Agnostics need to get off the fence

There is nothing hard to understand about agnostics. In fact it seems you might be finding it hard to grasp the concepts.

I don't think other 'agnostics' would agree with your definition. You say 'there is probably a higher being' which is not the position of an Agnostic but of a theist. Simply not wanting to follow any organized religion doesn't make you agnostic or atheist, it makes you non denominational but still a theist.

There is no s in organized either I'm afraid.

So you're a theist who prefers to be non denominational, fair enough but is this an attempt by yourself to tell the people in this thread about yourself? Or is this some kind of argument against my position that agnostics are hypocrites and the only reason they aren't atheists is because they are too indoctrinated in theological ideas and they still think in theological terms, where as atheists see the world purely from a scientific and skeptical view point? Because if so, you're hardly proving me wrong by sharing that you're a theist that doesn't like organized religion......In fact by labeling yourself an agnostic you're pretty much proving my point that they still are stuck in the religious indoctrination mindset that we atheists discarded when we regained our sanity and realized there are no gods for the same reason there are no tooth fairies or easter bunnies, that it is as acceptable and reasonable to laugh at people who believe in god as people who believed Homer's Odyssey was biographical, or that Lord of the Rings is our real history.





When the truth is too painful the weak will label it a lie.

Hard Truth.

You should care. It's a hell of a lot easier to send thousands of troops off to die in some forsaken land when you reconcile that with the faery tale they will go to heaven when they die.

People in charge making decisions based on a delusional belief in deities and the supernatural is contrary to the public good.



When the truth is too painful the weak will label it a lie.

Hard Truth.

I call myself an agnostic. I also call myself an empiricist and a skeptic. Some of my philosophy professors call me an atheist. What these statements reflect on is how we interpret what we think we know and what we think we believe.

So, do you know there is a God? The answer "yes" warrants that you accept God's existence. The answer "no" warrants that you don't accept His existence. The answer "I don't know" warrants that you are an agnostic, and cannot tell if He does exist.

Now, the next question is do you believe there is a God? Notice that this is an entirely separate question from the first. You can be an agnostic, and say that you don't know there is a God, but still believe there is one. This answer of, "yes I believe there is a God" warrants that you are a theist. If you answer, "no, I do not believe there is a God" then that warrants that you an are atheist.

Now, this is the basic interpretation of how we label ourselves. Hence you can be agnostic in relation to knowing that God exists, and be an atheist in relation to believing God exists.


So, why do I only call myself an agnostic? Once again, I am also an empiricist and a skeptic. Supposing that God is transcendental, that means that we cannot touch, see, feel, or hear God, then that means that I do not have any means to recognize Him. If I did have the means to recognize him, by either touching, seeing, feeling, hearing, then God would cease to be transcendental as he would now be a being that I can empirically sense, and thus, is no longer transcendental.

Now, can you think of something that is transcendental that you can experience? No. Even forces like gravity are not transcendental as they cause perceivable effects on the universe that we can sense. As such, there is no such thing that is transcendental that we can experience. Being an empiricist, it is clear to be that if have no means to experience an object in any manifest way through our senses, then we cannot claim that such an object actually exists.

This is the kicker. If we say that a transcendental object exists, the statement is an oxymoron; a contradiction. Thus, if God is transcendental, which He must be, we cannot ask any questions about Him existing. Thus, the question, "Do you believe that God exists?" is just as meaningful as asking, "Do you believe a round square can roll downhill?" There is no meaning in either question, they are both nonsensical. Thus, I call myself an agnostic as I cannot answer the question as it provides no information for me to respond to. It isn't that I do not know the answer to the question. It is that the question is so inane, vacuous, and stupid that it cannot be answered logically.

So there. I'm not on any "fence." In fact, I'm grounding myself on incredibly solid footing in empiricism, skepticism, and "pure math" or logic... So shut up.

[deleted]

You see and that's where I butt heads with agnostics. They think you can't know that there aren't gods. But I absolutely can.

The idea of gods is a human concept we applied to things we didn't understand. The idea of the supernatural predates human history. We saw things we couldn't explain or understand, storms, death, seasons, stars, disease, And in order to relate to them at our primitive level we invent gods and spirits and devils and angels and it freaks us out too much to think that those things happen randomly so we find it more comforting to think there is some order to it all, and we just aren't smart enough to know it but the gods and spirits do because they are greater than us.

WE. HUMAN BEINGS. Invented the idea of gods and the supernatural. Therefore THEY ARE MADE UP AND PROVABLY FICTIONAL, FAKE, NOT REAL, COULD NOT BE REAL, WILL NEVER BE REAL, NO MATTER HOW FAR YOU LOOK, HOW LONG YOU WAIT.

You say you can't know there aren't gods. I say we invented gods, therefore gods aren't real.

Now you either understand that, or you can't wrap your head around it and call yourself an agnostic.

When the truth is too painful the weak will label it a lie.

Hard Truth.