DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
Hmm...I dont know exactly...
Love
Dallas
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It really isn't possible is it?
- Thread starter Phasmid
- Start date
Hmm...I dont know exactly...
Love
Dallas
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
You can tell because you know.
People who DO know, are not in the "I dunno" group, and therefore agnosticism is probably the least logical stance. And MANY people DO know
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
Without evidence, such ideas "make sense" only hypothetically at best...if you're concerned with your views having any corroboration with reality, I'd recommend another solution.
rojse
RF Addict
I am agnostic about God in the same way I am agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Certainly, agnosticism is the only logical stance for any subject, unless it is conclusively proven (that's a topic for another thread). However, it is enough for me to say, that on the balance of probability, that it is more likely that God does not exist than God actually existing, and base my atheism on that.
Last edited:
Phasmid
Mr Invisible
That seems like a cop out.
Phasmid
Mr Invisible
You can tell because you know.
People who DO know, are not in the "I dunno" group, and therefore agnosticism is probably the least logical stance. And MANY people DO know
In other words, "You just can".
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
Uh, usually theories are backed by evidence, and the latest multiverse theories point to an eternal universe.
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
Ok, basically the point I was trying to make is that many, many people feel they know "the ultimate truth" (whatever that is to them) already. Many people think that they already KNOW it. So if all these people already know it, Agnosticism is far from the most logical stance. Whether people who DO KNOW, actually know the truth or not, is really besides the point, because - they KNOW *their* truth.
Does that make sense at all? (maybe I need to rephrase it =\ )
Phasmid
Mr Invisible
Ah... I hear you. You're saying that agnosticism isn't logical for people who already believe they know the truth? Like me saying to you, "The only logical stance to take towards the existence of the Mona Lisa is agnosticism" (because I've never seen it in person) where as you (who may well have seen it in person) would know that it exists and do to be agnostic about the Mona Lisa, would be illogical?
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
Pretty much, yeah.
(however, I don't need to have seen it to "know" it exists.... many people "know" things without having experienced them
)A Christian may *know* that god became man to save us from ourselves
An athiest may *know* God cannot exist
Once upon a time, people *knew* the earth was flat
People *knew* that disfavour with gods caused plagues (some people STILL know this)
People *knew* that the Y2k bug was going to happen
People will tell you all sorts of things that they KNOW to be true. It is illogical to be agnostic towards those. I therefore say, that it is illogical to be agnostic towards the existence of god if you already "know" that it does or does not exist.
Phasmid
Mr Invisible
Pretty much, yeah.
(however, I don't need to have seen it to "know" it exists.... many people "know" things without having experienced them
A Christian may *know* that god became man to save us from ourselves
An athiest may *know* God cannot exist
Once upon a time, people *knew* the earth was flat
People *knew* that disfavour with gods caused plagues (some people STILL know this)
People *knew* that the Y2k bug was going to happen
People will tell you all sorts of things that they KNOW to be true. It is illogical to be agnostic towards those. I therefore say, that it is illogical to be agnostic towards the existence of god if you already "know" that it does or does not exist.
It seems you're using the word "know" in place of the word "opinion".
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
hmm... Not quite.
"believe" possibly - one can believe something to such a degree that it seems like knowledge.
However, ultimately my point is that to know something means it is illogical to "not-know" that thing. (whether that "knowledge" has basis in actual truth has no real significance - it is still knowledge in that respect - for example, I "know" that I am 21 years old, however the truth might be that I was born a year earlier than the birth certificate says, but to me, it is my knowing that I am 21 years old)
"believe" possibly - one can believe something to such a degree that it seems like knowledge.
However, ultimately my point is that to know something means it is illogical to "not-know" that thing. (whether that "knowledge" has basis in actual truth has no real significance - it is still knowledge in that respect - for example, I "know" that I am 21 years old, however the truth might be that I was born a year earlier than the birth certificate says, but to me, it is my knowing that I am 21 years old)
Phasmid
Mr Invisible
Hmm... so you acknowledge that you could be wrong? Wouldn't the reasonable conlusion therefor be that you're agnostic about your age?
Hmm... I suppose there's reasoned conjecture and simple probability... but there's no way to be 100% certain of anything really, is there? So while agnosticism, in the strict sense, may be logical... it's certainly a headache.
I suppose it's best to be reasonable certain then and to actually have an opinion, rather than be agnostic. To be a hardline agnostic seems akin to being in a foetal position rocking back and forth in a dark room with a cup off coffee in one's hand questioning everything... I'm giving myself a headache...
little_monkey
atheist
I would say that my atheism stems from empirical evidence (or lack of it) and Occam's Razor -- that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
hehehehe. Riiiiight.
Phasmid
Mr Invisible
hehehehe. Riiiiight.
Anything more insightful to add?