Why Agnosticism?

[Minimalist]

let them show solid proof... or shut the fuck up. (I actually prefer the latter)

Definitely the latter....especially the fucking pope.

[HeyItsZeus]

Agnosticism because idk.

[Ace Otana]

On this basis, for me, the only logical position is one of the type of Agnosticism that I have defined. Atheism must rely, hugely, upon a good dose of faith!

Atheism isn't faith based.

An atheist is simply one who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods. I am an agnostic atheist, which pretty much means that I do not know whether a god exists or not, I don't claim either way. This makes me an agnostic, while I also at the same time lack belief in the existence of god because I cannot know one way or another which makes me an atheist. Agnostic Atheist.
No faith at all.

WIKI:
If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other

[Cinjin]

hmm, I always wondered what an agnostic would sound like if he was preaching.

[bozo]

OK so I've checked my Chambers dictionary which defines:-

ATHEISM- a disbelief in the existence of a god

AGNOSTICISM- unknown, unknowable ( of a creator, creative cause and unseen world )

By these definitions, if you disbelieve in a god, how can you be anything other than atheist????

[reverendjeremiah]

When I say Agnostic, I mean someone who recognises that there is simply not sufficient knowledge to rule out, with 100% certainty, that God exists.

I stick with the Absurdist view here. It doesnt matter wether a god exists or not. I am a caring human being living in a universe incapable of reciprocating such concepts. If a creator exists, then said creator is responsible for that absurdity, and should be revolted against.

Belief or non-belief does nothing to change the reality of this situation.

(but between me and you, I tend towards the "gods are bullshit" side.)

---

For me, and Atheist view must be dependent upon a scientific view of the world i.e. that it is based upon a combination of empirical evidence combined with scientific understanding. This gives us an ever deeper understanding of nature and the universe in which we live.

I have seen many people make the same mistake you just did. You need do nothing more than NOT believe in a god to be an atheist. All atheism requires is suspension of belief.

What you are describing is "physicalism" and "Materialism" and "Naturalism".

One can be an atheist and still believe in luck, and Karma, reincarnation, and "souls" and such... just not a god or goddess. ..like some Budhists do.

If you dont believe, then you are an atheist. That makes me an atheist.

Do you believe in a god or not?

[diffidus]

When I say Agnostic, I mean someone who recognises that there is simply not sufficient knowledge to rule out, with 100% certainty, that God exists.

By that definition you make the label complety meaningless. Because with that definition every single person on the planet is agnostic.

For me, and Atheist view must be dependent upon a scientific view of the world i.e. that it is based upon a combination of empirical evidence combined with scientific understanding.

Why? I don't believe that gods exist. Why would I need a scientific view of the world to hold that disbelief?

On this basis, for me, the only logical position is one of the type of Agnosticism that I have defined. Atheism must rely, hugely, upon a good dose of faith!

You set up one hell of a strawman here by making up your definition of atheism, then debunking that definition, and then forming a conclusion from that.

Diffidus

I realise that the definition of agnostic that I have given is unorthodox. However, it does not follow from this that everone must be Agnostic. Many people are 100% convinced that God exists and many people are similarly fundamentalist atheists. Even on this forum I have had it explained to me that belief in God is the same as belief in Pink Unicorns.

The Agnostic definition that I have given implies an acceptance of the facts and a denial of any attempt to 'jump the gun' and to enter the mirky world of faith and belief (which, if you accept the definition, is what theism and atheism must ultimately be). It implies that, if you accept that Humankind's knowledge is limited, then that is all, no firm conclusion as to the existence of God can be drawn. It takes a leap of faith to assert that God does not exist!

---

When I say Agnostic, I mean someone who recognises that there is simply not sufficient knowledge to rule out, with 100% certainty, that God exists.

I stick with the Absurdist view here. It doesnt matter wether a god exists or not. I am a caring human being living in a universe incapable of reciprocating such concepts. If a creator exists, then said creator is responsible for that absurdity, and should be revolted against.

Belief or non-belief does nothing to change the reality of this situation.

(but between me and you, I tend towards the "gods are bullshit" side.)

---

For me, and Atheist view must be dependent upon a scientific view of the world i.e. that it is based upon a combination of empirical evidence combined with scientific understanding. This gives us an ever deeper understanding of nature and the universe in which we live.

I have seen many people make the same mistake you just did. You need do nothing more than NOT believe in a god to be an atheist. All atheism requires is suspension of belief.

What you are describing is "physicalism" and "Materialism" and "Naturalism".

One can be an atheist and still believe in luck, and Karma, reincarnation, and "souls" and such... just not a god or goddess. ..like some Budhists do.

If you dont believe, then you are an atheist. That makes me an atheist.

Do you believe in a god or not?

Diffidus

Logically the statement ' I do not believe that God exists' is exactly the same as ' I believe that God does not exist'. Trying to pretend that one statement is different to the other is self delusion. To not believe in God implies the belief that God does not exist.

[Justtristo]

I am an atheist to the extent, I don't personally believe that any deities exist what so ever. However I am agnostic to the extent that scientifically proving the non-existence of any deities is impossible. That is because scientific hypothesises need very specific parameters to work.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Read an interesting argument regarding the atheist/faith debate recently. It goes something like this:

- Universal negative requires absolute knowledge
- Universal positive does not require absolute knowledge

Atheists believe that there is no god and to make this claim they must be omniscient, i.e. all knowing. If they are not omniscient they are basing their belief on a certain degree of faith. Whereas theists do not have to be omniscient to know if god exists since they would only need to scour the universe up to the point where they actually discovered a god.

So essentially, the atheist requires more faith than the theist.

Now, I think there's a fundamental flaw with the argument, however, I'm not completely sure. I mean, to me it seems like the argument would only work under the pretence that there is a god to be found. If there were no god the theist would have to continue their search until they, too, had reached absolute omniscience.

Gah, I can't articulate what I mean because I'm not even sure what I mean. I just know that in my head it seems flawed in some way.

[Ace Otana]

To not believe in God implies the belief that God does not exist.

Wrong, lacking a belief in god is not the same as claiming that there isn't one. I as an agnostic atheist am not claiming anything. No assertion made, I simply lack belief. It's not to difficult to understand.

Gnostic atheists are those who claim there is no god.
Agnostic atheists admit to not knowing whether there is a god or not but ultimately reject the idea.

If what you are saying is true, then we all here poses a belief (assertion according to you) that Santa does not exist.
Atheism is not a religion, it isn't faith-based. Atheism in it's most basic sense is the lack of belief in the existence of god. Nothing more, nothing less.

I do not believe in god, it doesn't get much simpler than that.