[a]gnostic people are dishonest?

[Showmeproof]

Hm, I have always considered myself an atheist in relation to the current lack of evidence in support of there being a God. Though, science has not proven for certain that there is no God. They just have a whole lot of proof on their side, but nothing is currently definitive. So, maybe I fall somewhere between atheism and agnotic :::shrugs::

 

[Ocelot]

... evidence for non-existence, that being that teapots are created by man, man never launched a teapot into Jupiter orbit, therefore it being there would more or less constitute positive evidence, if not absolute proof, of the existence of the supernatural

ahem...

Gods are created by man, man never created an artificial intelligence capable of travelling back in time in order to create the universe and bring about it's own being, therefore it being there would more or less constitute positive evidence, if not absolute proof, of the existence of the supernatural.

Needs a little work but you can see what I've getting at.

 

[CurtC]

An agnostic person usually believes the answer to the question "is there a god?" is currently unknown or unknowable.

But according to THAT definition, everyone in the world is an agnostic. That makes the word not very useful IMHO.

Maybe people who say that agnostics are dishonest are using a different definition?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I woke up this morning with a feeling of emptiness. Something was missing from my life. What could it be? I have good friends, I like my job, I'm reasonably healthy, but still I hungered for... something. Now, though, I realise what it was. It had simply been far too long (what, maybe two whole months?) since I had seen a debate about the meanings of the words atheism and agnosticism. Thank you, fellow forumites, for making me whole again.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, I cannot prove there is no god. Nevertheless, there’s also no reason for me, what so ever, to treat the god-hypothesis as a serious proposition – it’s such a ludicrous proposition. It’s really bizarre that people actually take such a proposition seriously.

 

[Jimbo07]

Well, we're "agnostic" in the same sense we're agnostic about the teapot, Santa, and Nessie. Can we prove an exhaustive search of all reality doesn't have such things? No, of course not.

Have we seen any evidence anywhere of God? No.

Unless, in a Deistic sense, the universe itself is the only proof of God. That, or it was sneezed by the Great Green Arkleseizure. I'm not sure what value a Deistic God would have, but we don't know that it isn't somehow the Truth^TM.

parsimmonous explanation is that there is no god.

Ook-hams shaving instrument is incredibly valuable, but does not equal Truth^TM.

I view this as solid reasoning and on the same foot as relativity, quantum mechanics...

Really? Show me the math.

...

I'm not a Theist, nor even a Deist, but it's the strong atheist position that is the dishonest one (ETA: I've edited this statement more than once. Is it possible that this is less dishonest than the Theist position?). These A-A debates at JREF have convinced me to adopt the title of agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is the least dishonest approach (ETA: I think), while atheism signals with whom my sympathies lie...

 

[GreyICE]

ahem...

Gods are created by man, man never created an artificial intelligence capable of travelling back in time in order to create the universe and bring about it's own being, therefore it being there would more or less constitute positive evidence, if not absolute proof, of the existence of the supernatural.

Needs a little work but you can see what I've getting at.

Yes, the existence of God would be proof positive of the existence of the supernatural. Of course we have lots of evidence that man creates teapots. We have little evidence that man creates Gods, short of crazy people who all end up dying anyway.

If it was something else, I'm missing it.

 

[Ocelot]

Yes, the existence of God would be proof positive of the existence of the supernatural. Of course we have lots of evidence that man creates teapots. We have little evidence that man creates Gods, short of crazy people who all end up dying anyway.

If it was something else, I'm missing it.

We do have some evidence of mankind creating Gods, it's just that the Gods thye create aren't made real.

If God's aren't man made - where do they come from?

 

[NewtonTrino]

This whole discussion is semantic quibbling anyway.

I now use the term anti-theist which I think explains my position clearly.

I do think that most agnostics are wimps who want to cling onto that last bit of belief because you never know when sky-daddy is going to get mad.

 

[Robin]

This whole discussion is semantic quibbling anyway.

I now use the term anti-theist which I think explains my position clearly.

I do think that most agnostics are wimps who want to cling onto that last bit of belief because you never know when sky-daddy is going to get mad.

The term was coined by Thomas Huxley who defined it as:

Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

I don't think that is a wimpish position or clinging onto a last bit of belief.

Also, I don't think it is inconsistent with atheism or even anti-theism for that matter.

 

[Robin]

I woke up this morning with a feeling of emptiness. Something was missing from my life. What could it be? I have good friends, I like my job, I'm reasonably healthy, but still I hungered for... something. Now, though, I realise what it was. It had simply been far too long (what, maybe two whole months?) since I had seen a debate about the meanings of the words atheism and agnosticism. Thank you, fellow forumites, for making me whole again.

I don't think it can be complete without somebody publishing that big long table of every possible belief position about God, without a single mention of a definition of God.

 

[Richard Masters]

But according to THAT definition, everyone in the world is an agnostic. That makes the word not very useful IMHO.

It's useful in that some people claim to know the answer to the question of whether there exist a God or gods.

Maybe people who say that agnostics are dishonest are using a different definition?

Yeah, it's probably a matter of semantics.

 

[GreyICE]

We do have some evidence of mankind creating Gods, it's just that the Gods thye create aren't made real.

If God's aren't man made - where do they come from?

Having never seen any evidence for any Gods, singular or plural, I sincerely doubt mankind has ever created any. Certainly I would like to think an undertaking of that magnitude might have leaked to the press, unless that's what is really going on in Area 51.

I propose you show me evidence of your Gods before we speculate on their origin.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I consider myself technically agnostic and practically atheist, with some pantheism tossed in randomly .

I just don't think it is reasonable to "know" for certain whether or not a being such as "God", an eternal deity that exists outside of the the known universe which was created by it and is omni-tons of junk, actually exists.

But it doesn't really matter that much to me, and is irrelevant to my everyday life.

 

[Bob Klase]

An agnostic person usually believes the answer to the question "is there a god?" is currently unknown or unknowable.

Any agnostics/atheists agree or disagree?

I'd agree except that instead of saying agnostics "usually" believes the answer is unknown or unknowable I'd say "always". There may exceptions but that's the definition of an agnostic (at least the most commonly used definition).

But according to THAT definition, everyone in the world is an agnostic.

No. That definition addresses what you believe the answer to be. There are millions (or billions) of people who believe the answer to the question "is there a god?" is 'yes'. By that definition those millions (or billions) are not agnostic.

 

[Ocelot]

Having never seen any evidence for any Gods, singular or plural, I sincerely doubt mankind has ever created any. Certainly I would like to think an undertaking of that magnitude might have leaked to the press, unless that's what is really going on in Area 51.

I propose you show me evidence of your Gods before we speculate on their origin.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you not understand what I meant by NOT REAL!

IF they're not real they're MADE UP - who made them up?

 

[Ocelot]

Has anyone ever come accross the term Ignostic?

 

[Richard Masters]

I don't think it can be complete without somebody publishing that big long table of every possible belief position about God, without a single mention of a definition of God.

With a list of probabilities

 

[brodski]

Has anyone ever come accross the term Ignostic?

I have, it's how I describe myself when I want to be more precise about my philosophical position.

 

[Ocelot]

I have, it's how I describe myself when I want to be more precise about my philosophical position.

It's quite a sophisticated one isn't it, I'm ignostic on the issue of God's existance for the same reason that I have no position on whether a Lesser Roaming Snozbartle is deciduous.