Amazon.com Widgets

Is agnosticism the most reasonable position to take in the God Debate?

Asked by: Pase66
  • If you are not agnostic

    You are kidding yourself. To be agnostic is to say you cant be sure that 100% of what you believe about "god" is true. An atheist believing 100% you will only rot is as dumb as a theist believing that the bible is 100% true without bias or exaggeration, not a logical assumption.

  • Why yes, yes it is.

    Claiming the title agnostic means the person is without knowledge of god(s) existence. The whole gnostic/agnostic claim is based on a knowledge proposition. Anyone without knowledge of god(s)' existence or non-existence is an agnostic. Anyone with knowledge of god(s) existence or non-existence is gnostic.

    Too often this term gets conflated with a belief proposition, for which theist and atheist are terms more appropriate. I strongly believe, if everyone is being totally honest, that every theist and atheist is an agnostic theist/atheist. Unless the one person with the knowledge to answer the question has decided to be quiet about the whole thing and keep it to themselves.

  • The only logical option.

    Gnosticism is claiming to be 100% sure about your stance. Agnosticism is allowing a possibility that you may be wrong. An atheist should be agnostic also in the sense that there could one day be proof for a God, and a theist should be agnostic in the sense that there may be no God at all, because of the lack of evidence currently, even though they believe for there to be one. Claiming to be gnostic is just claiming ignorance. You could always be wrong, since neither side has evidence disproving the other.

  • Saying i dont know while everybody else contradicts each other while saying i know.

    Yea its far more logical. An agnostic despite the idiot at the top is someone who says i dont know if there is a god and i dont think you do either. None of their "proof" is proof and most of it isnt even good evidence like the "the earth is the perfect size in the perfect position with the sun etc." what they fail to realize is that there are trillions of planets that we know of and there virtually has to be trillions or more more. Tons of those planets are bound to be perfect for sustaining life so that isnt impressive. If we were the only planet in space with one star and it was perfect for sustaining life then i would say thats evidence of god. If i roll two dice once chances are im not going to hit double sixes. If i roll the dice 36 times ill probably hit double sixes and that wont be impressive at all. If i throw the dice a thousand times im going to hit numerous double sixes and it would be far more amazing that i didnt hit them than it would be if i hit them. So if there wasnt a planet thats perfect for supporting life i would be surprised given the amount of "rolls" the universe had. Religious people all play the lottery for salvation. They pick one religion and one denomination and just like lottery players they think they have the right number. Well not all religions can be right. Infact all but one have to be false because of the contradictions. So more than 99.9 percent of these religious people are wrong saying they know they are right. Yea ill stick with i dont know so as to avoid looking stupid in the afterlife if there is one. I highly doubt there is a god but if there is one im sitting prettier than almost any religious person. Moral progress kills all gods and sends them to the gigantic cemetery we call mythology. Eventually our morals will have changed so much that we will have to have new religions if everybody is still expected to believe in god. Hopefully some generation will look back in history and say well religious people are crazy and unknowingly evil and i dont want to be that way. Even if one religion is true its done much more harm than good because it comes with thousands or millions of untrue religions which most people believed not even having the option to believe the good religion and those religions make people very wicked. So most people have been unknowingly wicked thanks to religion and they still are today. If our ancestors didnt know they were horrible ignorant naive people how do you expect to know whether or not you good and right? Your human too arent you? Obviously we are not smart enough to be held accountable for our beliefs and our actions.

  • It's only logical

    There is simply no evidence for either side. God is a metaphysical entity, and so he cannot be tested for. This means we will never have evidence that he exists, nor will we ever have evidence that he doesn't exist. Agnosticism isn't cowardly, especially for all the crap we get as fence-sitters. It's the wise position.

  • Put Yourself in God's Shoes

    I am a self-described "general theist". This means I believe there is some sort of higher power out there, but that I don't know what form that higher power takes - it could be any type of god described by any type of religion. But put yourself in the shoes of a true god.
    Say you exist, and are a god. Firstly, that's a really nice position to be in. Now someone dies, and wants to come into your afterlife. Are you more likely to accept him / like him if:
    A) He doesn't directly oppose you, or
    B) He supports someone other god's existence, implying that you aren't worthy of his praise or that you just plain old don't exist.
    Of course you're more likely to take a shine to one who doesn't say you can't exist.
    Perhaps one religion seems nicer to me - I prefer to keep my card close to my chest, so that I can always be on the winning side - or at least, a side that doesn't lose.

  • Saying i dont know when everybody else says i know while most of them have to be wrong because of the contradictions alone?

    Yes that is far more logical. The truth is at least most people dont know so they should be agnostics. Im so sick of hearing people say i know god exists and i know god personally. Billions of other people said the same thing and today we find their claims to be so ridiculous that we cant believe in their gods and some of the claims were proven wrong by science. So those people in history didnt know god and they said they knew god. Only a handful of people can know god. If all religious people knew god they would all have the same denomination of the same religion. Otherwise they dont know god. So its clear that these people do not know god because they contradict each other when talking about gods character his will and his forgiveness etc. its ridiculous. I have no clue why someone would look at our history and see how crazy religious people were and then think i need a religion. Your still crazy but like our ancestors you dont know it either. Do you think your different than those humans? Your not. And agnostic and an atheist are generally people who have read the bible and or other books and found the claims to be so ridiculous that they cant believe in your god and sense the true god if he exists hasnt spoken to us we think if he is real he doesnt want us to know about him. The morality in the bible and other religions are so ridiculous that i cant believe in them. The bible actually says that if a woman is raped and doesnt scream loud enough to get help she is to be killed as an accessory to her own defilement. How messed up is that? And im supposed to believe that the retarded human who wrote this is a perfect all knowing god? Lmao thats comical. Religious people are picking a religion and a denomination and they are playing the lottery for salvation. Only one religion and one denomination can be true. So they pick one and play this cruel game of lottery for salvation and plan to laugh and play with god as the rest of us burn in hell for doing the same exact thing they did. Lol and im supposed to think these people know right from wrong? Thats a laugh.

  • Pragmatic agnosticism seems the most rational position.

    Definition (about.Com):

    Pragmatic agnosticism is defined as the position that one can't know for sure if any gods exist and, even if they do, they don't seem to care about us enough to justify worrying about them. This definition describes an agnosticism based not on philosophical considerations about the nature of knowledge and evidence, but rather a pragmatic concern with what's happening in one's life and what's important as a practical matter in one's life.

    By wiki:

    Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism. The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.

  • I'm biased but...

    As an agnostic I am probably at least a little biased. All we are saying is that we are not 100% sure of any belief. I take all beliefs at equal value even if I believe some are more likely then others. However while I believe it to be the most reasonable I don't think it is the best. As I said earlier all beliefs are of equal value.

  • There's always room to learn

    I for one am not omniscient, there for I know that its okay to have doubts and compare facts and leave the door open for new information. We are always having new experiences and learning new things. What keeps people stuck on one position is fear and ego. If you really want to understand things better you must be willing to change your mind.

  • If you open your mind too far, your brains fall out

    The most reasonable response to a reasonable but unproven claim is "I don't yet know." And that's fine -- if the claims are reasonable and made by well-educated people of good character.

    But are they?

    While religious claims may have seemed reasonable to the bronze age people who invented them, we know much more about ourselves and the universe now, and what must once have seemed reasonable is no longer so. In particular and just by way of example, I hold that the following religious claims are unreasonable:

    * The universe was created specifically to house humanity;
    * The universe is 6,000 years old;
    * Humanity's history has been guided by a wise and diligent moral authority;
    * The biosphere was created so that humanity could be its steward, and was saved from deluge by a desert-dwelling conservationist in a wooden boat...

    ...And there are many more.

    To the extent that religion derives its moral and metaphysical authority from the accuracy of its histories, explanations and prophecies, I believe that rational examination shows the great religions of the world to be full of fallacies, errors, manipulations, abuses, and naked privilege-grabbing for their theocrats -- to the extent that the only reasonable response is exactly the one you'd give to a greedy, poorly-educated serial con-man:

    I *don't* believe you.

    The agnostic position "I don't know about that" may be more polite, but isn't more reasonable. :)

  • Just fence sitters.

    They are just afraid to take a side. They think that if they sit on the fence, neither side will have an issue with their belief. Fact is, there is no such thing as an agnostic. What they really are is either an agnostic theist who doesn't want want to look ignorant, or an agnostic atheist who doesn't want to be looked at as evil. I suspect they feel that if they claim "I don't know." that they can get along with both sides, and that if either side is ever proven, they can state "I knew it all along, I just didn't want to say." I say, even if you could be wrong, make a stand, grow a pair. It is okay if you believe one or the other without knowing it as a fact, but to claim to be the total neutral makes you look totally ignorant. Clearly both sides have good reason to believe as they do and you would have to have lived your entire life under a rock not to have enough information on what to believe.

  • Whilst it may be the most reasonable, it is not the most satisfying.

    The only reason religion or science exist is because humans have an insatiable desire to answer questions. By just sitting down and saying "i don't know" and refusing to answer these questions, you seem to be dropping out of the argument that every human has been able to take a position on. So Agnosticism is the least objectionable form of belief (because neither atheist or religious people can really debate) and the most reasonable (because it is true that we really don't know) but it is by the far, the least satisfying form of belief.

  • There is no position of Knowledge when discussing the position of Belief.

    While claims such as the existence of a God or gods can be debated if there's evidence for the claim, at the moment there's no empirical evidence to support the claim. This means it's an Agnostic claim which is based on belief.

    The God debate is based on believing in the claim or not, Theism or Atheism, many people believe in the claim while others choose to not accept the claim on the basis of faith.

    A creationist is an example of a Gnostic Theist, which is defined as one who knows the God claim is provable and believes this claim based on the evidence they have compiled.

    An Agnostic Theist does not have evidence for their claim however will believe it either way, which is why the concept of faith is popular among religion.

    Atheist (most are Agnostic Atheists as you cannot disprove what doesn't exist, specially when what your disproving follows the "god of the gaps" argument), which is currently the most honest position to take because you're not accept claims on the basis of faith. To not accept a claim doesn't mean you're making the claim that the rejected claim is false. (Which is what many people seem to forget when dealing with formal definitions)

  • Of course not.

    The only way it could possibly be is if you made an I-Don't-Know-Paradox.

    Like the Cosmological argument for God.

    An Agnostic could say, "Well human understanding may not be correct."
    Then a Theist could say, "But you used human understand to conclude that.".
    Then the Agnostic says, "You used human understand to conclude that I used human understanding to conclude that human understanding may not be correct.

    And so on.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.