Agnosticism isn’t indecisive, weak, or cowardly, its the most humble intellectual perspective you can possibly have. It’s the courage to admit: “I don’t know.”
Agnosticism isnt indecisive, weak, or cowardly, its the most humble intellectual perspective you can possibly have.
I don't know if coffee is good for you
Sorry but you’ve got to post something eye-catching if you want to get responses around here.
you can just post frogs like a decent human being
I am a slave to my desires 🙁
Monkey nagger human brains are so conditioned to think if you don't know something unknowable then you're a weak cuck. Hilarious
I do know God is real because he abuses me every day.
Can you go get some fucking meds already and stop shitting up the board?
You literally posted this thread to simultaneously terrorize me for fantasizing about an asian woman while denying responsibility by denying your existence.
Based. God BTFO
God, apologize.
whoooosh
Whatever you think a non, God would never terrorize you.
He's not evil and not vengeful.
He is good and kind.
God rapes my mind every second of every day and terrorizes, threatens, harasses, terrorizes me over my private thoughts. Raping a person's mind and abusing them for their thoughts is the most disgusting and profoundly violating evil imaginable. God is a completely evil piece of shit.
Asian women owe me sex.
What would you say the odds of god being real are? I'm guessing its 50:50
Agnosticism only makes sense if you are talking about theistic god, not a religious one.
wut
Givve name before the threaad gets deleted?
>UWUUUU I DO NOT KNOW IF SANTA CLAUS EXIST OR NOT!!!!!
Santa Klaus, as in the red man who flies around the earth, is not philosophically provable. God is.
If one believed this, one would obviously not be agnostic about God
nothing is philosophically provable about the real world without recourse to observations. and if you fell for any of the so-called proofs of god, you are a moron.
I like it a lot.
Not only is it the most accurate stance you can take given our current knowledge, taking that step into “I don’t know” is a big relief.
I still don’t buy any religious gods but I can’t deny it’s impossible to say a being didn’t make this universe.
Maybe once a unified theory is sussed out, but for now it’s the great mystery.
Too many negatives there,
I can’t deny it’s impossible to determine if a being made this universe or not*
Virtually everyone is not 100% sure on matters on religion. Does that make them agnostic? Not really.
Conversely, most people calling themselves agnostic are not Socrates-tier undecided. They do have an opinion or preference towards theism or atheism.
Not me, I truly accept it’s a mystery. Seems pretty par for the course.
Hitchens was based
No religious person has ever argued for God without evidence, what a moron.
Alright, show me some evidence then. (That isn't just some words from a book)
There’s no such thing as nothingness, its a contradiction in itself. There must be a ground of being that always was.
>nothing of the gaps
recurring mindset
Fundamental existence is not a gap
I'll let you figure out why you're being demented
>
>Fundamental existence
as opposed to all those other sorts of existences?
based. abrahamic religion has only fueled man's hubris
How would you know, if you never really believed? When you don't know - its always smarter to go on what one believe rather that what one thinks.
Because people think madness - all the time.
I’ll vouch for him. I used to believe, it’s fake.
me an intellectual I never pick a side, nothing much really would change if I committed suicide
I have no position towards God generally because it depends on the definition of God, I just think religion is a scam
Nobody cares, go shit up a different board.
And you’re correct
"God" is psychosociological issue
Accounts were taken of European sailors and merchants and their interactions with Asian colonies and traders, particularly with Japan. The Portuguese purchased large numbers of Japanese slave girls to bring to Portugal for sexual purposes, as noted by the Church in 1555.[7] There are multiple depictions by Japanese artists from the 17th and 18th centuries depicting Dutch, French and American sailors with Japanese courtesans, many of them of erotic nature.[8][9][10
Agnostics are literally just atheist. Who came up with this retarded fucking distinction? Most atheists are agnostic and all agnostics are atheist.
I think the idea was to make atheism philosophically easier to defend. this is the same bunch of shit as 'strong atheist' and the alleged distinction between 'not believing god exists' and 'believing god doesn't exist'. it's pure cowardice. theists are allowed to affirm their belief but we who have way more reason for ours should talk cucked because someone was an autist?
>there’s no distinction between “I don’t know if X is true or not” and “x is not true”
Why is this such a low IQ board?
Atheist literally means that you don’t believe in a god. If you’re uncertain either way, that means that you don’t confidently believe in one and are therefore an atheist. “Agnostic” is just a subcategory of atheist, not an entirely different category of its own. The vast majority of atheists don’t claim to be certain and therefore fall into the agnostic subcategory so it’s completely pointless to separate them into two distinct groups since they’re essentially two parts of the same group arbitrarily calling themselves different things.
>The vast majority of atheists don’t claim to be certain
I'd argue that's not the case any more.
Based on what? The common atheist position is “there is no convincing evidence for god” not “god is impossible”.
You are conflating certainty of god's existence/inexistence with the reason for said certainty.
"There is no convincing evidence for god therefore god doesn't exist" is a fairly certain statement and is a very common atheist stance. Whereas "there is no convincing evidence" itself is not a certain statement, the result IS taken as a certainty.
If you compare it to something more seemingly plausible, like "There is no convincing evidence for alien life, therefore alien life doesn't exist" you will immediately notice that this statement is fairly flawed and indeed most people would disagree.
And yet the one about god is almost universally agreed upon by many if not most atheists.
>”There is no convincing evidence for god therefore god doesn't exist"
People don’t say that. They say that they would believe if they saw convincing evidence but there is none so they default to not believing. This is a strawman.
>People don’t say that
Based on what?
>This is a strawman.
It would be if I was attacking any of your points. You stating that "people don't say that" is not a point. It is an observation presented as a factoid, and it's that which I am challenging based on my own experiences and observations.
Please familiarize yourself with discourse before attempting to throw shit like this at others. Or go back to that other site where merely pointing out an, oftentimes merely perceived, fallacy is seen as a gotcha moment.
>Based on what?
That’s not the conclusion that people draw from the lack of evidence. Nobody is saying “there is no evidence therefore he CAN’T exist”, they’re simply giving it as a reason for not believing. There is a difference between not believing in something because you see no reason to and concluding that it’s impossible for said thing to exist.
It quite often is used in that way, though. Certainly not by smart people. But atheism itself is becoming a sort of anti-religion religion to the average person, and that's one of its dogmas.
>You’re strawmanning “atheists” as a group.
In your first post you said "The vast majority of atheists don’t claim to be certain". By your logic you're also doing so,but again, I don't think that's a strawman. Because a strawman needs an argument to be made. This is NOT an argument but a factoid. But it's also incorrect.
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dan Barker, Matt Dillahunty, all of these use certainty or "almost" certainty in their arguments. It'd be very hard to paint any of those as any flavour of agnostics. And all of these are highly influential atheists.
Now for what the average atheist thinks, unless you have any kind of broad research data, it's all conclusions based on personal experiences.
And my own disagree with yours significantly.
Because in my experience the layman atheist is certain that god doesn't exist more often than not and the agnostic will more often than not point out that they are agnostic, rather than strictly atheist. Like Carl Sagan did.
>It would be if I was attacking any of your points.
You’re strawmanning “atheists” as a group.
>You stating that "people don't say that" is not a point. It is an observation presented as a factoid
You’re literally doing the exact same thing except you’re adding a made-up conclusion to a common argument.
Based.
Tired of these christcucks and plebbit atheists
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα