theVOID wrote:"I cannot disprove the existence of God nor am i claiming to know that he does not exist - that makes me Agnostic by definition. "
George Smith said it best in 'Atheism the case against God'
"If god is completely unknowable, the concept of “god” is totally devoid of content, and the word
“god” becomes a meaningless sound. To state that “god exists”—where “god” represents an
unknown, a blank—is to say nothing whatsoever. It is on a par with, “Unies exist” or, “A blark
exists.” The agnostic, by refusing to state the content of his belief, exempts himself from reason
and serious consideration. Religious agnosticism is so indefensible that one must regard it as
nothing more than the antics of a confused and muddled mind.
Religious agnosticism is predicated on the concept of the “unknowable,” and herein lies the root
of its irrationality. To posit the existence of something which, by its nature, cannot be known to
man is to submerge oneself in hopeless contradictions.
First, we must ask: If god cannot be known, how can god be known to exist? Quoting Nathaniel
Branden, “To claim that a thing is unknowable, one must first know that it exists—but then one
already has knowledge of it, to that extent.” To assert the existence of the unknowable is to claim
knowledge of the unknowable, in which case it cannot be unknowable.
That is pretty much how I feel about agnosticism in its entirety.
George Smith said it best in 'Atheism the case against God'
"If god is completely unknowable, the concept of “god” is totally devoid of content, and the word
“god” becomes a meaningless sound. To state that “god exists”—where “god” represents an
unknown, a blank—is to say nothing whatsoever. It is on a par with, “Unies exist” or, “A blark
exists.” The agnostic, by refusing to state the content of his belief, exempts himself from reason
and serious consideration. Religious agnosticism is so indefensible that one must regard it as
nothing more than the antics of a confused and muddled mind.
Religious agnosticism is predicated on the concept of the “unknowable,” and herein lies the root
of its irrationality. To posit the existence of something which, by its nature, cannot be known to
man is to submerge oneself in hopeless contradictions.
First, we must ask: If god cannot be known, how can god be known to exist? Quoting Nathaniel
Branden, “To claim that a thing is unknowable, one must first know that it exists—but then one
already has knowledge of it, to that extent.” To assert the existence of the unknowable is to claim
knowledge of the unknowable, in which case it cannot be unknowable.
That is pretty much how I feel about agnosticism in its entirety.
There is nothing people will not maintain when they are slaves to superstition
http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/
http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/