Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agnostics base their belief on the facts not their faith. Theist believe God exist, but they can't prove it. Atheist believe God does not exist, but they can't prove it.
Atheists don't have anything to prove. We don't believe god does not exist. We lack belief.
Maybe it'll be easier for you to grasp if I put it this way:
Believers claim there's a god(s). Atheists reject their god claims.
Quote:
The fact is: we simply do not know the nature or existence of God. It's an unknown just like a multitude of other unknowns man has about the universe. Why is it so hard for them to admit they simply do not know? Could it be the fear of the unknown?
Using your logic, we can't know that giant invisible vampire gnomes exist or not. Maybe it's better to not make all kinds of unverifiable claims about entities that are known to exist only in myths. Maybe it's better to not construct an elaborate framework of rituals and "morals" around such myths.
You missed the point. My belief is; we do not know answer to the God question and my belief is based on the fact that the existence of God can not be proven or disproved. My belief is based on facts, they(being theist and atheist) believe based on faith not facts. Many people accuse agnostics of standing on the fence and not making a choice, but the only logical choice is that we do not know the answer to the God question, again based on the facts.
Ok, so according to your logic, it takes faith to deny the existence of Santa Claus, fairies, and all those things you read about in fairy tales. You can't prove that there isn't a pink elephant in my closet. Does that mean saying there isn't one there requires faith? Enough said.
Agnostics base their belief on the facts not their faith. Theist believe God exist, but they can't prove it. Atheist believe God does not exist, but they can't prove it. The fact is: we simply do not know the nature or existence of God. It's an unknown just like a multitude of other unknowns man has about the universe. Why is it so hard for them to admit they simply do not know? Could it be the fear of the unknown?
Do you apply that logic to Santa Clause, IPUs or the multitude of other unsubstantiated claims that people come up with. If there is no evidentiary support to substantiate someone's claim whether that be god, the afterlife, UFOs or some invisible purple alien then the logical position is to disbelieve the truth of that claim.
The term "Agnostic" was defined by Thomas Huxley in the 1800's. You can take it in different ways, but it basically means one is not denying God, because total denial is in itself a belief of sorts, although a belief based on absence of evidence.
As an agnostic, I do not in any way sit on the fence. I use the term as the Skeptics do, that is, I do not believe the existence of God can ever be proven empirically. That's as far as the belief goes, and it is based on thousands and thousands of facts.
I'm not an agnostic but I feel describing any belief or non-belief as "sitting on the fence" is just an attempt at superiority. "Sitting on the fence" makes it sound like a person can't make up his or her mind. I doubt this describes agnostics and it annoys me that the very religious often use this description.
[quote=JohnJLethal;5922455]Here's the thing, why should I have to disprove an imaginary thing? You are probably not Agnostic when it comes to Werewolves. You are probably Atheist when it comes to Werewolves. Just replace Werewolves with gods. I don't consider gods because there is no evidence leading me to consider gods as a reality.
Is there a possibility Werewolves exist? However slight it may be, until proven otherwise, we should not completely dismiss the possibility just to feed our egos by claiming we are right. As the postulate becomes more incredible, so too should the skepticism. We should be more skeptical of Pink flying elephants than we should of people claiming powers of ESP, because claims of pink flying elephants are easier to negate than powers of ESP using empirical data. I am not atheist when it comes to werewolves, I am agnostic, I believe it is very unlikely but I do not claim to know as fact or truth that they do not exist. If you can not prove they don't exist, even as unlikely as it may be, how can you claim to know. You are making a claim based on faith not facts, and you could be wrong, being that you are not an all powerful, all knowing diety yourself. Agnostics do not sit on the fence, they consider the possibility on both sides, and recognizes neither side knows the answer to the question of God. Agnostics do not believe the answer is unknown, we know it is unknown based on the facts.
Here's the thing, why should I have to disprove an imaginary thing? You are probably not Agnostic when it comes to Werewolves. You are probably Atheist when it comes to Werewolves. Just replace Werewolves with gods. I don't consider gods because there is no evidence leading me to consider gods as a reality.
Is there a possibility Werewolves exist? However slight it may be, until proven otherwise, we should not completely dismiss the possibility just to feed our egos by claiming we are right. As the postulate becomes more incredible, so too should the skepticism. We should be more skeptical of Pink flying elephants than we should of people claiming powers of ESP, because claims of pink flying elephants are easier to negate than powers of ESP using empirical data. I am not atheist when it comes to werewolves, I am agnostic, I believe it is very unlikely but I do not claim to know as fact or truth that they do not exist. If you can not prove they don't exist, even as unlikely as it may be, how can you claim to know. You are making a claim based on faith not facts, and you could be wrong, being that you are not an all powerful, all knowing diety yourself. Agnostics do not sit on the fence, they consider the possibility on both sides, and recognizes neither side knows the answer to the question of God. Agnostics do not believe the answer is unknown, we know it is unknown based on the facts.
Really? Werewolves?
There's an invisible mouse that lives in my pants. He cannot be detected by any scientific means, but he telepathically speaks to me.
This is the kind of thing you are Agnostic about?
I have to disprove any scenario anyone can scheme up, otherwise I have to be Agnostic about it?
It sounds like an exciting, Tim Burton movie world, but it's not reality.
Here's the thing, why should I have to disprove an imaginary thing? You are probably not Agnostic when it comes to Werewolves. You are probably Atheist when it comes to Werewolves. Just replace Werewolves with gods. I don't consider gods because there is no evidence leading me to consider gods as a reality.
Is there a possibility Werewolves exist? However slight it may be, until proven otherwise, we should not completely dismiss the possibility just to feed our egos by claiming we are right. As the postulate becomes more incredible, so too should the skepticism. We should be more skeptical of Pink flying elephants than we should of people claiming powers of ESP, because claims of pink flying elephants are easier to negate than powers of ESP using empirical data. I am not atheist when it comes to werewolves, I am agnostic, I believe it is very unlikely but I do not claim to know as fact or truth that they do not exist. If you can not prove they don't exist, even as unlikely as it may be, how can you claim to know. You are making a claim based on faith not facts, and you could be wrong, being that you are not an all powerful, all knowing diety yourself. Agnostics do not sit on the fence, they consider the possibility on both sides, and recognizes neither side knows the answer to the question of God. Agnostics do not believe the answer is unknown, we know it is unknown based on the facts.
The fact that there is a possibility of x entity doesn't mean the logical position is suspension of judgement. If there's no evidence that proves the truth of a claim then the default position is disbelief. Someone may not rationally 100% deny the possibility that the claim is true, although unless there's evidence to support its truth, then there's no reason to consider it anything more than fairytales from Imaginationland.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
