Agnosticism

[Sora]

Yeah, you're right. Agnosticism really isn't a middle road, but rather what I meant to explain is the idea of centering your "faith" on the idea that you can't prove if there is a God. People who literally walk the middle of the road and say "I believe that you can't prove there is a God." when they talk about their faith, trying to not be labeled as an atheist or a theist. That I feel is a middle road. I had misrepresented what I was trying to say. :P

"Do you believe in gods/God/etc?"
"I believe it/they/etc can't be proven to exist!"
"That's nice and all.. but do you believe in them/it/etc?"

Using it like that seems to just be dodged a question, no?

[Card VII]

"Do you believe in gods/God/etc?"
"I believe it/they/etc can't be proven to exist!"
"That's nice and all.. but do you believe in them/it/etc?"

Using it like that seems to just be dodged a question, no?

Exactly. That I really don't like.

[Ender Wiggin]

A basic logic test, as well as Godel's incompleteness theorems, show that not being able to prove something is no logical reason not to act on it.

I'm looking at two job offers. One is just over road, another has a bridge in it (to the office). I must now do a cost benefit analysis in case the bridge isn't actually there and my map is lying to me, compared to the cost of going over rough terrain because someone (my map) said there was a road and there wasn't. As the second job offer is only accessible by bridge, even though it's 30 minutes closer I don't take it because I don't know if the bridge is there, and if it isn't, I can't get there. Even if I delay choosing, go out to the bridge, come back, go to sleep, all I've proven is that the bridge was there yesterday, and I don't know if it is there today.

As well, Godel's theorems, mentioned earlier, states in effect that in any arithmetic system, there are things which are true, but cannot be proven.

/rant.

Anyway, I always found agnostics more agreeable than Atheists, except maybe when they said I was wrong that there was a god because I can't prove it, and then in the same breath that the atheists are wrong because they can't prove it. Uhm, there can't be a god and not be a god, idiots.

[Elendra]

A basic logic test, as well as Godel's incompleteness theorems, show that not being able to prove something is no logical reason not to act on it.

I am unable to prove or disprove batman being a real super hero out there.

Therefore, should act upon Batman being real.

Reality just got 20% cooler.

Uhm, there can't be a god and not be a god, idiots.

...

maybe God exists in a Quantum True-False state?

[Sora]

Anyway, I always found agnostics more agreeable than Atheists, except maybe when they said I was wrong that there was a god because I can't prove it, and then in the same breath that the atheists are wrong because they can't prove it. Uhm, there can't be a god and not be a god, idiots.

Schrödinger's God?

Actually, the problem lies in that you're separating Agnostics from Atheists from Theists. Maybe.
There are agnostics who believe in God(s). There are agnostics who do not.
Unless you're talking about the same person doing both.
There are people who call themselves agnostics who have no idea what (a)gnosticism is and it bugs the fuck out of me. Idiots.

[mdk]

By the Sora definition even most Christians are agnostics.

[♣King♣]

While I believe sora is closer to the definition. I don't believe it's entirely correct.

To be agnostic doesn't mean that you believe it can't be proven alone. Rather that you can also believe that as it stands now, there is no evidence to prove either. It's not just "can't be proven", as it can be a belief of "has not been proven".


Venn Diagram Fun time.



Key word is "claim", as it's not a believe that proof exists, it's that you don't have any claim to any proof existing. Which can make it a matter of "as of now, there's no known evidence" as well as a "definite belief that evidence does not exist", while sora's claim makes it simply exclusive to the latter.

[Sora]

By the Sora definition even most Christians are agnostics.

Yes.
You can be Agnostic and Theist. You can be an Agnostic Christian.

While I believe sora is closer to the definition. I don't believe it's entirely correct.

To be agnostic doesn't mean that you believe it can't be proven alone. Rather that you can also believe that as it stands now, there is no evidence to prove either. It's not just "can't be proven", as it can be a belief of "has not been proven".


Venn Diagram Fun time.



Key word is "claim", as it's not a believe that proof exists, it's that you don't have any claim to any proof existing. Which can make it a matter of "as of now, there's no known evidence" as well as a "definite belief that evidence does not exist", while sora's claim makes it simply exclusive to the latter.

>Says my definition is wrong
>>Then goes on to explain my definition

What is the difference between a claim and a belief besides connotation?

Claim n- An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.
Belief n- An opinion or conviction


oh and also you're wrong because you don't believe in what I do and I'm an objectively correct source of morality

[The Nexerus]

Agnosticism is for those who want to feel superior to both theists and atheists.

[Sora]

Agnosticism is for those who want to feel superior to both theists and atheists.

Theology in general is for people who want to feel superior over normal people.