What is Agnosticism, Really?

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."

This definition is concerned with possibility. But isn't possibility a general concern that is usually applied to most things?

Science and Atheism focus on probability, which is just considering the statistical possibility of an idea. And this begs the question. What does it mean to Know something?

How improbable does an idea have to be before it is impossible? How close to zero should we get? Should we assume forever that we don't know everything, or is there an answer to every question?

 

The belief system that all humans have, whether they admit it or not =)

 

The term "beyond any reasonable doubt" used in court generally applies to odds smaller than 1 in million or 0.0001%. The empirical scientific evidence that Creationists MUST censor from their daily reality suggests that the probability of God is much much smaller than 1/million. If I could reasonably state with a straight face that the probability was 50:50 after considering evidence from both sides then I would call myself agnostic. Considering that one side is dedicated to empirical knowledge while the other side is dedicated to convictions of ignorance and censorship then my choice is atheism, for me it's no contest. To hold a creationist or even an agnostic viewpoint is to stand beyond the realm of REASON.

 

i'm going to start a nothingarian cult.

 

i think it's generally regarded as confusion or uncertainty of god's existence. possibly even an indifference to such?

 

If that were true, how would anybody ever be convicted of a crime?

If you can state the probability of less than 1/million with a straight face, why should anything hold you back. For a mathematical proof of God, see physicist Stephen Unwin's Probability of God: A Simple Calculation That Proves the Ulitmate Truth. I'm not convinced either way.

What a deliciously ironic statement. There isn't a shred of empirical for anything you've said on this post. You make your points by dogmatic assertion, invective, sheer bravado, and a lot of talk about numbers, which may impress some people.

 

mmmm no. for starters what he said about science and religion being empirical or not respectively, you dont need empirical evidence for that, as it is within the definition of each already.
no need to prove that science uses empirical evidence if the word science has that in the meaning. that like trying to prove a triangle has three sides, if it didnt, we wouldnt be talking about a triangle.

 

spazmataz-that's kind of like assuming all christians are christ-like.

"one side" versus the "other side" seems to me to be referring to atheists and others who base what they believe on what they think is science, versus religious people, who sadly base what they believe on what they read from what they consider to be sacred writings, unless i am mistaken.

Really, unless every atheist bases what they believe on experiments they themselves have performed (and i mean everything), they are still just believing what they are told, as are most religious people.

 

I believe in what makes sense and can be proven. Creationists don't seem to understand the difference between Scientific THEORY and Scientific FACT. They will twist THEORIES in their arguments as if they were facts. I'm too fucking lazy to show an example but just go to youtube and watch arguments from both sides, you will see what I'm talking about.

I'm an Athiest; I do not believe in God, I do not believe in the "Big Bang", I do not believe in "String Theories" or I do not believe in "multiple universes", I do not believe we can say that "energy can not be created or destroyed", I am not even convinced that "particles" exist.

Theories are theories and facts are facts, and ignorance is ignorance!

God is not even a theory, it is a proclamation preceded by brutal censorship. Real science proposes theories and then embarks on an empirical quest to prove or disprove them. Science sets up laws, models and equations according to best current knowledge. All subject to change with the advancement of knowledge. There is no emotionally blind attachment to E=MC^2, it just part of an opened minded model of our known universe.

 

agnosticism is recognising your own igorance and accepting it. probably feels quite nice i'd imagine

 

And-we have a winner!!

 

it's the suspension of disbelief

 

relaxxx- good point. i am sorry for lumping you into a category. perhaps we have different definitions of god.

 

Both so called 'creationists' and 'atheists' are flip sides of the same coin.
Both have an agenda ("There is a God" or "There is no God" ) and little regard for knowledge to sustain either position.

Agnosticism is not like that.

To put it in the words of Huxley, who btw invented the term:

"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took."

and

"I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. "

 

i wanna know who coined "nothingarian."

 

As if Atheism is incapable of considering probability.

Knowledge to sustain the position of God does not exist. Belief in that statement (which you basically confessed to) is called Atheism.

 

"Knowledge to sustain the position of God does not exist. Belief in that statement (which you basically confessed to) is called Atheism."



atheism-
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

agnosticism-
an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.



looks like agnosticism fits a little closer to what you are saying, heeh2.

 

A proper atheist would not say "There IS no God". The proper atheist statement would be "I do NOT BELIEVE that there is a God" or "I do NOT THINK that there is a God".

There is a difference.

Atheism is the non-existence of belief *NOT* the belief in non-existence.

 

the description of atheism in the dictionary is pretty clear on it being the belief in non-existence.

edit: perhaps we are speaking different dialects or looking at different dictionaries.

 

I guess that definition would be the "narrower" one according to wikipedia:
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.


Now I wouldn't be surprised if there were some pretty biased or 'narrow' dictionaries floating about considering over 95% of civilizations books, laws, and history have been written by theists.