Agnostics are the only ones who aren't fools
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
Alot of speculation, it could be, but in the absence of anything suggesting that, the simpler explanation is more likely to be true. A creator is necessarily complex, that is the attribute of intelligence and consciousness. Such a thing is an unnecessarily byzantine story when what we are talking about are forces on a subatomic scale, the nature of space, matter and energy.
If God is a necessary being, then he is falsifiable by reason alone, or provable by reason alone. As such, agnosticism is false.
Of course, are you of the impression that anyone considers them to be anything but? Did you for instance believe that every Christian believed the Jesus deity in his church was the real Jesus?
Iceaura:
Sam is a devout Moslem. She believes Allah is real.
Sam is a devout Moslem. She believes Allah is real.
Hmm perhaps you appear to be confused by the fact that people understand God based on their ability to conceive of divinity. But like anything else, what you think it is has no effect on what it is, or the fact that your understanding of it will change with knowledge.
Actually atheists don't have to make any claims and they certainly don't have to 'know' anything.
Theists seem very keen to redefine strong atheism as atheism. It's very hard to attack atheism otherwise.
Agnosticism is pertaining to knowledge, not belief, and is compatible with both theism and atheism. Is an agnostic atheist foolish?
Nothing confusing about that.SAM said:
Now about the question - for a minute there we were talking about models vs realities, and we seemed to have reached an agreement on the nature of the model deities involved - namely, that they were human constructs, and that should be kept in mind. Is that so ?
All reality is a human construct. Is there anything that isn't?
I think that if it were not for religion and all it encompasses then we would not have Atheism. As far as Thor and other ancient Gods, why should i believe them?
Obviously i am not an Atheist. To me it is very limiting and how can i ever say that there is no other life after this life?
Isnt life itself a miracle?
Why are we here?
For what purpose are there humans?
You will never see another species build a space shuttle.
You will never see another species perform surgery.
You will never see another species do this -
http://www.spicyexpress.net/shirish/paint1.jpg
http://www.vermeersriddlerevealed.com/images/the_lacemaker/VELAZQUEZ-MENI-crop-as-ptd.jpg
At least not on theis planet.
the definition i found said atheism was a belief, so atheists don't need facts.
if atheism is refuting existence of God, then can't it come down to the atheist in question's personal definition of God? is it then possible to provide proofs of the non existence of a defined entity? such as that if whatever entity is not directly influencing the universe, he is not worthy of the title, and is some kind of lesser being? does that work?
if atheism is refuting existence of God, then can't it come down to the atheist in question's personal definition of God? is it then possible to provide proofs of the non existence of a defined entity? such as that if whatever entity is not directly influencing the universe, he is not worthy of the title, and is some kind of lesser being? does that work?
I have nothing against Atheists nor do i care but just suppose there was an afterlife will you say a cannot go because i am an Atheist?
If you take the word God out of it then isnt that what it really means to be an Atheist? I am not sure because TBH i dont quite understand it. There are lots of things that are hard to believe but true.
If you take the word God out of it then isnt that what it really means to be an Atheist? I am not sure because TBH i dont quite understand it. There are lots of things that are hard to believe but true.
But we have not fully defined God. Do we say- God is the designer of life\new species from conception to a workable model? If It could do that then i guess that qualifies.
Norsefire,
So an agnostic is one without theistic belief. That’s the same as an atheist.
No they don’t. They argue on the points of absence of evidence and lack of credibility.
There is no difference. One that holds a belief is one who holds a conviction that something is true. That's what it measn to believe something.
You are confusing stances on epistemology (agnosticism) and belief in God (theism/atheism).
Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism.
You are also giving an inaccurate position on atheism - which is merely the absence of the belief that God exists.
Theists have this belief: i.e. "I believe God exists".
Atheists are all those who are not theists.
Some go as far as to say "I believe God does not exist" but many, such as myself, merely do not have the theistic belief.
I am an agnostic atheist - I acknoweldge I do not know if God exists or not (no evidence to rationally support his existence, and you can not prove a negative) but I am not going to have a belief that he does - as there is no evidence.
My brother is an agnostic theist - he acknowledges he does not know, but still believes anyway.
So your OP is flawed as you seem to misunderstand the terms you use.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I thought you were Muslim ?
I'm agnostic...
The point is, many atheists seem to always say "there is no God". This is foolish. This is a prime example of atheists making assumptions and passing them as fact. The truth is, nobody knows. So this pretty much automatically makes most atheists, and theists, fools.
However, for the "agnostic atheist" that some of you are describing, that is a difference.
So we move on to probability. What is the probability that there is a big guy in the sky guarding pearly gates?
Unlikely. It is understandable why most people would not believe in that or think the notion of God is ridiculous based on that.
However, most religion IS imagination. To be specific, the specifics. Centuries of cultural and civil impact shape the way people view a Creator. Specifics arise, details, and then this religion becomes nothing more than a product of imagination.
However, if you want to take a scientific approach on the concept of a Creator, that is, to say that "there may be an intelligent entity which may have either caused or affected the development of our universe", it becomes plausible.
Religions only give face and identity to this "Creator", but they are largely false.
However, if you take that core concept, not only does it become plausible, but it becomes just as likely or unlikely as, say, the big bang.
The point is, many atheists seem to always say "there is no God". This is foolish. This is a prime example of atheists making assumptions and passing them as fact. The truth is, nobody knows. So this pretty much automatically makes most atheists, and theists, fools.
However, for the "agnostic atheist" that some of you are describing, that is a difference.
So we move on to probability. What is the probability that there is a big guy in the sky guarding pearly gates?
Unlikely. It is understandable why most people would not believe in that or think the notion of God is ridiculous based on that.
However, most religion IS imagination. To be specific, the specifics. Centuries of cultural and civil impact shape the way people view a Creator. Specifics arise, details, and then this religion becomes nothing more than a product of imagination.
However, if you want to take a scientific approach on the concept of a Creator, that is, to say that "there may be an intelligent entity which may have either caused or affected the development of our universe", it becomes plausible.
Religions only give face and identity to this "Creator", but they are largely false.
However, if you take that core concept, not only does it become plausible, but it becomes just as likely or unlikely as, say, the big bang.