Choosing Agnosticism over atheism

[ray245]

Recently, a senior of mine in debates argued that we should choose Agnosticism over atheism, and brings in analogy such as a lizard could never understand how the lamps can light up, the idea that humanity can never understand the concept of god.

However, it seems to me that that analogy is flawed, due to the fact that just because a lizard couldn't understand how a lamp can light up, doesn't mean a human can't do the same thing as well.

So, I have to ask, is it more logical to be an agnostic, or is it better to reject the possibility of god existing outright based on logic?

[Solauren]

First, please slap your friend upside the back of their head for me. Preferably with something blunt and trauma inducing.

Now tell him He will never understand my motivations for doing that, or the physics behind the impact.

Also, explain to him he's a bloody coward, and doesn't know what an agnostic is.

An Agnostic is someone that think's there is something 'spiritual' or 'religious' to the universe, but is not going to attempt to qualify what, or figure out which religion, if any, is correct. The second he said 'God', he's basically saying 'I don't know if that particular religion is right, but everything else is probably wrong.

[ray245]

First, please slap your friend upside the back of their head for me. Preferably with something blunt and trauma inducing.

Now tell him He will never understand my motivations for doing that, or the physics behind the impact.

Also, explain to him he's a bloody coward, and doesn't know what an agnostic is.

An Agnostic is someone that think's there is something 'spiritual' or 'religious' to the universe, but is not going to attempt to qualify what, or figure out which religion, if any, is correct. The second he said 'God', he's basically saying 'I don't know if that particular religion is right, but everything else is probably wrong.

It's not god, since he is against organised religion. He believe in the possibility of a higher being existing, but something that not religion text would be able to define, since no human can understand beings that is higher than us.

[Lagmonster]

It's not god, since he is against organised religion. He believe in the possibility of a higher being existing, but something that not religion text would be able to define, since no human can understand beings that is higher than us.

What made him decide that humans can't understand higher beings? His own limited personal experience? Doesn't it sound the least bit to you like he's just making shit up in order to sound clever?

[ray245]

It's not god, since he is against organised religion. He believe in the possibility of a higher being existing, but something that not religion text would be able to define, since no human can understand beings that is higher than us.

What made him decide that humans can't understand higher beings?

This is something that he has yet to prove, other than assuming that just because lizards couldn't understand what is going on in the world around them, humans are like lizards.

Is there any other logical fallacy I would encounter when it comes down to debating against someone who believe that agnosticism is more logical than atheism?

[loomer]

The only reason for such a decision is so that you can be a Freemason. Anything else is stupidity.

[General Zod]

There's nothing logical about agnosticism, it's a walking Golden Mean because some people are too cowardly to make up their mind one way or the other.

[The Vortex Empire]

People, please learn what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is the idea that it is at all possible for there to be some form of deity, gnosticism is being 100% sure there is or isn't. So you can either be a gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist. Either way, you are still either an atheist or a theist, since you either do believe a god exists or don't.

[Buritot]

People, please learn what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is the idea that it is at all possible for there to be some form of deity, gnosticism is being 100% sure there is or isn't. So you can either be a gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist. Either way, you are still either an atheist or a theist, since you either do believe a god exists or don't.

Wuh. So If one wants to believe in a deity but cannot rationally reason its existence makes that person an agnostic... what? Theist believe in deities, atheists don't. What is the mixture? Wanting to believe, but logically not being able to rationalize it...
I'm talking about individuals who try to make sense of life while its rationality and spiritual desire battle. Doesn't make a lot of sense, right?

[Samuel]

People, please learn what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is the idea that it is at all possible for there to be some form of deity, gnosticism is being 100% sure there is or isn't. So you can either be a gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist. Either way, you are still either an atheist or a theist, since you either do believe a god exists or don't.

Okay fine- the atheists here are atheists towards Gods that would have a noticable impact on reality. Gods that, even if they existed, would be indistinguishable from realities where they don't we ignore for the simple reason that there are an infinite number of things that fill that category.

Like the Invisible Pink Unicorn, whose Pinkness is only matched by her invisibleness.

[General Zod]

People, please learn what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is the idea that it is at all possible for there to be some form of deity, gnosticism is being 100% sure there is or isn't. So you can either be a gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist. Either way, you are still either an atheist or a theist, since you either do believe a god exists or don't.

Since the overwhelming majority of people aren't 100% certain that sounds like a very dubious definition. The only people I've ever heard self-identify as agnostic were too much of a chickenshit to claim to either be religious or atheist.

[The Vortex Empire]

That's because most of the people who call themselves agnostics don't know what the word means.

[General Zod]

That's because most of the people who call themselves agnostics don't know what the word means.

You don't either, apparently.

* Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
* Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
* Date: 1869

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

— ag·nos·ti·cism \-tə-ˌsi-zəm\ noun

[The Vortex Empire]

Right, so a gnostic atheist believes no god exists and claims to know that no god exists, an agnostic atheist believes no god exists but does not claim to know no god exists, an agnostic theist believes a god exists but doesn't claim to know a god exists, and a gnostic theist believes a god exists and claims to know a god exists.

[General Zod]

Right, so a gnostic atheist believes no god exists and claims to know that no god exists, an agnostic atheist believes no god exists but does not claim to know no god exists, an agnostic theist believes a god exists but doesn't claim to know a god exists, and a gnostic theist believes a god exists and claims to know a god exists.

That's a lot of mental gymnastics there. . .almost as if you were trying to say that the people everyone else in this thread is talking about weren't "true" scotsmen agnostics.

[The Vortex Empire]

They would belong to the philosophical idea that the question is inherently unanswerable, which is a load of bullshit.

[General Zod]

They would belong to the philosophical idea that the question is inherently unanswerable, which is a load of bullshit.

Why? Because it doesn't neatly fit your preconceived idea of what an agnostic is?

[The Vortex Empire]

No, it's bullshit because it's illogical and is just used by cowards to avoid committing to any side.

[General Zod]

No, it's bullshit because it's illogical and is just used by cowards to avoid committing to any side.

Which is what agnosticism is, but apparently you don't like the common definition that virtually everyone but you uses.

[Buritot]

They would belong to the philosophical idea that the question is inherently unanswerable, which is a load of bullshit.

So your opinion is the existence of deities is binary? Either they exist or they don't? No middle ground for those not caring to know? To follow your reasoning, that's bullshit.
If simply by the existence of such opinions.

No, it's bullshit because it's illogical and is just used by cowards to avoid committing to any side.

Which is your philosophy, not terminology.

[The Vortex Empire]

Well yes, they either do or don't exist. Whether or not they exist isn't subjective. And I can't see any possibility other than some form of theism or atheism.

Atheism just means without gods, so if you don't actively believe in a deity, you are an atheist.

[The Vortex Empire]

However, I suppose you're right that I'm just arguing my philosophy. Point conceded.

[Buritot]

Well yes, they either do or don't exist. Whether or not they exist isn't subjective. And I can't see any possibility other than some form of theism or atheism.

Atheism just means without gods, so if you don't actively believe in a deity, you are an atheist.

Okay, I worded that bad. What I meant to say, yes, either deities exist or they don't, there's no middle ground, it's a simple true/false-case. The belief on that case however can take more shades than black or white. It's like I previously said, one might want to believe but can't due to rational reasoning.
But alas, that might be just my philosophy :)

[Mobiboros]

No, it's bullshit because it's illogical and is just used by cowards to avoid committing to any side.

Which is what agnosticism is, but apparently you don't like the common definition that virtually everyone but you uses.

Which is a colloquial usage that is actually incorrect. He's right. Agnosticism is "I don't know" but in the sense of "We can't know, it's not possible to know". But since it's original useage has come to mean "I don't know" in the sense that they're just trying to waffle.

People don't like being called "Atheist". However if you do say "I don't know", it means you lack a belief in a diety so you're an atheist.

On the OP. It's actually logical to be an atheist (since no evidence of dieties exist and it's delusion to believe in the absense of evdience), but an atheist open to the idea that dieties might exist depending on how you define "diety".

[General Zod]

Which is a colloquial usage that is actually incorrect. He's right. Agnosticism is "I don't know" but in the sense of "We can't know, it's not possible to know". But since it's original useage has come to mean "I don't know" in the sense that they're just trying to waffle.

That sounds like semantics nitpicking to me.

On the OP. It's actually logical to be an atheist (since no evidence of dieties exist and it's delusion to believe in the absense of evdience), but an atheist open to the idea that dieties might exist depending on how you define "diety".

There's a difference between being open to the idea that something exists with sufficient proof and sitting on the fence because you're too much of a chickenshit to commit to either concept.