Why Agnosticism?

[diffidus]

I am saying that, at this point in history, judging from our previous performance, it seems unlikely that we are at the edge of knowledge and ,therefore, we cannot deduce the probability of God's existence from current empirical measurement. I am wary of leaping to conclusions from such a weak position, namely, the full weight of Humakind's historical errors.

You are basically saying that because we have not found evidence of god yet we must just say 'he might exist' and wait until we do find evidence to confirm his existence (even though we probably won't find any evidence).
Judging by your logic we should say there might be pixies, and yeti's, and little red riding hood, and bigfoot etc. We don't have the knowledge to dismiss those mythical creatures do we? According to your own logic?

Diffidus:

Not really - we may find evidence or we may not. There may come a period in history when we really have solved all the problems of nature and that we a very certain that there is a low probability that any new phenomena will not be found. We are nowhere near this point yet and so we cannot we cannot rule out new phenomena on probability grounds. The only grounds on which to rule out new phenomena is belief. It is a difficult position to hold, most unsatisfactory- but at least I am true to the facts as they are.

[eric209]

After much reasoning I have decided there is no empirical evidence to listen to diffidus. So time to ignore list. There may be evidence later so I'm going call myself an agnodiffidus. I think the probability is low though. Maybe I'm an adiffidus.


Eitherway you admit there is no empirical evidence for a God. The fact you wont admit athiesm only means you still hope for magic to be real more then a reasonable person.

[reverendjeremiah]

---

Empirical: Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment

Diffidus please prove to me that your abstract math is true in the empirical sense. I want to observe a real world perfect geometric shape very much.

Diffidus:

I said that it was a statement of absolute fact not that you could prove it by empirical measurement. An empirical fact might be that the planet earth is smaller than the universe that contains it.

Yes but under science all laws and theory are open to adjustment should new evidence be discovered. This leaves open the very improbable possibility that the whole universe and the earth does not exist at all and we are all part of a simulation in the real universe. This does not mean we should adopt a view of being agnostic to the idea of each being part in a simulation. we can rule it out as statistically insignificant. I believe we should and can do the same with supernatural myths.

There is any number of improbable realities that would be able to disprove anything empirical or otherwise. This does not negate the value of empirical evidence. It does negate the value of the highly improbable until empirical evidence is provided.

---

I rated you up on this thread. This post is one of many excellent posts you have posted.

[diffidus]

After much reasoning I have decided there is no empirical evidence to listen to diffidus. So time to ignore list. There may be evidence later so I'm going call myself an agnodiffidus. I think the probability is low though. Maybe I'm an adiffidus.


Eitherway you admit there is no empirical evidence for a God. The fact you wont admit athiesm only means you still hope for magic to be real more then a reasonable person.

Diffidus:

Except that I have no hope or belief that magic/God exist. They may or they may not - that is all!

[Ubermensch]

They may or may not, fine, be that way. But if I ask you, do you (and here is the active word here) believe, in god/magic. If you say anything other than yes, you are by definition an atheist/amagicist.

[fr0d0]

god/magic - that's harsh!

I mean - I dislike magic and superstition. But I credit the cosmos to have more about it that we understand. Magic in the commonplace kinda thing too. Awe at it, at science, at nature.

I guess you guys (atheist homies) agree with those?

[MilesTailsPrower]

I couldn't help but notice that you spent all of your time outlining scientific "issues" which you do not understand. That is the argument from incredulity. You failed to apply that same sort of rationality to the absurd concept of an all-powerful sky-daddy.

Your argument is decidedly one-sided.

Lol all powerful sky daddy.

I see no point in wasting time believing in god, when it's not real. Just like Santa Claus. I enjoy being atheist, because i just LOVE proving people wrong.

[Napoléon]

I enjoy being atheist, because i just LOVE proving people wrong.

That's not why I enjoy being an atheist. I enjoy it because I can sin all I want and eat babies.

[leo-rcc]

Onay alkingtay aboutway ethay abybay eatingway, itsway away ecretsay.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why agnosticism? I ask this question constantly. Agnostics by definition seem to be willing to posit the deist god. The deist concept of god is a god in the same way that an absentee father is a parent, ie..not at all. In what way is the deist concept of god functionally different than no god? If religions were full of gods who did nothing, offered no reward or punishment, and left no holy texts I would have absolutely no disagreement with the concept of god. The deist is in effect, claiming that a god who is not a god (by any practical definition) could exist.

I understand the logic employed to defend this position. I simply feel that it is a factually meaningless position. If a god cannot fulfill any of the roles man has assigned to him since time immemorial, of what value is the concept of god?

Apparently there is no gap so small, or so inconsequential that the concept of god can't be shoehorned to fit within its borders.