Current Events > Agnosticism is a cop out, "agnosticism" doesn't exist

(+) Yeah! (+)

Dustin1280 posted...

2. Yes it is, either something MADE those things happen, it happened randomly, or it has always been a thing. All are what ifs since none can be proven

Completely wrong. Why do you think you get to decide that its either a god or "random events". Is it because those are the only options that your mind can conceive? Perhaps the universe always existed. Perhaps the universe keeps getting created and destroyed in a predictable manner. Maybe its not random at all.

The point is, atheism doesn't claim at all how the universe came to be. It simply rejects one form it. This the main reason why you're wrong and that atheism doesn't require as many "what ifs" as deism.

Dustin1280 posted...

Not sure what your point is here. Neither of them are actual arguments. Because the fact of the matter is, if such a being existed, we wouldn't know about it unless it wanted us to or made it so we could. Trying to further complicate the matter just is asinine.

You don't understand that you are trying to say "that's not a what-if!" by using the word "if" in your explanation? You're not changing the amount of what-ifs in deism by saying "that's not true, because if" I don't know how to dumb it down any further sorry.

Whats your point, sure we can perceive those things.

Show me direct evidence of a god that I can perceive. If you tell me that I can't perceive god. That's a what if.

Dustin1280 posted...

5. Dark matter fits that pretty aptly. Seeing as we are unable to perceive it but hypothesis it exists because we have no better explanation.

Hypothesizing something exists, isn't something "you know exists". Try again.

Goddammit those edgy ancient Greek philosophers.

I would just like to verify that the big bang theory, theory of evolution, the concept of "before the universe," etc. are not part of atheism.

The only thing required to be an atheist is as follows:

Person A: God exists.

Person B: I don't believe you.

Person B is an atheist. Everything else is extra.

Dragonblade, 100% correct, this topic has been all over the place.

bkkorps You were right about what you were trying to get across, I was lumping too many things in at a time, which I mentioned in previous posts.

Hexagon posted...

The point is, atheism doesn't claim at all how the universe came to be. It simply rejects one form it. This the main reason why you're wrong and that atheism doesn't require as many "what ifs" as deism.

You are correct Atheism dismisses that a sentient godly being exists. That is all it does.
But since there is not enough information that explains the answers to questions such as how did the universe get created, what caused our existence, etc...
I don't personally see a deity being responsible as any less likely then other theories out there. We simply don't know enough to make a proper educated decision.
---

I'd say that you shouldn't really accept claims (even those of "possibility," which is something that gets tossed around a bit too loosely most of the time) on the basis that "we don't know it's false." You can accept contradictory claims using that as a foundation. And any foundation that, applied evenly, leads to accepting contradictory claims is one that I really don't think anyone should use.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
---

So what claim is this accepting exactly?
Dustin1280 posted...

My conclusion is as follows: If a supernatural being truly existed and wanted us to worship him, he would do SOMETHING that makes it clear he exists. He wouldn't just constantly test us the entire time. Such a being if he were truly GOOD wouldn't allow some of the TERRIBLE things that happen in this world either. After all if you creations are destroying themselves in the most awful way possible and you actually care about them, it would be better to intervene and prevent such awful occurrences from happening to begin with (regardless of free will, some people deserve death). If this being exists and he doesn't intervene then he is an evil malicious being, and I don't want to worship him anyway.

Thus the only logical conclusions I can come to are:
1. IF we were created by something, whatever that something is has moved on to his next creation and pays no attention to us.
2 Alternatively we were created by no such being at all.

It's certainly not accepting any theist's claim.
It IS accepting a deist's claim as a possibility.
It IS also accept the fact that gods may not exist at all as a possibility.

There is nothing that would lead me to believe either of the claims it's open to has a better chance than the other.
---

What do you mean when you say that something is "possible"?

Dragonblade01 posted...

I would just like to verify that the big bang theory, theory of evolution, the concept of "before the universe," etc. are not part of atheism.

The only thing required to be an atheist is as follows:

Person A: God exists.

Person B: I don't believe you.

Person B is an atheist. Everything else is extra.

That is disgustingly oversimplified though and fails to even define god.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

What do you mean when you say that something is "possible"?

In my example?

That either of those two things could very well be true as there is no evidence that would lead me to believe otherwise.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

That is disgustingly oversimplified though and fails to even define god.

Being an atheist is simple. It's the theist's job to define the god of their claim.

Dustin1280 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

What do you mean when you say that something is "possible"?

In my example?

That either of those two things could very well be true as there is no evidence that would lead me to believe otherwise.

If there's no evidence for either claim, why do you need to believe anything?

Agnosticism does kind of seem like a pointless stance. Literally anything could turn out to be true, including religions, but there is no evidence right now. You either believe in a god right now or you don't. And if there turns out to be a God, belief will no longer be necessary. It would be reality. I don't think everyone who is an atheist believes it is impossible for there to be a deity, just that there is no proof at this time, and therefore there is no reason to entertain it. Everything we know about physics could one day be turned on its head by some future unforseen event. Doesn't mean we should consciously entertain the idea in day to day life as truth
---

hockeybub89 posted...

including religions, but there is no evidence right now.

Well if you believe in a god that created created adam and eve a few thousand years ago. Then there is a lot of evidence that that religion is false...

16-BITTER posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

I don't think everyone who is an atheist believes it is impossible for there to be a deity, just that there is no proof at this time, and therefore there is no reason to entertain it.

Right, those people are called "agnostic".

No, those people are called reasonable atheists that don't believe in something until there is evidence.

The syllables don't matter. The noun is atheist not agnostic.

imo people view beliefs far too statically

you can have a belief one minute and think a different one in the next

like sometimes you want mcdonalds, sometimes you want steak
---

silly post that assumes everyone has an opinion on everything. agnostics simply don't care enough to think about whether there's a god or not and form an opinion on it
Hexagon posted...

frozenshock posted...

AlBundy33 posted...

No one knows if god is real

There is only TWO states you can possibly exist in, either you believe, or you dont, there is no idk lol when it comes to belief

Yep there is, and there is a very sensible position. When you're investigating a crime scene, you are looking for clues as to who the killer is. You can't be in a state of belief or disbelief. You're in a state where you don't know, but you're trying to understand.

Except when you present your stance as an attorney, your stance is either guilty, or not guilty. No sensible attorney would try and make a case for "I don't know". If you're an agnostic, then you shouldn't participate in debates until you have a stance and staunch defenders of "we don't know/we can't know, my position is better than both because of that" is garbage.

agnostics don't participate in debates lol. if they do then they aren't agnostic.
---

@stoltenberg11 posted...

agnostics don't participate in debates lol. if they do then they aren't agnostic.

But they do. And that is the point of thread. In fact they pop up quite frequently if you visit the appropriate boards.

Dustin1280 posted...

When I think atheist, I think someone that does not believe gods exist and for whatever reason they are sure that no gods exist. Now truly that would be a "gnostic atheist."

But almost no one uses the term gnostic and most people that describe themselves as atheists to others are actually gnostic atheists.

Honestly, I thin I've seen far more people claim to be agnostic atheist than gnostic atheist. You might have some people that are gnostic about about a specific god (ie. Zeus or the Abrahamic god), but I've seen very few claim to know that no god's exist at all. Far fewer than gnostic theists anyway.

16-BITTER posted...

Hexagon posted...

The syllables don't matter. The noun is atheist not agnostic.

This sort of pedantry is not making a good case for the so-called "reasonable" atheist.

Maybe they exist, but I don't believe it until there is evidence.

What's funny about your posts is that you're trying to portray atheists as annoying know it edgy, etc, but thats EXACTLY how you're coming off.
---

Hexagon posted...

@stoltenberg11 posted...

agnostics don't participate in debates lol. if they do then they aren't agnostic.

But they do. And that is the point of thread. In fact they pop up quite frequently if you visit the appropriate boards.

if they participate in a debate about whether a god exists or not and take a side then they aren't pure agnostics
---

Gnostic theist
Agnostic theist
Gnostic atheist
agnostic atheist

Have always been the categories in my book tbh
---

16-BITTER posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

I don't think everyone who is an atheist believes it is impossible for there to be a deity, just that there is no proof at this time, and therefore there is no reason to entertain it.

Right, those people are called "agnostic".

But I'm not really entertaining that God might be real anymore than Bigfoot. I just know literally anything is theoretically possible. I live day to day as if God does not exist because I have no reason to believe so.
---

16-BITTER posted...

Gee, you guys really take your labels seriously.

Mostly just frustration for having to reexplain my position every time.

I'm agnostic. If there is, there is. If there's not, there's not.
---

Most people are agnostic that has to do with knowledge, not belief.
---

@Sayoria posted...

I'm agnostic. If there is, there is. If there's not, there's not.

Thats a complete cop out

Either you believe, or you dont

For example, I do not believe a god exists(and I believe there is proof to back up my claim) but if there is a god, doesnt affect me at all
---