Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[brewer]

Was this thread supposed to be about agnosticism?  Most of the time, when a person tells you that they don't know something...they don't.

Isn't that what we had to infer from the OP?

[Rahn127]

Dear OP, your title is incorrect.

Agnosticism is the most honest position one can take when one doesn't know.

I don't know X so I'm going to say I don't know X.
That is pure honesty.

Everything else you said was picked apart by other people so I feel no need to also do that.
Again...pure honesty

[GUBU]

Hey there,

Non religious people tend to overly use words without thinking about them, just like many religious people do, only in a much more dishonest manner.

Let's take the motto "I believe in science" for example, which is, for most skeptics, a euphemism for "I don't believe in anything any religion claims". The latter declaration already contains a mistake since nobody exhausted all the religious claims and ensured that they're fake. Let's remember that atheists are perfectly fine with ruling out entire religions with guesswork and false stereotypes.

Fancy words like science, reason, etc. refer to a very simple idea : we struggle very hard to figure out how things work around us. We invented mathematics and fancy abstract concepts for the sole purpose of getting our thoughts straight. When our mathematics became good enough we were finally able to have a better intuition of the universe. What should be kept in mind here is that we didn't create anything, we adapted to an a priori existence, all our attempts in science are a posteriori explanations that we try to fit to what we see around us. It's easy to imagine a very clever alien figuring out our entire "glories" of science in a couple of hours, then coming with a working theory of everything in the next, but this very alien is clever enough not to mess with fundamentally different questions like a meaning of his existence , or disregard revelation without looking at it hard enough.

So the purpose of science is attempts to figure out a posteriori how stuff works. Religion is about wondering why there is an a priori to discover in the first place. These are two entirely distinct compartments. Huge advancements in one don't negate the importance of the other.

That's why people repeating the aforementioned motto are fundamentally dishonest, they equivocate and mix these two very different aspects of reality.

It's not hard to make a case that we will never access any kind of ultimate reality, we already know that we cannot ever predict a physical quanity of a particle with certainty [Uncertainty principle]. Yeah : predicting certainly anything about one particle anywhere in the universe is already inaccessible to us forever.

And let's not forget that it took us 1700+ years to prove pi is irrational. And some still say : I'm open minded about discovering God in the future .

The only honest position is actually to take one of the two extremes. Saying that you're open to science discovering god is a grave misunderstanding of both science and religion.

Actually, "I don't know" is usually very honest. It may not be useful, but a statement of ignorance rarely is a lie.

---

A person says he thinks there is a 50% chance of a god. There is nothing dishonest about that. 

That's not agnosticism, idiot. I am agnostic about the existence of a generic god, but given what is known of the universe, iI would put the odds of such a being's existence at many magnitudes below 1%.

[R00tKiT]

Consider ceasing to do it.

Are you dumb or what. Confusing science with religion is always a colossal mistake no matter what you think of religion.
Consider ceasing to defend a stupid mistake.

"Again"? Really? When has any deity been proven?

"proven" is a really vague word. The only question worth asking is : what kind of proof would convince you of God? Is it directly witness a huge entity coming down the sky and resurrecting the dead ? or something else ?

And you stupidly assume there exists a burden of disproof. That is false.

Yes there is a fucking burden of disproof. Isn't that your job as atheists to disprove all kinds of claims made by religious people. Just do this one fucking job right.

If five hundred people tell you there is a rocket launched and directly aimed at your house, you better check the story and get your family out.

Go back to school, sir. The first building blocks of any domain in mathematics are axioms we picked. All the theorems, lemmas and fantastic insights are logical deductions we do in our heads.

Still false.

Riight, ignorant. Apparently, the rule of three was enough for Einstein to formalise general relatvity.

Also false. I have no idea which planet you come from, but it isn't this one

I'm starting to think you never took a science class [seriously].

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes there is a fucking burden of disproof. Isn't that your job as atheists to disprove all kinds of claims made by religious people. 

No.  Any other questions?

[R00tKiT]

It's not a creed on it's own.  It's the avoidance of a creed.

It's cowardice in an embellished way.

Agnostic means without knowledge.

We already know our universe balances on a knife-edge of extremely unlikely conditions. If this doesn't point for someone to a creator, he is an absolute twit. Case closed. End of story.
This is the only knowledge skeptics need to stop their retarded maneuvers around that.

Religions require faith because they can't offer certainty.

Who mentioned religions in any way? We're discussing the existence of the God with the three-omni properties, the only interesting deity all major religions care about. This particular deity either exists or not. A decisive and certain case can be made.

[Abaddon_ire]

Consider ceasing to do it.

Are you dumb or what. Confusing science with religion is always a colossal mistake no matter what you think of religion.
Consider ceasing to defend a stupid mistake.

I have no responsibility for your mistake.

"Again"? Really? When has any deity been proven?

"proven" is a really vague word.

OK, I will rephrase. When has any deity been demonstrated to actually exist?

The only question worth asking is : what kind of proof would convince you of God? Is it directly witness a huge entity coming down the sky and resurrecting the dead ? or something else ?

I don't know. But surely your god would know, right?

And you stupidly assume there exists a burden of disproof. That is false.

Yes there is a fucking burden of disproof. Isn't that your job as atheists to disprove all kinds of claims made by religious people. Just do this one fucking job right.

Nope. It is rather idiotic of you to think so. I am an atheist. I don't believe in any god/s. That is an affirmative claim. My burden of proof for that claim extends to stating that I don't believe in any god/s.

If five hundred people tell you there is a rocket launched and directly aimed at your house, you better check the story and get your family out.

And if no rocket ever turns up? Then what?

And you are engaged in a blatant ad populum fallacy.

Still false.


Also false. I have no idea which planet you come from, but it isn't this one

I'm starting to think you never took a science class [seriously].

Unfortunately for your attempt at an ad hom, I have an alphabet soup after my name. Because I earned it.

[The Architect Of Fate]

here is a fucking burden of disproof. Isn't that your job as atheists to disprove all kinds of claims made by religious people. Just do this one fucking job right

No such burden exists 

The only question worth asking is : what kind of proof would convince you of God? Is it directly witness a huge entity coming down the sky and resurrecting the dead ? or something else ?

Not our problem

"proven" is a really vague word.

Dodge

If five hundred people tell you there is a rocket launched and directly aimed at your house, you better check the story and get your family out.

Rockets demonstrably exist .

Are you dumb or what. Confusing science with religion is always a colossal mistake no matter what you think of religion.

Consider ceasing to defend a stupid mistake.

Im no confusing them i'm just holding one to the same realistic standards as the other

[R00tKiT]

I have no responsibility for your mistake.

Yeah it appears you are dumb. It's your mistake, acknowledge it if you have any decency, so we can make some progress.

OK, I will rephrase. When has any deity been demonstrated to actually exist?

You people don't even know what proofs are convincing for you. All you know is : Oh this is peer reviewed therefore i should endorse it to look smart. Big names doubt God therefore I should suspend judgements because it's cool.

Very bad epistemology students.

The only question worth asking is : what kind of proof would convince you of God? Is it directly witness a huge entity coming down the sky and resurrecting the dead ? or something else ?

I don't know. But surely your god would know, right?

Okay, what about : what kind of proof would convince you of anything existing ?
Still don't know?

Nope. It is rather idiotic of you to think so. I am an atheist. I don't believe in any god/s. That is an affirmative claim. My burden of proof for that claim extends to stating that I don't believe in any god/s.

And your stance is the laziest one. Any guy who picks an answer (i.e. endorses some religion) is more honest/courageous with himself and with what he sees around him than the batshit answers : I don't know I don't believe I don't care I don't I don't .. fuck that.

It's like refusing to make mistakes in class just to look cool. It's always dishonest and lazy. What we know so far about the universe sufficiently warrants a purposeful explanation.

And if no rocket ever turns up? Then what?

And you are engaged in a blatant ad populum fallacy.

You are laughable, sir. Would you seriously wait to find out if like the whole neighbourhood tells you your house is in danger ? What about some TV breaking news specifically telling your area to fuck the hell out ? would that count as ad populum too ?
There is no ad populum involved since we're talking about signs and warnings, not formal facts. It's sick that you wouldn't even consider the signs of design/order around you as meaning something.

[The Architect Of Fate]

You people don't even know what proofs are convincing for you. 

It's not my problem either god can convince me or you have proof. 

All you know is  Oh this is peer reviewed therefore i should endorse it to look smart. 

Strawman 

Big names doubt God therefore I should suspend judgements because it's cool.

Strawman 

Very bad epistemology students.

Says the man who resorts to fallacies

---

Okay, what about : what kind of proof would convince you of anything existing ?

Fallacy of false comparison .Lot's of things have proof your god isn't one of hem 

Still don't know?

Just keep dodging the burden with empty rhetoric.Your excuses gain you no ground

---

And your stance is the laziest one. 

Nope the wisest 

Any guy who picks an answer (i.e. endorses some religion) is more honest/courageous with himself and with what he sees around him than the batshit answers : I don't know I don't believe I don't care I don't I don't .. fuck that.

Nope the opposite one who says thy don't know is more  honest/courageous then one who assumes thy know 

It's like refusing to make mistakes in class just to look cool. It's always dishonest and lazy. What we know so far about the universe sufficiently warrants a purposeful explanation.

There is making mistakes and there is bein reckless .It's neither dishonest or lazy to not leap to conclusions. No we don't know that nor have you given any warrant

---

If you don't blindly jump off this cliff your lazy and dishonest