I just wanted to give some reasoning behind my religious views.
I identify as an agnostic skeptic, because I do not identify as an atheist or theist, but also because she makes a valid point, that agnostic and theism/atheism are totally different things. I do not claim to be a theist, just as I do not claim to be an atheist. Do I know there is a God? No, absolutely not. Do I believe? This is more than a yes or no question. I just said that I don't know. It's unreasonable to claim something that has no evidence. And no, I believe God is much more than a hypothesis. It's an idea. A hypothesis is defined as, "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." That doesn't really explain God, does it? No evidence and all? So it would be unreasonable to claim something that has no evidence, the general opposite of a hypothesis. Yet, it's an idea, isn't it? And ideas must be contemplated, so we are left with a problem here. True, you can choose to pick sides. Nevertheless, the idea of agnosticism still stands, as lacking knowledge. Is it too much to say that we cannot draw a conclusion on the matter, and further evidence for one side or the other is needed before said conclusion can be drawn. I know I'm throwing around definitions here, but a skeptic is defined as, "a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions." I'm a skeptic because it is most plausible (and I say plausible because again, we do not know) there is no evidence for either side, and as such, I do not pick sides, but am open-minded and eagerly ask questions. If a man walks up to you, takes about five to ten steps back, the steps in which you did not care to count, asked, "I'm going to throw something at you. What do you believe the chances are of your face being smashed in?" Your going to ask questions, right? Well, what if his answer to the majority of your questions is "I don't know"? Would it be reasonable to come up with a belief on the matter? Thanks in advance.
I identify as an agnostic skeptic, because I do not identify as an atheist or theist, but also because she makes a valid point, that agnostic and theism/atheism are totally different things. I do not claim to be a theist, just as I do not claim to be an atheist. Do I know there is a God? No, absolutely not. Do I believe? This is more than a yes or no question. I just said that I don't know. It's unreasonable to claim something that has no evidence. And no, I believe God is much more than a hypothesis. It's an idea. A hypothesis is defined as, "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." That doesn't really explain God, does it? No evidence and all? So it would be unreasonable to claim something that has no evidence, the general opposite of a hypothesis. Yet, it's an idea, isn't it? And ideas must be contemplated, so we are left with a problem here. True, you can choose to pick sides. Nevertheless, the idea of agnosticism still stands, as lacking knowledge. Is it too much to say that we cannot draw a conclusion on the matter, and further evidence for one side or the other is needed before said conclusion can be drawn. I know I'm throwing around definitions here, but a skeptic is defined as, "a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions." I'm a skeptic because it is most plausible (and I say plausible because again, we do not know) there is no evidence for either side, and as such, I do not pick sides, but am open-minded and eagerly ask questions. If a man walks up to you, takes about five to ten steps back, the steps in which you did not care to count, asked, "I'm going to throw something at you. What do you believe the chances are of your face being smashed in?" Your going to ask questions, right? Well, what if his answer to the majority of your questions is "I don't know"? Would it be reasonable to come up with a belief on the matter? Thanks in advance.
