I hate political Centrism, but religious Centrism is the only one that makes sense.
We Agnostics are the most logical of all. It is not possible for us to know if a deity does or does not exist.
I believe it beyond human capabilities and reasoning to ever know until we take our last breath.
>>1307061
>it's another agnostics don't know the definition of atheism thread
>>1307066
The difference is, you say that no God exists, even if you don't know. We don't know and we say we don't know.
Apatheism is the only logical answer.
Agnostics are most retarded, to be honest.
> Actually, we doesn't know nothing! XD
> Can you prove that claim, comrade agnostic?
> How can I, if we doesn't know nothing? XD
> I think that we know at least... something.
> Don't be a retard! We totally ignorant about everything! XD
See how it works as logical position? Agnosticism fails as epistemology, because it is a position of conscious ignorance.
>>1307079
nope, you are just refusing to say that you lack belief. you either do believe or you don't. no atheists make a claim of absolute knowledge in the nonexistence of God. this is just a strawman you use you appear as the "reasonable" middle ground between two extremes even though you are identical to 90% of atheists
>>1307099
>no atheists make a claim of absolute knowledge in the nonexistence of God
Some do claim that they actually know that the Abrahamic God specifically (the only god that matters) cannot exist, because of Problem of Evil or other paradoxes.
>>1307081
Apatheism is the religion of the domesticated consumerist who does not ask questions but only sleeps, eats, fucks and buys.
>>1307108
that's a different question. as much as it is possible to be certain of knowledge, I am sure the christian conception of God isn't real. along with logical paradoxes in this version of God plenty of archeological evidence contradicts the bible at key parts (not just Genesis 1, all of Exodus, Numbers, Judges, even Samuel and parts of Kings and Chronicles) and the textual history of the documents in the bible makes it seem very unlikely to be divinely inspired, especially when some documents such as Deuteronomy and Daniel are known forgeries
>>1307099
The Amazing Atheist claims it. He says ;there is no God' all the time. He's just one example, though.
>>1307089
How can you prove a shrug of the shoulders when it comes to religion?
You can't prove Agnosticism, because Agnosticism is the position of accusing both sides of having no proof for their assertions and shrugging your shoulders.
Neither Atheists nor Theists can prove their position.
>>1307131
Maybe the Christian God is false. Maybe all human religions are false.
But what you need to prove to justify your position is that there is no deity at all.
The universe is simply too expansive and our planet too tiny and insignificant for us to understand it fully. It is ego to believe otherwise.
We can get very far with astrology, but not far enough to answer such a question.
>>1307138
>But what you need to prove to justify your position is that there is no deity at all.
Jesus, I already said this isn't my position. I only claim to be pretty certain the christian god doesn't exist
>>1307138
What you first need to do is convince people that the question is worth even answering. If god excists or not wont affect anyones life in any meaningful way so the whole question is irelevant.
>>1307132
> How can you prove a shrug of the shoulders when it comes to religion?
You can prove that something doesn't exist because of contradictions to facts or between statements themselves. God can prove that he exist by well-document miracle. We doesn't seen any but possibility is here if God is real. You can also try to make much more deeper arguments from philosophy of knowledge and such. On the other hand, what is a merit to say that you can't prove anything because you kind of feel like it?
> accusing both sides of having no proof
Both sides have some arguments and evidence. Agnostics just ignore it because you can't prove anything perfectly. Try to play that card in court and see how well it works.
>>1307132
> Neither Atheists nor Theists can prove their position.
Can you prove it? What is your generalized proof in that case? Let me guess, you have nothing so your position should literally be just as baseless.
yeah well actually we can't know anything for certain because we only experience the world through flawed subjective senses that sometimes just tell us absolute bullshit lol
so like
people who say they know anything are stupid lmao
>>1307140
How can you claim to be certain the Christian God doesn't exist? Do you have some evidence that the rest of us don't?
The only true answer to this question while we're still alive is "I don't know."
>>1307141
If the question isn't worth answering, then why is there always debate between both sides?
>>1307155
> Christian God doesn't exist
Christian God is omnipotent, that is self-contraction that leads to countless paradoxes and such absurd objects doesn't exist in the world. The same way how you can prove there there is no four-angle triangle, anon.
>>1307148
False equivalence.
I can taste this tea next to me now. I know it is there.
There is proof that it is there in that someone else can come over and pick it up.
God is a completely different thing. An Atheist cannot tell me a God does not exist, and a Theist cannot tell me a God does exist.
>>1307155
Youre talking like people dont argue over nothing all the time.
>>1307162
> I can taste this tea next to me now. I know it is there.
Could be a mental hallucination or even the tea-flavored imitation. You can't know for sure.
>>1307167
Then how come others can pick it up and confirm that it is tea?
Unless you're a Solipsist, this argument is shit.
>>1307164
Certainly not at 4chan.
>>1307171
On*
>>1307155
>How can you claim to be certain the Christian God doesn't exist?
The problem of evil.
>>1307209
There is nothing bad with evil.
>u cant know nuffin, im so enlightened compared to these atheists(even though im one too rofl) and theists who actually stand their ground
To the trash.
>hurr durr you have to stand your ground!!!!!!
>it's a constant war between theists and atheists
>pick your side!!
idiots
>>1307061
So is metaphysical knowledge impossible?
>>1307994
yes
Agnostic here, OP is right
>>1307061
>It is not possible for us to know if a deity does or does not exist.
Show me, using a sound argument, that this proposition is true.
>>1308008
it's a deity and we're human
it's always beyond our comprehension
>>1307061
As a Christian I only know trough hearing and mystical experience, direct revelation.
I also strengthened my faith more than anything trough reading the gospels.
>>1307132
>You can't prove Agnosticism
So it's false, right? According to itself? Oh wait no, because it has the same special snowflake argument of "y-you don't have to prove it" that you accuse atheists of.
I wish we could go back to the distinction between gnosticism and theism but the two ideas have been inexorably intertwined in the public consciousness for some reason.
>>1308023
That's not even an argument. The conclusion has nothing to do with, and cannot be logically derived from, the premise.
I have never in my entire life met an agnostic who understands epistemology. Most don't even know the word.
>>1307147
>Can you prove it?
>proving a negative
You cannot prove what is not, only what is. To make a claim is the assertion that the claim is true, and therefore can be proved.
>>1308043
>That's not even an argument
it is
so hard to accept that?
>>1308052
>you can't prove a negative
Reddit-tier pseudo-intellectualism. You clearly have no clue of what you are talking about.
If you were ACTUALLY logical, you'd realize that you're just an atheist who is more pretentious than usual.
>>1308062
A valid argument has conclusions that logically follow from the premises. Your "argument" did no such thing.
>mfw theists
>>1307169
Well it doesn't require solipsism.
It just needs to be reasonably tea-like enough to fool multiple observers, while not being tea.
You can't know anything for certain anon.
I'm not in the "You can't know nuffin" boat though.
That's what we falsifiable hypotheses for, reasonable approximations of the world.
>>1307061
You can't ever prove a negative claim for certain because that would require disproving potentially infinite falsifiable hypotheses about your opposing position.
The most you can do with a negative claim is sufficiently satisfy your curiosity and just drop the unsubstantiated opposing claim.
What you can do however is prove a positive claim by providing a falsifiable hypothesis for it and proving it to be correct.
That's really kind of the basis for my atheism.
Call it agnosticism light if you want but I just can't be convinced to not drop god as an idea since there isn't even a falsifiable hypothesis I could think of or that has been proposed that would prove the concept existed.
>>1308068
Fine. Explain your position besides just Ad hominem.
>>1308087
Oh wait. I didn't read the entire comment chain and misinterpreted.
>>1308087
Are you unfamiliar with modus tollens arguments? Literally Phil 101 stuff.
>>1307113
That's 99% of the population.
>>1307113
Yea, because "undomesticated" humans were probably asking really deep questions.
>>1307081
Apatheism is not even a philosophical view. It's just an attitude towards a topic. Apatheism is of no academic interest.
>>1308106
If your first premise is potentially flawed then a Modus Tollens argument seems like it can still be reasoned to be potentially false.
Rather essentially the modus tollens argument seems like just another way of saying that I set up a falsifiable hypothesis and consequently disproved it in my previous scenario.
If you do not possess a first premise that has been recognized as valid by the opposition (even if the opposition is yourself) then the modus tollens argument can't be properly used to prove a negative.
That's my take on the matter at least.
If you have an objection or if I've misinterpreted the Modus Tollens argument then feel free to inform me.
>>1308142
Indeed, you could say if god excists is academically uninstering to some. What does it matter what the answer is? You cant interact with it and it wont affect your life in anyway.
>>1307061
You're retarded, most atheist are agnostic, and a lot of theists are as well. Agnostic is not a term that's mutually exclusive with theism/atheism.
>>1308173
This is something that I have realized.
People argue all the time about God because they think they are proving the truth or falsity of religion, when really it's impossible to make a legitimate connection between some metaphysical being you could call "God" and some ancient writings in the desert.
>>1307061
>agnostics still want to be special snowflakes
You're an atheist and an a agnostic. Get over it.
The label "agnostic" is used instead often instead of "atheist" because the latter is more associated with "militant" atheism, so many more religion tolerant or even pro-religion atheists avoid it.
>>1308052
> You cannot prove what is not, only what is.
Logicians proves negative statements all the time, despite that retarded claim that repeated over and over. For example, you can prove that planet Mars doesn't exist in your fucking home. I fact, you can trivially made any statement negative one, there is God equals to there is no atheist who can be right. You literally doesn't know laws of logic if you says that you can't prove negative because there is one of the basic laws of logic that does exactly this. It is a law of excluding middle and it prove that there is no other option for both contradictory statement to be true at the same time! That is why your Law of You Can't Prove What Is Not is reddit tier meme and pseudo intellectualism of the worst kind.
I don't know for a certainty that God does not exist, but I also see no reason to believe he exists, so I'll stick with calling myself an atheist.
>>1308241
"Burden on proof is on the one making the positive claim" somehow got distorted into "You can't prove a negative" and everyone started repeating it brainlessly.
>god tier
agnostic theist
>non-god tier
agnostic atheist
>shit tier
gnostic atheist
>holy shit tier
gnostic theist
>>1308052
> You cannot prove what is not, only what is.
This statement contradict itself because you can prove that there are no negatives proofs, applying it to itself. You literally rely on logical absurdity to even made that claim.
>>1308269
> everyone started repeating it brainlessly
Anon, please. "Burden on proof is on the one making the positive claim" is also the meme. Burden is actually on who made a statement originally. That is why people can't just deny Holocaust by shifting the burden on prove to whoever believe in it. Correct statement that misquoted here is that it is hard to prove the universal negation with an absolute certainty, which made sense if it is your standard to be absolutely certain and not rely on more weak logical methods like probabilistic proves, etc.
>>1308269
And the former somehow got distorted from just being good argumentative practice into some sort of iron clad law of logic.
>>1307061
Will people ever fucking learn?
>>1307155
Jesus is God and must have perfect knowledge since God is omniscient. Jesus thought Moses wrote the Torah. this is simply not true. Moses would have been alive in the 1400s BC, when hebrew didn't exist as a language. King Josiah "found" a book of the Law during his reign in the 600s BC and was able to read it in hebrew. at least some of the Torah is likely to be a forgery made during Josiah's time. Jesus didn't know this, therefore he isn't God
To god-agnostics, are you also a Matrix agnostic? Are you agnostic about the question whether we are in a computer simulation or not?
>I'm atheist but have no rational motivation for being one
"Agnostic" atheism is literally "muh feels".
Unless you give an argument for atheism , then stop identifyin as one
>>1307061
>God literally walked the Earth and told us about himself
>but it's somehow more logical to be agnostic
k
>>1308448
Pretty sure if god excists is based on muh feels no matter your stance.
>>1308454
In the absence of argument none is more justified.
If I see a large crowd and someone asks me if the amount of people is even or not then I'd simply say I dont know, rather than saying "even, but I'm an agnostic evenist ". If you think that statement has some meaning then you don't really know what Agnosticism means. It pretty much is a suspension of judgement.
>>1308489
But hypothetically both even and odd have equal odds of being true.
Same is not true for theism which is significantly dwarfed in probability by atheism.
>>1308593
Taken abstractly they have the same probability. But concretely they don't
>>1307132
atheists don't have to prove anything since they don't make a positive claim.
atheists do not believe into a god because there is NO evidence for its existence.
face it you are wrong about the concept of atheism we never claimed that there is no god we just dont believe there is one since there is 0 evidence.
>>1307079
You're the reason so many atheists call themselves agnostic because you've made the term into something it isn't. Most atheists don't believe in god in the same way they don't believe about anything else that hasn't been proven to exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
This is all there is to it.
>>1307061
Agnosticism isn't about believing in a god, but about knowing if there is or there isn't a god. It isn't a theological but an epistemological position, so it can't even be called a "centrism".
>>1307061
Come to the UU. We accept anybody!
(Anybody at all! It's, kinda sad, really...)
>>1309748
This guy gets it
>>1307061
Most atheists are agnostic, just take the title of atheist to piss off religious people.
>>1307061
yeah yeah yeah, we get it youre retarded, its not a competition, you dont need to show it off
>>1310413
>Most atheists are agnostic, just take the title of atheist to piss off religious people.
*most agnostics are atheist, just remove the title of atheist because theyre pussies who are afraid of the word atheist and the fedora meme*
FTFY
>>1308623
> they don't make a positive claim.
Holocaust never happened!
I don't have to prove anything.
>>1307155
>If the question isn't worth answering, then why is there always debate between both sides?
Because people like you start threads like this you fucking faggot.
Have some self-insight.
What really matters is that you found a way to feel superior in an ocean of piss
>>1311274
so youre saying that the proof for god has the same validity as the proof for holocaust?
>>1311280
This is the most hypocritical comic ever conceived
>>1311321
how exactly? just look at this thread agnostics think theyre superior when they dont even know what words mean
>>1311321
It's self-aware.
>>1311314
I mostly say that baseless denial is a degenerate logical position. You should always back up your words instead of trying to shift responsibility for a finding Truth, to someone who doesn't agree with your baseless statements.
If atheists are illogical...
And theists are too...
Then... then...
ARE MIDTHEISTS ILLOGICAL?
>>1311334
how is it even close to baseles? i mean its a pretty basic fedora argument, but i asume you dont believe in dragons, are you illogical for that, are you trying to shift responsibility of finding the truth? NO YOURE NOT, if theres no evidence for something then you dont have an obligation to believe in it just because some people take it very seriosuly
>>1311363
How it would be logical.
> I believe that X is false!
> So... Can you prove that?
> Because A, B, C, D and E.
How your scenario works.
> I believe that X is false!
> So... Can you prove that?
> Can YOU prove that it isn't? XD
You can clearly see where is legit discussion and where being clear retardation of polemics. You can believe in whatever you want, but if you establish a certain believe is a true one, you should back up a statement by arguments. Be it negative one or the positive one.
>>1307061
You understand that people get annoyed at agnostics for the same reasons people get annoyed at centrists, right?
>>1311390
so you think that believing in god is the default position? is that really logical to you? kk then, ill claim whatever the fuck i want and then when you dont believe it you have to prove it
(im superman btw and if you dont cut off your middle finger ill fly over to you and cut off the whole hand)
>Can YOU prove that it isn't? XDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDD
the default position goes something like this btw
>i believe god exists
>well i dont because you dont have any proof and as soon as you get any i will believe you
where is the logic jump here exactly?
