Agnosticism is the point of view that knowledge of the divine is impossible to human beings. I don´t think it is impossible. I don´t know if it is possible or not, it could be.you actually have an agnostic view on agnostics views
An agnostic doesnt deny that there may be a god, but no one really knows for sure whether a god exists or not.
If there was such knowledge then a "god" could be proven beyond faith
Re: Re: Weak atheism..
Originally posted by Wesker
Those who make assertions must prove up. The default position IS skepticism. If I say I have an invisible, intangible, silent midget on my shoulder who makes my life prosperous, would you naturally just believe me? No. There is no rational argument to prove that God exists in the capacity that he conforms to human views of him. I won't say personally that God existing is ruled out; that's a bit extreme. I think atheists are too absolutist on things the same way their opponents are absolutists on their stance. I prefer a more moderate view of agnosticism. God may or may not exist, but as it stands we cannot know him/her/them/it.But really, was it worth it to single out atheism? They know who they are; they're just as loud as the religious types. And both of them are driving people like me nuts.
I pretty much agree with you....
However I think Im more leaned towards atheism. I wont flat out deny the possibility of god but I find that way of thinking flawed and improbable. The universe is a great mystery that we cannot understand yet...
Re: Weak atheism..
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
The weak atheism conclusion is that there is no reason to believe in God or gods, for reasons other than evidence of their nonexistence.Weak atheists argue that merely pointing out the flaws or lack of soundness in all arguments for the existence of God is sufficient to show that God's existence is less probable than his nonexistence;
There are also weak religious junkies like yourself who cannot provide a shred of proof that proves that God exists.
Originally posted by Makedde
^Religious people don't have to prove that God exists, but atheists cop shit because we don't believe in God? Not fair.
I'm not even that religious... if you have a genuine reason to be atheist then go ahead... but if you're doing it to jump on the bandwagon its a bit silly... 😬
and life isn't fair... 😛
There we go again with the burden of proof. The burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with the theist, not with the atheist (with the exception of strong atheism). Both the atheist and the theist probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who asserts the further belief in the existence of a god.
If a claimant cannot provide that support, then the default position of disbelief is justified.
Originally posted by pr1983
I'm not even that religious... if you have a genuine reason to be atheist then go ahead... but if you're doing it to jump on the bandwagon its a bit silly... 😬and life isn't fair... 😛
I've been atheist all my life. I know plenty of people who jump on the bandwagon, though.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Agnosticism is the point of view that knowledge of the divine is impossible to human beings. I don´t think it is impossible. I don´t know if it is possible or not, it could be.
Well not only, from Wikipedia:
"Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth or falsity of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God or gods—is unknown, unknowable, or incoherent. Some agnostics infer from this that these claims are irrelevant to life."
So there, to think you cannot prove or disprove God is agnosticism. And I think to be either, Atheist or Religious is just kidding one self, and having faith for something where there is no evidence....
Originally posted by Storm
There we go again with the burden of proof. The burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with the theist, not with the atheist (with the exception of strong atheism). Both the atheist and the theist probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who asserts the further belief in the existence of a god.
If a claimant cannot provide that support, then the default position of disbelief is justified.
Not really, Atheists claim there is no God
Theists claim there is a God
Both don't really have much proof of anything.
Originally posted by finti
you actually have an agnostic view on agnostics views
Yeah, something like that. Differently from agnosticism I don´t say God is unknowable, but I don´t know if it can be know or not. Although I am usually inclined to believe that it can be know, and I try to find a way to know that, but without making afirmations that cannot be justified, it is.. without just believing in it. I am just not sure of what really happens.
Re: Re: Weak atheism..
Originally posted by Makedde
There are also weak religious junkies like yourself who cannot provide a shred of proof that proves that God exists.
I'm not a religious junkie. I don't go around bible thumping nor do I impose religion upon anyone to any degree. I think those people should be committed to a psych ward. I don't go to church. I do believe in God. I have no proof he exists but I also have no proof that he doesn't exists. "Blessed are those who believe without seeing." - Moses
All I'm implying is, is that there are people who say they don't believe in God for the weak reasons. And to me, that's what makes an invalid and weak atheists. That they're doing it to merely just to sound cool or bad or different. -and that's just out of many reasons- And that's just fake, man.
I want to raise the bar on atheism here at KMC. I'm sick of people saying things don't exists just because they don't. I don't care if you believe in God or not, but at least have a strong enough reason to rather than a weak one like. "Just because" period.