Thoughts on Agnosticism and Certainty

Why agnosticism is an illogical position, why atheism does not require faith, and why I don't have to disprove God.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Atheist
• Agnostic
• Theist
• belief
• god
• faith
• epistemology

[skoockum]

what a fucking joke... just another faith-based position claiming that rationality is logically flawed

[XOmniverse]

@skoockum I claimed that rationality is logically flawed? What does that even mean?

[responder12345]

You anti-agnostic atheists are starting to sound like a broken record. Take some outlandish idea and go on to say that the negative cannot be proven, etc. Let me ask you a few questions:

1. Does intelligent life exist in the universe other than humans

2. Are there alternate, parallel universes other than the one we are currently in?

If you say no to both of those, you are simply defaulting to negative if positive proof is not presented.

[XOmniverse]

In general thought, you don't ASSUME either of those are true unless you have a reason to do so.

Can you disprove the existence of invisible dragons? When you're driving a car, do you take the existence of invisible dragons into active consideration?

There is a difference between the statements "I do not believe and God" and "There is no God."

[MrShenaniganz]

nice points buddy. i like the idea of the default position as things being false

[blue4meridian]

Agnosticism suspends judgement on the connotation of that which is trancendent. This includes but is not limited to... Agnostic theism which suspends judgement on the knowledge of that which is trancendent. Agnostic atheism which suspends judgement on the existence of that which is trancendent. Agnostic pantheism which suspends judgement on the phenomenon of that which is trancendent. Agnostic panentheism which suspends judgement on the manifestation of that which is trancendent.

[XOmniverse]

I have reasons to think the concept of God isn't even coherent and can't possibly refer to anything that exists.

I did a video on Theological Noncognitivism. I recommend watching it.

[responder12345]

So an agnostic's perspective is not whether or not something is likely or exists, but whether or not it is possible that it exists.

[responder12345]

"In general thought, you don't ASSUME either of those are true unless you have a reason to do so."

That may be similar to how an agnostic views a deity which Websters defines as "A supremely powerful and good being."

So the question is, if you are agnostic towards intelligent alien life or any other unproven possibility, then it somehow seems to break a threshold of plausibility within your logic. Invisible dragons on the other hand, do not reach that threshold.

[iamundergrace]

4. God is supernatural he is beyond are capacity to understand, yet that does not mean that God cannot experience and interact with His creation. if I created a robot why can't I create smack Him around and make him do my dishes. 5. bridges do break unexpectantly. 6. the fact is true to you their may not be a God. because your bridge hasn't broken or Neo hasn't come to pick you up but, that is not to say that the evidence does not exist, to say so would be arrogance.