Agnosticism is not a maybe stance. It is about accepting, the only intellectually viable position, that the proposition of God/god or gods is unknowable. The way that most gods are defined they are unknowable; like an Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHH).

(July 11, 2011 at 10:45 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: [Agnosticism is not a maybe stance. It is about accepting, the only intellectually viable position, that the proposition of God/god or gods is unknowable. The way that most gods are defined they are unknowable; like an Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHH).

Its not the only intellectually viable position, God is a baseless concept. It is an abstract thing used to explain the unknown based on nothing more than our early ancestors limited knowledge.

God is a philosophical argument.

I see agnosticism as lazy. It takes the concept of God from religion, Yet ignores his/hers/its characteristics.

I don't know if lazy is the right word. Convenient, perhaps. The position of agnosticism can be leveraged to remove arguments from both the atheist and the theist. It also has to be said that agnosticism stood in as a alternative to the choice between "this god or no god", and was an argument developed before we had access to much of the information that one might use in forming an argument for atheism or theism today. In essence it was the divine "I don't know"....a strong argument for it's time.

Sorry about the whole condescending thing, That is how I thought you were coming across. My bad

It is illogical to claim to be in the middle about the proposition of god or any proposition for that matter. You either think there is one(or many) or you think there isn't one(or many). Agnostic or gnostic is simply about whether you think the proposition is knowable or not.

Oh, and my wording wasn't the best. I meant intellectually honest, rather than intellectually viable.

(July 11, 2011 at 9:47 am)Theistsbane Wrote: Okay, I'll make this simple for you. I'll ignore the arrogance from which you proceed and focus rather on your fallacious argument. We could sit around doubting ourselves constantly over what "could" be. We could sit on the fence, like agnostics, and commit to neither school of thought. However, and I speak only for myself here, one need not prove that God does not exist to have a definitive answer. One need only prove that the existence of God is not NECESSARY to the existence of the universe. Science has done that. Case closed. Purple unicorns could exist, too. But wasting intellectual energy by refusing to accept the unlikeliness of such a creature is pointless. I accept agnostics as uneasy brothers and sisters in our plight, but fail to see how advocating the "maybe" stance actually helps anyone.

Diffidus:

Logic means to leave all your beliefs on the table and examine, in a brutal way, the deductions that are necessarily produced from a set of assumptions. The statement that God is not necessary to the existence of the universe is logically equivalent to: science is not necessary to the existence of the universe(if you assume God exists).

The case is not closed because you have no idea as to the currrent limitation of mankind's knowledge and, hence, you cannot make any statement as to the probability that God does not exists. The, so called arrogant statement regarding 'intellectual cowardice' was actually an allusion to a statement that Richard Dawkins has made at agnostics. Intellectually, however, it is much more difficult to stick with the actual facts, namely, that we do not have the knowledge to say whether God exists or not. If you 'take a stand' it is based upon your belief and not the actual facts - for me this is the easy way and involves no intellectual courage whatsoever. It is intellectually courageous to accept the world, including a realisation of our lack of knowledge, as it is.

Which god, exactly, do we not have the knowledge to discount?

It's the opposite religion is intellectual cowardice

Just as explained by futurama

I stumbled upon this thread having performed a search for the term intellectual cowardice. I subscribed to your community just to say this, and I will not be coming back (I liked the OP, but the first couple of replies convinced me that this place is infested with trolls masquerading as intellectuals). The atheist does not display intellectual cowardice in making a claim that cannot substantiated with fact. The atheist exhibits the courage to be wrong, and an ignorant certainty in their position when they deny that any claim for or against the existence of God hinges on an estimation of the probability of God's existence. I hope y'all enjoy disrespecting each other for trying to think. Peace off.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.