• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Your thoughts on Agnostics

The only true and honest religions, basically "who knows". Everybody else just makes **** up, although athiesm is a close second since there is no evidence of god so they are more correct than people believing made up stuff about god
 
AlphaOmega said:
I am a fence sitter as you put it. Please move me to your side with your proof.
Click to expand...

Im not here to change your beliefs, all Im saying is that if there's no evidence of a supreme being then its fair to say there isnt one.

As far as proving such a creature does not exist, well I guess you can say that about Cthulhu too- its a fallacy to prove a negative
 
AlphaOmega said:
Incorrect. Agnostic requires proof to believe either way. Until then there is nothing to blindly believe in. Requiring proof or denial of existence is the opposite of blind thinking. There is no belief either way until there is proof. Agnostic means you hold no position either way.

If you prove to an agnostic one way or the other then the agnostic is no longer agnostic. They will either be a theist or an atheist.
Click to expand...
The agnostic is as blind as everyone else. No one has special sight. If the agnostic suspends belief, he suspends belief blindly. If he suspends belief awaiting proof, then he blindly awaits proof. Whether a person believes, disbelieves or suspends belief, he does so blindly. Mankind is blind, period.
 
PoS said:
Im not here to change your beliefs, all Im saying is that if there's no evidence of a supreme being then its fair to say there isnt one.

As far as proving such a creature does not exist, well I guess you can say that about Cthulhu too- its a fallacy to prove a negative
Click to expand...

Theres plenty of evidence just no proof. I have no belief either way. Prove to me there isnt a god. You have not thus far. Just because you cant see something doesnt mean it isnt there.
 
Angel said:
The agnostic is as blind as everyone else. No one has special sight. If the agnostic suspends belief, he suspends belief blindly. If he suspends belief awaiting proof, then he blindly awaits proof. Whether a person believes, disbelieves or suspends belief, he does so blindly. Mankind is blind, period.
Click to expand...

incorrect, I havent suspended belief. You have yet to give me something to believe in.
 
Dragonfly said:
Don't qualify? What does it make you?

Perhaps there's a better working definition of agnostic you might like to share?
Feel free to describe or define "you" in terms of your agnosticism.
Click to expand...

Check my other posts in this thread.

I'm not a theist. I don't believe god(s) as generally constructed exist. That means I do not believe any concept of god I've encountered. However, the alternative explanations for the origins of the universe have holes as well. I don't see either side of the debate truly answering the root origin paradox, among other questions. Therefore my mind remains open. You can call me an agnostic that currently leans atheist, a heretic, or whatever.

I have so far rejected all of the theistic religions I've encountered to date, for whatever that's worth.

Since the definitions of agnostic seem to require me to deny that it's possible to know if god exists and I haven't crossed that bridge, I'll let people call me what they may - they do that anyway.:mrgreen:
 
Dragonfly said:
Some people will, at times, use the term "agnostic" in a derisive fashion.

Why is that?

When you hear someone claim to be agnostic what's your reaction to that, and why?
Click to expand...

My reaction is to hope that whatever they've landed on makes sense to them and makes them happy, and so long as they don't infringe upon my ability to do the same, it's none of my business.
 
AlphaOmega said:
incorrect, I havent suspended belief. You have yet to give me something to believe in.
Click to expand...
As an agnostic you suspend both belief and disbelief -- according to your original schema, it seems to me.
Belief and disbelief in relation to what? That p, where p is a proposition about the existence or non-existence of God.
 
OlNate said:
My reaction is to hope that whatever they've landed on makes sense to them and makes them happy, and so long as they don't infringe upon my ability to do the same, it's none of my business.
Click to expand...

If everyone thought that way there would be A LOT more harmony in the world.
 
Angel said:
As an agnostic you suspend both belief and disbelief -- according to your original schema, it seems to me.
Belief and disbelief in relation to what? That p, where p is a proposition about the existence or non-existence of God.
Click to expand...

incorrect. I dont believe in disbelief. If you want me to believe in something show me your proof. Thats agnostic.
 
AlphaOmega said:
Theres plenty of evidence just no proof. I have no belief either way. Prove to me there isnt a god. You have not thus far. Just because you cant see something doesnt mean it isnt there.
Click to expand...

You can say the same thing with invisible pink elephants dancing at the top of your head too if it makes you feel any better. You cant prove they dont exist either.
 
PoS said:
You can say the same thing with invisible pink elephants dancing at the top of your head too if it makes you feel any better. You cant prove they dont exist either.
Click to expand...

now your getn it! I cant say they do or dont exist. If you want me to believe in invisible pink elephants fine. Juat show me the proof.
 
Angel said:
As an agnostic you suspend both belief and disbelief -- according to your original schema, it seems to me.
Belief and disbelief in relation to what? That p, where p is a proposition about the existence or non-existence of God.
Click to expand...

please list what I am disbelieving.
 
PoS said:
Im not here to change your beliefs, all Im saying is that if there's no evidence of a supreme being then its fair to say there isnt one.

As far as proving such a creature does not exist, well I guess you can say that about Cthulhu too- its a fallacy to prove a negative
Click to expand...

Provisionally, sure. I also accept that, provisionally, Bigfoot doesn't exist and I will continue to accept that right up until someone drops a Bigfoot carcass at my feet. I think the funniest part of all of this is that it's a diversionary tactic by the religious, to avoid the massive elephant in the room that they have no evidence for their beliefs. They have nothing to present for the things they want to be real. Because of that, they'd rather play semantical word-games than address *WHY* they can't prove anything. Atheists will accept gods once the believers in those gods prove those gods are real and not until. Now it's in their court. Too bad they're playing without a racket.
 
AlphaOmega said:
now your getn it! I cant say they do or dont exist. If you want me to believe in invisible pink elephants fine. Juat show me the proof.
Click to expand...

Thats my whole point. If you cant discount something as silly as invisible pink dancing elephants just because you cant disprove it, then its a ridiculous position to take.
 
PoS said:
Thats my whole point. If you cant discount something as silly as invisible pink dancing elephants just because you cant disprove it, then its a ridiculous position to take.
Click to expand...

lets test that. Please provide proof they dont exist
 
AlphaOmega said:
lets test that. Please provide proof they dont exist
Click to expand...

this is completely stupid and the same dumb logical fallacy people with no actual argument or evidence have to refer to. If something doesn't exist, you can't prove it doesn't exist other than the complete lack of evidence.

God existing is not the default setting. People make the claim god exists, go around trying to telling people god exists or shove their religious on others, it is on them to prove the existence of god.

But as we see all the time with those that believe in god, all they have is logical fallacies and changing the rules when it suits them, as well as holding non believers to higher standards of proof while they offer nothing. An example of changing the rules is the people that argue something couldn't come from nothing, but conveniently that rule doesn't apply to god

I don't get why believers even try to engage in an argument, they have no facts, logic or reasoning on their side, the entire basis of religion is faith and belief. So there is no proving their belief. honest, decent people would just say I believe and not even bother saying anything else, instead of trying to tell others their belief is absolute truth
 
Sampson Simpson said:
this is completely stupid and the same dumb logical fallacy people with no actual argument or evidence have to refer to. If something doesn't exist, you can't prove it doesn't exist other than the complete lack of evidence.

God existing is not the default setting. People make the claim god exists, go around trying to telling people god exists or shove their religious on others, it is on them to prove the existence of god.

But as we see all the time with those that believe in god, all they have is logical fallacies and changing the rules when it suits them, as well as holding non believers to higher standards of proof while they offer nothing. An example of changing the rules is the people that argue something couldn't come from nothing, but conveniently that rule doesn't apply to god

I don't get why believers even try to engage in an argument, they have no facts, logic or reasoning on their side, the entire basis of religion is faith and belief. So there is no proving their belief. honest, decent people would just say I believe and not even bother saying anything else, instead of trying to tell others their belief is absolute truth
Click to expand...

can you prove god doesnt exist? Its a yes or no.
 
PoS said:
Invisible pink elephants? They have the same chance as your god existing.
Click to expand...

Probably better because we at least know that elephants are real. We do not have a single example of any god of any kind actually existing.
 
AlphaOmega said:
incorrect. I dont believe in disbelief. If you want me to believe in something show me your proof. Thats agnostic.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you mean here.
Any person, confronting the God Question -- before he is a theist, atheist, or agnostic -- defines himself as one of three by way of the propositional attitude toward p, the God proposition. He can believe it or he can disbelieve it or he can suspend both belief and disbelief in an attitude of uncertainty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom