=4. The (Strong) Atheist says X can equal anything except 4. Quick, what's the equation?

But there is no evidence for a God. Especially not a Christian one. IF we speak specifically about CHRISTIAN religion, its end of story. As you can read the Bible, see its wrong in all scientific and historical ways, and end it there.

And then of course, you will run to "god", as this is the same (just talking god, instead of your specific God), and claim there is no evidence AGAINST god, which is like saying there is no evidence for Scrotum NOT killing JFK.

Does that make sense? No.


We draw LOGICAL conclusions using our brain (that is, intelligent people), Religious people seem to miss this "power" us others have, and simply IGNORE looking at the fact, that there is no evidence for the assertion they are making, or even worse, making up "evidence", claiming anything as "Evidence". Now we are talking Scientific "Evidence", and why not? Science is just in our Imagionation?

If your Christian, your a hypocrite if you use Vaccine, or other medications, as its Science, the "enemy" of Christianity that made it, this SAME part of Human study, is also the one explaining our History, such as Evolution, which is dead AGAINST Christianity, in whatever version you chose (Protestant, Creationist, Jew Metodist etcetera)......

Yet, i hear them claim their Belief......(????)

[acamp1]

Sure, you can be an agnostic. My view is that there is much more to the universe than science can know just yet. Once science understands a thing, it ceases to be supernatural. Therefore, "God" might just be a matter of semantics.

Even talking about the "Christian" God... what is that? Some people picture Zeus (guy with beard sitting on cloud), some picture some amorphous energy force. The Zeus idea does seem pretty unlikely.

In the interest of full disclosure, let me just say I lean (far) away from the notion of biblical inerrancy.

Let me also say that there is absolutely no difference in thought processes between dogmatic atheists and dogmatic theists. They both work from hypotheses that will not change in the face of new evidence. Strong atheism is therefore just as antithetical to science as religion.

[Furrowed Brow]

Strong atheism is therefore just as antithetical to science as religion.

Depends what you mean by strong atheism. I place myself at one end of the spectrum. Which means I don't just say there is no evidence of God, but instead say science can never produce evidence of God - because to think it could is to fall into a category and semantic muddle. However I'd also not say that Science could produce evidence against God for the same reason. Thus I'd claim this brand of strong atheism is very much in tune with science, and simply attempts to unentangle the semantic confusions brought by imposing religious sensibilities unto the "evidence", and then mistake the "evidence" as support for those religious sensibilities.

[acamp1]

but instead say science can never produce evidence of God

Depends on what you mean by God!

[ST88]

But there is no evidence for a God. Especially not a Christian one. IF we speak specifically about CHRISTIAN religion, its end of story. As you can read the Bible, see its wrong in all scientific and historical ways, and end it there.

That there's no evidence for it is exactly the point. It's an unsupported assertion that does not need to be bothered with.

[Scrotum]

But there is no evidence for a God. Especially not a Christian one. IF we speak specifically about CHRISTIAN religion, its end of story. As you can read the Bible, see its wrong in all scientific and historical ways, and end it there.

That there's no evidence for it is exactly the point. It's an unsupported assertion that does not need to be bothered with.

Hrnvr, you hold Atheism as no evidence for a God has arosen.

And thats the point, Before anything is proven, it is default seen as "wrong". You look at evidence, you provide your evidence, and then the world scrutinize your Evidence.


Of course, Truth(tm) is not majority opinion, as seen by Religion. Its only few of us enlightened ones that understand reality, whiles the majority of the world wants a fantasy, WHICH IS FINE, as long as they dont call it something else, or being hypocritical about it (like Islam and Christianity).

[White Pony]

But there is no evidence for a God. Especially not a Christian one. IF we speak specifically about CHRISTIAN religion, its end of story. As you can read the Bible, see its wrong in all scientific and historical ways, and end it there.

That there's no evidence for it is exactly the point. It's an unsupported assertion that does not need to be bothered with.

/agree

Theists and atheists alike both make the mistake(?) of claiming a position on ground that not firm. All we can do is hypothesize.

The closest we can get to speaking truthfully about the existence of god is, "(Jesus, Zeus, Allah, etc.) certainly does not exist." However, that does not outlaw the possibility that a transcendent being exists. In my opinion, the question of a supreme being's existence in all likelihood cannot be answered by science. Even if we were to disprove everything in all "sacred texts" we still couldn't answer the question of whether or not everything in the universe was created by an transcendent architect.

All we can do is systematically tear down the foundations of false ideologies. Good hunting!

[ST88]

And thats the point, Before anything is proven, it is default seen as "wrong". You look at evidence, you provide your evidence, and then the world scrutinize your Evidence.

No. This is not correct. At the moment a hypothesis is stated and there is no evidence at all, the hypothesis is neither right nor wrong. The default condition is "unproven", which is not the same as "wrong". I admit that Christianity certainly behaves as if it were an incorrect hypothesis, but there has, as yet, been no evidence.

[Heresiarch]

Zero? 0?[/quote]

Before you can debate the legitimacy of espousing agnosticism, you need to define "God".

I know that the God of Falwell and Robertson does not exist.

I am sure that the God of Whitehead and Hartshorne does exist.

I am contingently agnostic, depending on how you define God.

-- Heresiarch
www.starlarvae.org
www.starlarvae.blogspot.org

[Scrotum]

Zero? 0?

Before you can debate the legitimacy of espousing agnosticism, you need to define "God".

I know that the God of Falwell and Robertson does not exist.

I am sure that the God of Whitehead and Hartshorne does exist.

I am contingently agnostic, depending on how you define God.

-- Heresiarch
www.starlarvae.org
www.starlarvae.blogspot.org[/quote]

Eh, Considering this is a CHRISTIAN debate forum, presumably we are talking about the CHRISTIAN God, would you not say?

Thats the God written about in the Torah and NT......