Refuting Theist Arguments - Why Agnosticism is flawed

[vQlse]

Brilliant. Thank you

[sailornaruto39]

urgh. i am debating a theists. and i have presented the logic in this vid. Yet the person constantly insists that because something is not disproves it is true. Says that atheists beliefs are based on blind faith and theists are faith based on evidence.

[mau571]

The only reason on why I'm agnostic and not atheist is simply because I can't prove that any of those gods doesn't exist even though I believe they probably don't(exist)

so I'm 80% atheist and 20% agnostic! is not that I want to believe in a god but I have no reason/prove to completely reject them!

[akaten916]

@mau57 Are you agnostic on the subject of unicorns, Santa Clause or any other mythical beings/creatures?

[jmdogg88]

maybe there are pod people. we don't know. that's the point of agnosticism; not knowing, yet not dismissing beliefs. i agree that the number of followers is what separates god believers from pod people believers. the question i can't get over is: When did everything start? i know, it is human nature to assume thhat everything has a beginning and an end, and that that may be inaccurate, but i more strongly believe the human mind is too weak to really understand anything, thats why im agnostic.

[OmorosePanya]

(A)theism is about the direct belief in a deity(ies). Agnosticism is about about the proofs associated with it. Ergo, one can be an (a)theist while being agnostic, but one cannot be solely agnostic when it concerns the person's actual belief..

"There's no proof either way" (agnosticism) indicates that nothing has convinced you that a diety(ies) exists, so you don't believe in any. You're not born believing in anything. If nothing has convinced you, you're an atheist. Stop hiding.

[UncomfortableSilence]

Exactly, very good point. Atheism is the default. No one can be a true agnostic. Evidence either points one way or the other.

[390904902]

Agnostic v atheist = pointless argument.

We should all just lay our different opinions aside, because we shouldn't be enemies.

[buffdaddy3144]

If I had have seen this video b4 I made my response to "Why I'm agnostic" I wouldn't have made mine.

The sad thing is this kind of stuff isn't common knowledge,

especially with such a relevant topic such as religion!

[Blackfish100]

I actually don't consider atheism to exist. That is because everyone believes in God in some way. What I believe is wrongly termed 'atheism' is actually 'conceptual theism', that is, the belief in a conceptual God. Conceptual theists believe in the existence of God as a concept or thought, as opposed to theists who consider him a sentient being. Why atheism is a false term in the first instance is that denial of a concept first requires confirmation. So atheism is essentially illogical.

[vanmartinmpg]

As someone who considers himself an agnostic, I'd like to refute your refutation. You've made an egregious error in your reasoning. You assume if all religions are wrong then there is no god. When I say I am an agnostic its with reference to one question only: is there some kind of intelligence agent behind existence. Now I think Christianity is most probably false. But it has no impact on whether a creator is or is not. The two are not mutually inclusive.

[defaultideology]

One quick note:  I see that many people think that atheism asserts knowledge. It doesn't. It is a lack of belief. Babies for example, have almost zero knowledge. That does not make them agnostic. They actually are atheist since they don't believe in a god. It's that simple. It doesn't matter if they KNOW one exists or not. The fact is they don't believe in one. I guess the bottom line is this. Call me what you want. I don't believe that god exists. I believe the universe is natural.

[blue4meridian]

Nailed it with theism. Way off the mark in regard to agnosticism. You confuse philosophy with religion. You confuse belief with knowledge. It is empirically illogical to suggest that what is unknown is known. It is empirically illogical to suggest belief (or disbelief) requires truth value to be logical. Based on that reasoning placebo effect would not exist. Belief (or lack thereof) is logical if there is motivation be it... peace of mind or just a piece of cherry pie.

[defaultideology]

Religion is philosophy. There is no confusion. Everything that we can't experience first hand (history for example) we have to believe, through evidence, what other human beings tell us. Most of what we "know" about our universe is actually a positive belief based on circumstantial evidence, through other human communication (TV, Books, Internet, etc). I don't believe in a god because I don't find the evidence credible. "Truth" only applies to statements. To say otherwise is illogical.

[blue4meridian]

In context... religion in the implicit sense is philosophy (eg. allegory, metaphor, logos, etc.). In the explicit sense it is belief (eg faith, doctrine, dogma, etc.). The confusion referenced is in regard to agnosticism being equated with transcendent belief and/or disbelief. Agnosticism is only ignorance (not belief or lack thereof) of the unknown.

[defaultideology]

The words we use rise and fall on agreed definitions. If Atheism is "lack of belief," then all agnostics (with respect to gods) are atheists, since they lack belief in it/them. Ignorance with respect to god(s) is in fact lack of belief, which is the working definition of atheism. People can call me agnostic if they wish. The words don't really matter that much to me. With respect to all the gods I have been exposed to I hold a positive disbelief since their evidence is faulty.

[blue4meridian]

Language (by consensus) is as much about that which is implicit (connotation, metaphor, logos, iconography, symbolism, imagery, construct, concept, context, etc.) as it is about that which is explicit (denotation, definition, description, quantification, qualification, meaning, etc.). Agnostics are neither theist or atheist, neither have belief or lack it. Agnosticism is simply not knowing the unknown whether factual or fictitious.

[defaultideology]

If I am understanding you correctly then everyone is agnostic about everything they can not experience first hand through sensory input. This puts all of history and current events not personally witnessed in the realm of agnosticism. By your description, I have to assume that "knowing" only means personal experience. Otherwise what is the use of circumstantial evidence. Q: Did humans land on the moon? A: I don't know. I could be misunderstanding you however. I do that a lot

[blue4meridian]

In context... I don't offer description only perspective. What was referenced was the various parameters of language. In regard to knowledge... the point noted amounts to this... that which is unknown is not known whether fact or fiction. More to the point, transcendence (the "god" question) suggests the unknown. The default for the unknown is belief (or absence of it) not knowledge. In that sense all truth value becomes moot.

[defaultideology]

Yes, I see I have drifted to different points in this string, sorry about that. There are persons that claim that god(s) exist. The claim is also made that this god is knowable. Yet I can not experience god first hand. Nor do I find the circumstantial evidence presented, logical or credible. Therefore, with respect to specific god(s) with defined attributes, my response is that those gods do not exist nor is it possible for their existence. Much like a square circle does not exist.

[blue4meridian]

The question then becomes... do you know or simply believe (or disbelieve)? If the answer is you know, then you are gnostic if you believe (or disbelieve), then you are agnostic. If gnostic... then the issue of empirically knowing the unknown (regardless of truth value) becomes a questionable assertion.

[defaultideology]

1st: I know that square circles (based on our common agreement of these words) do not exist since their existence is impossible. I am gnostic about this. Are you? 2nd: When I am presented with circumstantial evidence about a god that is omniscient (all knowing) yet at the same time can make "decisions," I respond by pointing out those attributes contradict. A is A and A is not A. I know "gnostic" this god can not exist. I suppose I am agnostic about other possible gods not yet presented.

[blue4meridian]

Agreement of what is known is by consensus. However... this is not knowledge of what is unknown. The default for the unknown is belief (or disbelief) not knowledge. If one knows the unknown, then it is not unknown. The truth value of a square circle is moot, because it is no more knowable than the quantity of infinity. ANY assertion of knowledge of the unknown the default is gnosticism because agnosticism holds that ANYthing unknown is not known. As for myself I am a strong agnostic.

[defaultideology]

I apologize if my charge below sounds cold. I like writing with you. I would however like some direct answers.

Tell me blue4; are you agnostic about Santa Clause? Santa Clause = Man in red suit, white hair and beard, lives on earth's north pole with elves, has flying rain-deer and sled, and delivers presents through people's chimneys and homes throughout the planet on the early morning hours of Dec 25 every year?

This seems to be a yes or no question, however I await your response.

[blue4meridian]

You charge is gnostic. My response is agnostic. I can offer no answers only perspective. At the end of the day it's about what floats your boat. The question is neither yes or no because it is moot. In context... the unknown regardless of truth value is not known. Whether I choose to believe in the quantification of infinity, Mother Goose or The Little Old Lady Who Lived In A Shoe their existence is not empirically (ie. measurable) manifest, therefore unknown by concensus.

[defaultideology]

By your logic, then you must be agnostic about everything you don't experience first hand. Every concept presented to you, no matter how strong the evidence, you must reply "I'm agnostic about that." That's the absurdity about agnosticism.  I asked you about Santa Clause who has been presented as a human being, with quantifiable attributes. Where you are incorrect is that Mother Goose and Santa Clause are measurable. Saying they are not is how you dodge the question.

[blue4meridian]

More to the point (in regard to square circles)... abstraction, anomaly, nomenon, etc. in a relative sense represent extremes, distortions and absurdities. However... these perceptive constructs are no more contradictory than the the notion of direction. "Up" has a meaningful value only relative to where one is located in 3d space to something else.

[defaultideology]

I see you are dodging the concept in the question.

It has been my experience that when people dodge questions they have no valid response.

God concepts are not unknown. They are presented as fact and simultaneously as belief. Most theists I know engage in this type of thinking. When people present a god concept to me with blatant contradictory attributes, I know, that god, can not exist. More to the point, that god is absurd as much as the square circle concept.

[blue4meridian]

In context... no question was given to dodge. A moot question is the same as none at all. I am only once removed from being ignostic which would mean then a refusal to respond to any transcendent question until (which very likely is never) transcendence could be coherenty postulated. Anyway... a concept may be known but not the unknown. The default of the unknown is not knowledge only belief. The concept of "up" (which by the way is not manifest) is 3 dimensionally absurd yet plausable.

[defaultideology]

Claiming a question is not a question, or claiming a question is moot is dodging the question. You have not explained how the question is moot. Asserting it, does not make it so. I agree, there is no point in considering transcendence. In that respect, god, in fact, does not exist, and we both agree. However your refusal to engage in conversation with respect to my other questions, leads me to understand that your brand of agnosticism is nothing but dodging all questions.

[gocaps123]

some of the people representing the agnostics are total retards. im agnostic. i nether comfirm nor do i deny the existance of santa, aliens, pod people...ect.

[3zaqxsw3]

"The theist cannot disprove the existence of any of these [deities], so by their logic, they must believe in them all".

Not necessarily, because when a deity is 'selected', it usually excludes others by saying things like "there are no other gods but me".

[GreenDragon23]

But you see, the selection is arbitrary. There is no evidence or 'proof' that goes into the selection; it is all cultural and emotional.

[anon2999]

Your denial of God and rebellion against him is transparent.

[GreenDragon23]

anon, "YOUR DENIAL OF THE SENTIENT CUCUMBER AND REBELLION AGAINST HIM IS TRANSPARENT"

;)

[philip0460]

Agnosticism is NOT flawed. I don't have the time to type up a litany of reasons your premise is false; however, I'd advise you to check out my channel and view the various videos I've made confronting detractors and explaining why agnosticism is the only rational school of thought.

[GreenDragon23]

Agnosticism is simply not rational when it comes to most things (such as the shape of the earth - things for which we have direct evidence, and things such as god - for which we can see the flaws of the arguments for it, as evaluate probabilites).

Is agnosticism that 'only rational school of thought' regarding the existence of a real superman?

[philip0460]

If you viewed my channel, then you didn't pay attention well at all. If you didn't view my videos, then I'd suggest you do so. The shape of the earth is scientifically proven, documentated, even photographic evidence. I am, therefore, NOT agnostic about that. HOWEVER, the concept of a god is unknowable to man at this time, it is supernatural in its essence, and beyond man's realm of knowledge at this time. Please view my channel and you'll be able to stop asking redundant questions.

[blue4meridian]

Agnosticism is transcendent ignorance not empirical rationalization.

[CatastrophicDisaster]

I disagree with you on something, oddly. Agnosticism only states that the existance of God cannot be proven or disproven, and has no stance on whether the person believes in God or not. If you ask someone if they believe in God or not, and they say they are agnostic, that's a bullshit answer as it does not answer the question. While the probability of a God existing is VERY little, it is still there. The best anyone can be is an agnostic something or another. Me = Agnostic Atheist.

-DisasCatas

[ThirstyonThursday]

Great video!

I agree with this, and hate the "you can't know!" argument as well. Obviously no one can 'know' anything to such a degree, but that still leaves me a-theist (without belief).

However I do KNOW that the god of the bible doesn't exist, as the vast majority of the bible can be shown flat out to be incorrect.

If there is SOME kind of god, he is blind, pitiless, and indifferent: creatures kill each other for survival, and no object observed has ever been acted on by an unexplained force.

[xdivineknightx]

You're a retard. Santa clause and the like are widely known to be fake. There is no proof that thee is no higher power. And guess what? There is no proof there isn't either. Atheist and theists both have no arguments so drop it.

[CatastrophicDisaster]

Theists have no argument. Since they have no argument, atheists automatically have one: the fact that theists don't.

-DisasCatas

[HotSauceFan]

I've dealt with ghosts, so that makes atheism wrong. I was an atheist until that happened. I'm not very religious either, but I can't rule everything out. Yet I can't prove a damn thing. Even if I were lucky enough to have had a camera, any skeptic could dismiss it as a hoax by suggesting trickery of some sort. Oh fuck me.

[enrgysynrgy]

just because you dealt with ghosts, there is no reason why the ghosts have any connection to god--ghosts could be something unrelated to god, heaven, hell, afterlife,etc. and have nothing to do with anyt of your have presumed connections which you may have been taught all your life--i'm not blaming or attacking you, just asking you to see what you saw from a different point of view

[cbreeze123]

UcanbeGOD, what is hiopnmerwat and ihuqwasxz?

[cbreeze123]

MyPisceanNature, you do make a good point...who knows....

[cbreeze123]

Thats all these holy scriptures try to teach us, and to just live our lives righteously and have morals. Whats so wrong with that? All in all I'd rather just live my life being good and believing in God than not believing in him at all and possibly going to (Hell). Why not be safe than sorry? I dont hink its a bad idea and I wont ever try to force someone to believe in anything or start a war. Just stating my opinion.

[MyPisceanNature]

And if it turns out that Islam is correct you burn anyway.

[enrgysynrgy]

if your body is in the ground--and we can exhume it and look for clues as to this burning--then what exactly is burning and if it is not physical, then how do physical things like fire affect this self of the afterlife

[MyPisceanNature]

Perhaps it is an analogy, since few things are as painful as being burnt

[enrgysynrgy]

true, but what kind of pain are we talking about? and what do you imagine such an analogy is trying to tell the followers of islam? i'm not being facetious

[MyPisceanNature]

I have no idea, I am just hypothesizing. Although I don't know if it qualifies as a hypothesis since I have no way to test it.

[bdcarlitosway]

"just live our lives righteously and have morals. Whats so wrong with that?"

"I'd rather just live my life being good and believing in God"

Id rather just live my life being good and NOT believing in God... So god wont judge me by my actions but by what fairy tale I believed in? If Islam is right, your burning, not because you were good, but because you believed the wrong story... ALL LOVING ALL FORGIVING PERFECT GOD MY ASS!!

[cbreeze123]

technically you werent around to see any of it happen so it so in your eyes it isnt true? All you can do is base alot of your beliefs on other people's recollection unless you intend to prove everything in this world on your own. And why do we have to spend so much time trying to disprove theist views. You dont have to commit yourself to a religion or anything but why not have a higher being in your life?

[cbreeze123]

So we have all these different religions but the one thing they have in common is that they believe in a higher being/entity and this entity exists. I dont see whats wrong with that. AND, sice you're saying you dont believe in any of this because it was all created/written by humans then you mean to tell me you dont believe anything in the history books or science books or whatever the case may be?

[cbreeze123]

This is how it goes: something happens and there are people around who witnessed what happened. Everybody has their own story but their tends to be discrepencies in the story, thats why their are so many different versions to a story, also another reason why we have so many religions. Either way, some part of everybody's story is true, everybody's story probably has one main thing in common. That one common factor is what I will believe to be true.

[cbreeze123]

The fact that there is a God or higher being would have to be an exception because how can so many people be saying the same thing from the beginning of time up until now? the bible, koran, and other holy scriptures are simply historical records, just like the history books we read in class today. Now alot of the shit we read about history is partially bullshit.

[cbreeze123]

To a certain extent I agree that the criteria should apply to all no matter if its one person or a million people. Thats why you were saying that people who are religious or theist are also delusional but in this world no one says that these people are delusional because so many people are religious. Majority rules. But I have to make an exception in some cases.

[cbreeze123]

You said that one person can be called delusional based on certain things and you could use that same criteria to maybe call an entire group of people delusional. But in today's world, if the majority rules, then they wouldnt be considered delusional. However the other person, the one singled out the group, they would be considered delusional.

[cbreeze123]

I somewhat agree with these things: just because you CANT prove something doesnt exist doesnt mean it exists, and all holy scripts were created by humans so in a way why should you believe them? As much as you cant prove they existed you cant disprove it either however I lean more towards the fact that God exists because as a majority, most people believe that.

[Brainmold]

Some might argue that pink unicorns are less probable than God. For the atheist, both are equally invalid. The theists has a programmed need for it to be true. They need a God. They have been trained to depend on it being real.

[GreenDragon23]

Sad but true.

Their programming prevents them from seeing that their god is no more logical than any other myth or deity.

[CentabyteZero]

I am an Agnostic in the sense that I think we don't have enough proof of what might have caused the Big Bang and what not, but I believe that every religious text is wrong but there might be some kind of entity that caused the big bang. But I prefer not to believe anything either way until there is some kind of proof on how it happened. And I don't believe that the evidence to prove so is out of reach, and neither do I believe it to be in reach, I don't know.

Oh, and that's an awesome song.

[GreenDragon23]

Thanks for sharing your ideas. :)

I would remind you of the burden of proof; it is simply not logical to belief in a creator unless it has some evidence.

I might also suggest that you think about the fact that arguments from first causes/design beak down their own presuppositions by assuming that all things need a cause/design EXCEPT for their designer (either the self-refute in that way, or they infinitely regress).

[CentabyteZero]

Maybe the thing that caused the big band does have a maker we just don't know about it yet. That would be interesting.

[UcanbeGOD]

Yeah, who says it has to be a "GOD" that made it all, why not a hiopnmerwat or a ihuqwasxz. People say it must be an all powerful GOD....why cant it just be a being that has no purpose than to shit universes or destroy itself to create a universe. BTW anyone who would like to learn about the hiopnmerwat can contact me, cause I know what it wants for mankind and it has some rules we should follow that he told me and me only.

[CatastrophicDisaster]

Or maybe something can really come from nothing and we haven't figured out how yet. Although I really don't care how the universe "started," it is logical to assume that it "started" somehow. Then again, it's dangerous to assume we know every law of the universe. I'm sure there are plenty of things we haven't been able to observe yet.

Or at least I can hope =)

-DisasCatas

[CatastrophicDisaster]

To expand, unless my knowledge decieves me, scientists don't claim that the Big Bang started the universe indefinitely, but that that's where they have traced it back to so far. In fact, it is likely that the universe existed in other forms before that.

-DisasCatas

[TranceDevotee]

way to take on and destroy agnosticism!

100% certainty of anything (except perhaps the fact that u exist) is impossible, i think it was Descartes who said this...so in a way we ought to be agnostic about everything. BUT one can be more certain about some things than others, i.e. one can be 99.9% sure gods do not exist (atheism) or 50% sure gods do not exist (agnosticism)

[TranceDevotee]

for all the questions theism provides an answer for (why is the universe the way it is?, why are humans the way they are?) there are non-theist answers and explanations with more supporting evidence (the big bang theory, the theory of evolution) thus there is no reason to be 50% sure/50% unsure of the existence of gods when there is no proof of their existence, because these alternative theories that do have supporting evidence should increase one's certainty that gods do not exist

[GreenDragon23]

I completely agree.

And we cannot forget about the burden of proof, parsimony, Occam's razor, etc.

[CatastrophicDisaster]

How does this stop one from being agnostic toward the idea? You're basically saying the same thing and giving it a different name. By "proof," they mean the level of certainty that everything else needs to be considered "proven". I am an extreme atheist and I probably wouldn't believe in God if there *was* solid "proof," but I still accept that it cannot be proven either way. I don't say that there is no way a God exists... Just that there's no way I'll ever believe it does.

XD

-DisasCatas

[pagano60]

Is this video really talking about agnosticism? I consider myself an agnostic, but I wouldn't call myself a theist.

[GreenDragon23]

I use the common use definition of 'agnostic'. That is to say, I am talking about people who are 'unsure' about whether god exists or not.

In the technical sense, one has to be either a theist or an atheist even if they are an agnostic (i.e., they have to still choose a side).

In this video, I am simply using the common use definition (as I gave above).

I hope that clears up any misundertanding.

:)

[fatmeteor]

it is a shame you coupled logical points with such shit music.

[GreenDragon23]

Of course, the most important thing is that music (whether liked or disliked) does not change the strength and validity of an argument.

Musical tastes are subjective, if you have any musical suggestions for any future videos then I would be glad to oblige...

[zbambam5]

niceeeeeeeee. yea and the song rocked.

[IHeartYew]

I like this music.

[GreenDragon23]

Me too.

Thats why I used it.

;)

Its "Foetus of a new day kicking" by Cradle of Filth (just in case anyone was curious).

[IHeartYew]

Thanks I didn't know the name of it.

[GreenDragon23]

No problem. ;)

[MyWorldView]

You got to be real young to enjoy that music. My system can no longer withstand such an assault :)

[GreenDragon23]

lol

Interesting way of looking at it.