Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

Of course there’s a midpoint (or at least another option): There is an all powerful, all knowing just deity who, for reasons knowable only to itself, has opted not to reveal itself.  Intellectually, this would make agnosticism a perfectly respectable position to take, and not in the least dishonest.

Boru

The deity you're talking about is also just ( an unjust deity is a useless concept ). And as such, it cannot have left poeple before us completely lost and without any way of reaching an impartial truth about its existence. It's not fair that a deity will reveal itself in the future, because all poeple who lived before this moment missed the revelation. And there is no way to solve this problem even with very loose theological arguments.

[Ranjr]

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.

Your reply is empty of thought.  There is no decisive and certain case for God.  If there were, you could present it.  Yet you can't.  You are the dishonest one.

Given time, unlikely conditions occur on their own.  That does not point to a creator.  It points to your lack of understanding.

Otherwise, you cast worthless insults like a child.

[LostLocke]

...an unjust deity is a useless concept...

Says who?

It's not fair that a deity will reveal itself in the future...

So what? If it's a god, it can do whatever the hell it wants to do.

If this deity is evil, it would love nothing more than to play mindfuck games with its creations.

[R00tKiT]

Given time, unlikely conditions occur on their own.

That's an attractive claim. Prove that to show you're not actually dishonest.
If you think billions of years of dust floating in the air will somehow produce complex information, let alone life, you might just need an equal amount of time in mental rehabilitation.

That does not point to a creator.  It points to your lack of understanding.

This is dumb, sir. Understanding a process is a separate issue. Why the process took place is the question we're interested in.

Otherwise, you cast worthless insults like a child.

Given the amount of batshit answers I'm receiving so far, I would call them facts.

---

...an unjust deity is a useless concept...

Says who?

An unjust deity by definition doesn't care about anything we do even it's righteous and justified. Therefore pursuing its existence is completely useless.

It's not fair that a deity will reveal itself in the future...

So what? If it's a god, it can do whatever the hell it wants to do.

If this deity is evil, it would love nothing more than to play mindfuck games with its creations.

You're right. And in this particular case, its existence is no longer an interesting question to ask. That's why the entire concept of god becomes meaningless once we omit the justness property.

[Mister Agenda]

The thread is not about proving god again, it's about taking the most honest position. Suspending judgement is not honest when it comes to the claim of an all-powerful all knowing just deity. The latter either revealed itself or doesn't exist. There is not midpoint here.

You are correct that the question is binary, that there is no midpoint between 'at least one god of some kind exists' and 'no god of any kind exists'. However, there being only two options does not mean you have to select one as your position. If you don't know which is true, it's perfectly honest to say you don't know which one is true, which is what an agnostic is saying when they describe themselves as an agnostic. I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't know which one is true, and I don't believe the god option is true. I don't believe the 'no god' option is true either; but I personally assign it a high probability because I think it's more likely to be true. It's like placing odds on a boxing match, you don't know which fighter is going to win, but you have an opinion based on the information available to you which is more likely to win. But you don't KNOW.

---

1. It's just an example. A person may have a 95% probability that god exists. Is he an atheist?

The person is an atheist if they don't believe any gods are real despite putting the odds at 95% that one is; but if I were setting odds, I'd say that's more likely to be an agnostic theist who believes there's at least one real deity while presenting an estimated level of doubt. The person probably knows roughly how certain they are that a god exists (or doesn't).

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Of course there’s a midpoint (or at least another option): There is an all powerful, all knowing just deity who, for reasons knowable only to itself, has opted not to reveal itself.  Intellectually, this would make agnosticism a perfectly respectable position to take, and not in the least dishonest.

Boru

The deity you're talking about is also just ( an unjust deity is a useless concept ). And as such, it cannot have left poeple before us completely lost and without any way of reaching an impartial truth about its existence. It's not fair that a deity will reveal itself in the future, because all poeple who lived before this moment missed the revelation. And there is no way to solve this problem even with very loose theological arguments.

But humans existed for tens of thousands of years before the Abrahamic god was so much as a gleam in a conman's eye.  As a Muslim, don't you consider it unfair that Allah didn't reveal himself to Mohammed until the 7th century? This clearly makes Allah unjust (according to your claims, at least).  Now, if you want to continue to claim that Allah is just, you've made the case that a god can reveal itself at any point and still exhibit justice.  If (according to your claims, at least) Allah not revealing himself makes him unjust, because all of the millions of humans who lived before Mohammed got the revelation had no access to it,  your entire argument vanishes in a puff of special pleading.

Boru

[Deesse23]

Just/unjust, fair/unfair according to which standard?

[R00tKiT]

However, there being only two options does not mean you have to select one as your position.

In the case of the existence of God. You do select an option. If you live as though God doesn't exist, that is, you're not following any religion or spirituality, then you practically did go for the second option [God doesn't exist]. I mean by God here the deity with the three-omni properties of course, and the just kind of deity.

My main point is that, if you sincerely exhausted all possible avenues looking for a just deity, then this deity surely doesn't exist. But then again it all comes down to exhausting all possible avenues.

don't believe the 'no god' option is true either; but I personally assign it a high probability because I think it's more likely to be true. 

Then you're not an agnostic. I am also curious to know how you reached this high probability of non existence.

The deity you're talking about is also just ( an unjust deity is a useless concept ). And as such, it cannot have left poeple before us completely lost and without any way of reaching an impartial truth about its existence. It's not fair that a deity will reveal itself in the future, because all poeple who lived before this moment missed the revelation. And there is no way to solve this problem even with very loose theological arguments.

But humans existed for tens of thousands of years before the Abrahamic god was so much as a gleam in a conman's eye.  As a Muslim, don't you consider it unfair that Allah didn't reveal himself to Mohammed until the 7th century? This clearly makes Allah unjust (according to your claims, at least).  Now, if you want to continue to claim that Allah is just, you've made the case that a god can reveal itself at any point and still exhibit justice.  If (according to your claims, at least) Allah not revealing himself makes him unjust, because all of the millions of humans who lived before Mohammed got the revelation had no access to it,  your entire argument vanishes in a puff of special pleading.

Boru

Islam considers God's existence as beyond doubt, and it was somewhat the case everywhere until the 17th century or so. According to our beliefs, Allah revealed a message to Muhammad, his existence was accepted even by Meccan pagans before the Islamic Prophet. The existence of God was not a matter of discussion in any Abrahamic religion.

[Simon Moon]

Belief comes from feelings and emotions

Knowledge comes from facts and truths

No.

Contemporary philosophers of mind and cognitive scientists, define belief as, the psychological state in which one is convinced that a premise or proposition is true.

One can be convinced for good reasons (evidence, reasoned argument, valid and sound logic), or they can be convinced for bad reasons (feelings, fallacious reasoning, flawed evidence).


Knowledge is a subset of belief.

[brewer]