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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Okay, respectfully, how is it that I don't know as much as you don't know? Or something like that...***Mod: no comments in the agnostic Dir, only respectful questions are permitted, since agnostics don't know anything.***
I don't know more than you don't know!
***Mod: no comments in the agnostic Dir, only respectful questions are permitted, since agnostics don't know anything.***
Do you really know that?***Mod: no comments in the agnostic Dir, only respectful questions are permitted, since agnostics don't know anything.***
I was going to say that, but wasn't sure I should.we'll start talking once we've made up our minds.
you could even say that I'm certain that no one knows...Well, as an agnostic I can tell you that no one knows.
What's the problem with that?If we say "Nobody knows", we would seem to be making a general assertion about the state of everyone's knowledge.
Here is an example of a demonstrably wrong belief.I think that part of the problem since around 2000 or so, is that the atheists have consciously tried to usurp agnosticism.
I think that part of the reason for the eclipse of agnosticism since around 2000 or so, is that the atheists have consciously tried to usurp agnosticism. Much of the discussion that once would have taken place under the 'agnostic' heading is now treated as 'weak atheism'.
I've always distingushed between atheism and agnosticism this way:
Atheism is an ontological assertion about the existence or non-existence of something (the non-existence of God or deities in this case).
Agnosticism is an epistemological assertion about knowledge or knowability concerning something (God, deities or transcendental realities in general in this case).
The common atheist assertion today is that 'atheism' isn't denial of the existence of God (or transcendental realities in general) but rather the mere lack of belief in them. They think that leaves them in possession of the intellectual high ground where they no longer have any 'burden of proof'.
Of course rhetorically, the burden lies with anyone who wants to persuade somebody else to accept something they don't already believe.
I see my Agnosticism (Huxleyan) as a moral imperative to not believe things that lack proof or substantial evidence.I've always distingushed between atheism and agnosticism this way:
Atheism is an ontological assertion about the existence or non-existence of something (the non-existence of God or deities in this case).
Agnosticism is an epistemological assertion about knowledge or knowability concerning something (God, deities or transcendental realities in general in this case).
May I respectfully ask where to find the rules that state that? I would accept it as an arbitrary rule set by the mods but together with the explanation it becomes highly (respectfully) questionable.***Mod: no comments in the agnostic Dir, only respectful questions are permitted, since agnostics don't know anything.***
That might be the reason why nobody posts here.***Mod: no comments in the agnostic Dir, only respectful questions are permitted, since agnostics don't know anything.***