Any agnostics here?

[WITHTEETH]

Everything is based on a first assumption.
Athiests think there is no god.
Theist think there is a god.
Agnostics think you can't prove there is or isn't a god. and personally it doesn't really matter to me if there is one, I don't get on my knees. I do not believe how there could possibly be a new testament god. Christians have correct logic but that it is based on false premises.
I follow science because i see it as the most rational empiricism. a good scientist would say, evolution and the big bang theory are just the best science has right now. and i will trust common sense over faith anyday.
Sciences first assumptions are that laws that are here today wil be here tomarrow. It strike me odd how people will criticize science when all it is, is a few steps and math. Nothing else.

I thought it was ridiculous how George W. Bush said we have to balance science and morals. How can you balance science. It is like trying to balance algebra isn't it? you have to balance the people behind science. but it sounded great didn't it? "we have to balance science and morals" and people ate it up, from then on it was a moral issue. what a load of crap. it disgusts me how dumb people can be. religion and state are suppose to be seperate. to impose ones religion on others is MORALLY wrong.

[DMofD&D]

Welcome to the boards!;)

I'm an atheist. But I can tell you are there a few agnostics besides you here, yes.

A question: Why are you posting this in the Atheist vs. Theist section?

[Acromnion]

I consider myself agnostic, but with an edge of atheism. One, science is a based on asumption, but can be proven with facts, not necesarily with math. math and statistics back the answers science finds. Science is balanced once the findings are consistent with accurate documentation. Believing the bible, torah, koran... etc... is proof of a god is not adequate for me. MAYbe back in the day when people actually witnessed those "miracles" it was easier to believe. If we could throw David Copperfield back in time and they documented his "miracles", he'd be a diety too...

[Philboid Studge]

I have a friend who said recently, "Everyone is
agnostic, as a matter of fact; theists and atheists express opinions."

[Another brick in the wall]

I've yet to meet someone who's agnostic about Zeus.

[Tulkas]

Well, if i can be considered Agnostic, i can be considered agnostic about ALL gods, so put me in that zeus category.

Why is believing that the Christian god cant be proven any different from the Greek "Mythology" Gods....

Same crazy shit in both stories :)

[Another brick in the wall]

OK, we can't prove with 100% certainty that Zeus doesn't exist. But surely you would agree that it is more than likely that Zeus doesn't exist, just as it is more than likely that matter is composed of atoms.

[Tulkas]

Of course, just because it is more probable doesnt mean its true [devils advocate/]

[Striver]

An agnostic isn't just someone who says that you can't prove that god doesn't exist. If you learn logic, it's impossible to prove ANY universal negative. You can't prove there aren't leprechauns. You can't disprove telepathy. You can't prove that Kevin Spacey isn't going to open the door to your house and molest your cat. Charlatans and manipulators make use of this verbal tactic quite often,

Why? because you'd have to have an infinite amount of evidence to disprove something, and the slightest evidence to the contrary invalidates the statement.

I think a working definition of an agnostic would be someone who won't take a stand that there is no god for all effective purposes.

[WITHTEETH]

Striver the word GOD is a VERY broad term.
I think that is amazing that you can read minds like that too, you are so talented! how did you know kevin spacey opened my door? LoL

[Another brick in the wall]

In the strictest philosophical sense, I'm an agnostic, because I don't know with 100% certainty that gods don't exist. But I'm sure enough for practical purposes to call myself an atheist.

[ghoulslime]

Ghoulslime's take on it is: Agnostics are sometimes open-minded Atheists who allow for any possibility, however remote - wishful-thinking Atheists if you will. And sometimes they are simply ex-theists reluctant to completely abandon the delusion that there is a magic happy man in the sky who will save them from doom.

I try to maintain complete objectivity on the matter. I allow for the possibility of gods, aliens, unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, etc. However, I only believe what can be proved. I grant that my knowledge is finite and that I will never live to know the answer.

I am content to be called an Atheist. I am content to observe and ponder the wonder of my existence.

[Acromnion]

And sometimes they are simply ex-theists reluctant to completely abandon the delusion that there is a magic happy man in the sky who will save them from doom.
I like that image, a magic happy man in the sky... if he exists, i doubt he would be happy... look at all the turmoil the world is drowning in. Anyhow, I think people save themselves from certain doom, its our decisions that make a difference. I'm not that magic man in the sky's (i really like that analogy) robot, i'm sure most of my life is comprised of sins, along with the rest of the world. if that refers to the doom we "will be saved from at death" I'd rather go to hell... think about it, it must be a dull party up there...

[alaspooryorick]

I see agnostic as a very broad term. That's personally how I would classify myself, although "apathetic" and "mildly atheist" would work well too. Even when I was still a theist according to label, I was agnostic. Even now as an atheist according to label, I'm agnostic. Sure, we get the "fence sitter" comment a lot, but there's really no way to "prove" anything, other than making a decision about what you believe. Facts are only facts because we choose to believe they are. Philosophically speaking, I can't prove that I'm sitting in front of my computer typing this post. Descartes (much as I detest his religious views) only proved "Cogito ergo sum" by choosing to believe in his own existence.

[Rhinoqulous]

I see agnostic as a very broad term. That's personally how I would classify myself, although "apathetic" and "mildly atheist" would work well too. Even when I was still a theist according to label, I was agnostic. Even now as an atheist according to label, I'm agnostic. Sure, we get the "fence sitter" comment a lot, but there's really no way to "prove" anything, other than making a decision about what you believe. Facts are only facts because we choose to believe they are. Philosophically speaking, I can't prove that I'm sitting in front of my computer typing this post. Descartes (much as I detest his religious views) only proved "Cogito ergo sum" by choosing to believe in his own existence.
Reality speaking, if you can't prove that you're sitting in front of your computer when you are sitting in front of your computer, you need help. :P

Philosophically speaking, Wittgenstein said that philosophers have the queerest of conversations; a person could come across two philosophers in a park screaming at each other, "But you can't PROVE that the tree is really there!", while gesturing to a tree in front of them. Any rational person would come to the conclusion that this person was insane. (paraphrased from Monk's book Wittgenstein: Duty of a Genius)

Rhinoq

[alaspooryorick]

Reality speaking, if you can't prove that you're sitting in front of your computer when you are sitting in front of your computer, you need help. :P

Philosophically speaking, Wittgenstein said that philosophers have the queerest of conversations; a person could come across two philosophers in a park screaming at each other, "But you can't PROVE that the tree is really there!", while gesturing to a tree in front of them. Any rational person would come to the conclusion that this person was insane. (paraphrased from Monk's book Wittgenstein: Duty of a Genius)

Rhinoq
And that I believe. I'm not saying I put in practice the philosophic mumbo jumbo or regularly contemplate my own existence. In fact, I'm sure enough to call me typing this a fact and reality. Regardless of all the other bs (you can thank Heidegger for my recent need to deconstruct everything to death), I'd still call myself an agnostic, as suggested previously, because I did come from a religious background and it's hard to sever that tie emotionally, although intellectually, I've given up on the existence of God.

[Rhinoqulous]

And that I believe. I'm not saying I put in practice the philosophic mumbo jumbo or regularly contemplate my own existence. In fact, I'm sure enough to call me typing this a fact and reality. Regardless of all the other bs (you can thank Heidegger for my recent need to deconstruct everything to death), I'd still call myself an agnostic, as suggested previously, because I did come from a religious background and it's hard to sever that tie emotionally, although intellectually, I've given up on the existence of God.
Ahhh, Heidegger. Haven't read Being and Time in years. I'm more into the analytic philosophers right now (Davidson, Quine, etc.).

As for agnosticism, I don't really see a difference between an agnostic and an atheist. Neither has a belief in a particular god or religion. While some would claim that the atheist claims god does not exist, while the agnostic merely states that they don't believe in god without claiming non-existence, I see this as weak vs. strong atheism. I'm a weak atheist; I don't believe in god, but I don't claim the absolute necessity of god's non-existence (which I think is just as an absurd claim as theists make). Epistemologically, it's impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of god, so I think it all comes down to belief and the Form of Life.

Rhinoq

[Another brick in the wall]

I don't think claiming god doesn't exist is an absurd claim. As for proof, proof only matters in mathematics and alcohol. I think there's enough evidence to say that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist and neither do any gods.