What is your religion/belief?

[Mighty Monk]

Well, I feel I can "but but but" about that all I want. Clearly you underestimate, less understand perhaps, the power that religion had over the world in that period. It's an absolutely clear thing that religion hindered scientific advancement. If a person feels that if they dare challenge the "word of god" they'll be cast out, demonised or even executed, then it's no bloody wonder that there was minuscule scientific advancement!

Science and religion are different issues in one context, but the same in others. They are both means of reasoning our existence, or why things happen in our world the way they do, for instance.

You tell me not to use science to defend my views in this sort of argument, (I thought it was an endless debate, oh well!) but what else do you expect me to use? It's always Science vs. Religion.

The Big Bang Theory is a scientific one. Evolution is science. It's all god damn science.

The only counter argument is the numerous religious belief systems. So numerous, infact, that there are nearly 20 main beliefs, each with their own version of it. Out of these main beliefs, there are many smaller versions!

I think, in that respect, religion discredits itself greatly. They all have their own, often vastly different ideas about how the world was created, why we exist, who put us here in the first place... it's stupid, frankly.

[Vilham]

Agnostic, as any other option in my opinion is illogical. There most certainly is no god in the sense of the main religious groups. That's not to say there might not be something that set everything off in the start, ie caused the big bang, to that extent I'm a bit pantheist.

There is just no way to know it is impossible to know if anything started everything from nothing. Hence agnosticism is the only logical course (within our current understanding of the universe).

[stoopdapoop]

"agnostic" isn't really a stance as much as a modifier. It denotes certainty in your beliefs.

you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, just as you can be a gnostic theist or atheist.

So be careful when calling other people's belief's illogical, you're the one making the blunder.

[Vilham]

No you can't.

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

The two are entirely at odds with each other, you can't know and not know at the same time. You also most certainly can not be a gnostic atheist, one denies the exist of god the other claims the universe was made by an imperfect god.

So your the one making a blunder.

[Mighty Monk]

I'll assume that you you got your definitions from this website:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic

You missed this:

b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

[Vilham]

Would you like to reinforce what you have proved there? What are you attempting to argue?

[stoopdapoop]

No you can't.

[truncated to save page-space]

So your the one making a blunder.

What's the blunder? You've re-enforced what I said.

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

again, it's a matter of certainty. I'm not sure what you thought you proved by getting those definitions. They can have a complimentary relationship, not an exclusive one.

Also, just down the page you linked is this.

2. agnostic - a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)

Edit: editing for spelling and shit. Fuck you mighty monk for posting right after me so I can't make ninja edits

[Mighty Monk]

Well the two definitions are different; it'd be silly to have a debate when information is withheld!

[Vilham]

No you can't.

[truncated to save page-space]

So your the one making a blunder.

What's the blunder? You've re-enforced what I said.

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

again, it's a matter of certainty. I'm not sure what you thought you proved by getting those definitions. They can have a complimentary relationship, not an exclusive one.

Also, just down the page you linked is this.

2. agnostic - a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)

Edit: editing for spelling and shit. Fuck you mighty monk for posting right after me so I can't make ninja edits

By disbelieving you are not saying that you believe that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. You are saying it is quite possible to know there is no god, hence your disbelieve.

There is your blunder. You can not be an atheist and an agnostic. One suggests some certainty of believe (hence disbelieve), one fundamentally says that any certainty isn't possible.

[stoopdapoop]

By disbelieving you are not saying that you believe that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. You are saying it is quite possible to know there is no god, hence your disbelieve.

what the fuck does that have to do with anything I just said? And even if it did have something to do with what I said, it's still wrong on several levels.

I'm pained that I need to help you with the term belief, but here. While believing is possible without warrant or evidence, certainty implies having valid evidence or proof. There's no implication about capability of knowledge or anything else. Lets set this straight now, belief does not require proof or evidence, you can believe in something without either.

There is your blunder. You can not be an atheist and an agnostic. One suggests some certainty of believe (hence disbelieve), one fundamentally says that any certainty isn't possible.

This doesn't make sense either. I think you're trying to use the words "certainty" and "knowledge" interchangeably, and in this case you can't, so please stop. Both atheism and Agnosticism carry some certainty in their belief (Obviously. I'm surprised that I have to say this). And used as an adjective (in the case of "agnostic atheist") it means "2. Doubtful or noncommittal". This was in the definition that you supplied.

But I think I'm nearly done with this, I have homework to do, and this thread isn't really about the differences between religious views. If you can't see any validity in what I'm saying yet, I'm not willing to invest too much more time to get you to understand.

[Vilham]

Believe without proof is illogical, true and false are absolutes, if you claim to believe something you are applying a truth to it.

This doesn't make sense either. I think you're trying to use the words "certainty" and "knowledge" interchangeably, and in this case you can't, so please stop. Both atheism and Agnosticism carry some certainty in their belief (Obviously. I'm surprised that I have to say this). And used as an adjective (in the case of "agnostic atheist") it means "2. Doubtful or noncommittal". This was in the definition that you supplied.

Here you have entirely missed it.

Atheists have some form of certainty that there is no god, they have to, otherwise their own belief is illogical.
Agnostics say you can not have any certainty in god as their is no proof, anything else is illogical.

While believing is possible without warrant or evidence, certainty implies having valid evidence or proof.

As to this statement, that's my entire point. Believe without evidence is illogical.

Def:

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.[1]

You can not claim a truth without evidence.

O and no need to get rude or condescending, when in fact I am your senior by quite a few years. It's the sign of a poor debater.

[Ashfall_2008]

I'm a proud athiest. Almost militant.

I actively critise religeon and believe that the world would be a far better place without it.
I've never understood why people would want all the wonders of this amazing universe explained away in two seconds by the existence of gods.

I say gods because it always amazes me how arrogant christians are about their belief of one true god vs many (e.g. hinduism).

The other thing that always strikes me as amazing is the concept of worshipping a god/s. If these deity's are honestly that powerful and all knowing would they really give a shit if you kissed their ass every now and again.
I seriously doubt it.

There's also the concept that just because the majority of the populace on the planet believe in a god that it must be true. The majority of the population live on less than a dollar a day and do not receive a western education. Those of us with a decent understanding of chemistry, physics, biology really have no excuse for believing in deities at all.

It's the evolution of the species to cast religion aside and ascend to a more enlightened way of life.

I don't need a religion to outline my moral compass either. As an enlightened society I feel we have a very clear vision of what is right and what is wrong without some crusty old priest or rabbi to tell us.

You'll also find that most people who speak for an organised religion tend to have very little experience of the world. Who are they to advise you on how to live your life???

Cast down your feeble gods and join us in the scientific 21st Century.

It's a pretty amazing place to be!

[Plague]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

:\


Edit, still laugh at science attempting to be proof of no god....

[Vilham]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

:\


Edit, still laugh at science attempting to be proof of no god....

Effectively that's someone that says, I don't believe in god (remember belief stems from holding something true i.e. non-existence of god = true or existence of god = false) and at the same time they say but I don't actually know.

Sounds like a contradiction to me tbh.

[Plague]

I honestly thought,

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know with certainty whether any deity exists.

Was quite clear.

In fact that might fit me better, some sort of cross between purer Agnostic views and Atheistic views.


Here is Wikipedias description of Agnosticism.

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.