Alliance and the Agnostic Argument

So over the 4th I was arguing with my friends. One came up with a proposition that I have been thinking about for a while. Our argument was unseccesful. I wanted to see if this generated some discussion here.

IDEA:

Agnositcs are the only rational religous position becuase when it comes down to it, there is no proof that god exists or does not exist.

When it comes down to it, athiests and those who are relgious are essentially both in the same error.

Originally posted by Alliance

IDEA:

Agnositcs are the only rational religous position becuase when it comes down to it, there is no proof that god exists or does not exist.

When it comes down to it, athiests and those who are relgious are essentially both in the same error.

For the most part, I would agree...for the most part.

My counter arguemt was this.

1. Every religion thinks its god is correct.

2. Religion often falls along the lines of what your parents were. Its more installed than discoverd by the majority (not everyone).

3. This means really shows that no god is more right or special than another, meaning that if one exists, its one big pan-god or pan-pantheon.

4. Religons were invented by man to answer questions they could not explain. So really when it comes down to it, the likelyhood that any god we have described is correct is very low.

My counter argumnet: While no one has absolute proof yes or no, the fact that gods and religions are invented (when i say invented, I mean written about or spoken about) shows that:

1. There is no proof for a god, but there is proof that humans like the idea of a god and like to create them (write mythological compilations such as the bible etc)

2. This leads me to believe that humans want to believe in a god, regardless of proof. THis artificailly enhances the "probalility" that a god exists.

3. Since humans have a poor track record on creating gods, I say that while there is no absolute proof wither way, there is a substantial amount of proof that humans make up god, making religion a correct societal observance of a fictional concept.

4. FOr many people who like functional definions and don't bother going into every absolute philosophical detail, this proof justifies the fact that the proof of god is so low, that to many it becomes fact, hence athiesm.

Conclusion: As long as athiests admit that in absolute terms there is no correct answer....athiesm is justifiable.

Understood. If I were to simplify...

1. As far as empirical evidence goes, there is no proof of God's existence; indeed, operationally defined as a nonempirical entity, there can never be proof of God's existence.
This is not good for Theism.

2. On the same token: there is no empirical evidence that lack of empirical evidence = evidence of lack. While the burden of proof does remain with Theism, and a "default position" of No evidence = No God is reasonable, it is Not absolutely conclusive. This is not good for Atheism.

3. Based on #1 and #2, the only definite conclusion one can come to (IMO) is: "I don't know."

Agnositcs are the only rational religous position becuase when it comes down to it, there is no proof that god exists or does not exist.

I would cinsider #1 a more detrimental point.

i guess then, is is acceptable to have a functional definiton of religion, ignore that fact that the existance of god can never be empiracally proved or disproved and proclaim thyself an athiest based on the points i mentioned above.

I would consider that the ramifications if an atheist is wrong could be steep, it would be better to consider the option of agnosticism if only to make a hedge bet. That possibility must play some role in the debate.

I consider the social ramifications of living a "blind" life to be much steeper as we actually have evidence of real life events.

I don't cinsider it an essential part to the debate becuase:

1. It assumes religion as it is written is correct. It assumes the existance of a place of suffering or "hell," judgement by the divine being. These arguments are totally aribtrary and my not relfect to position of the actual "divine bieng if it exists."

2. Its another totally immersuable concept which doesnt have any impact on wherther a divine bieng exists or not.

3. Hell is likely concept made up to deter people from going against the religion. Religion, for the reasons I have stated, is not proof a divine bieng exists. Its a social structure that was created around a percieved divine presence.

Originally posted by Alliance
I consider the social ramifications of living a "blind" life to be much steeper as we actually have evidence of real life events.

I don't cinsider it an essential part to the debate becuase:

1. It assumes religion as it is written is correct. It assumes the existance of a place of suffering or "hell," judgement by the divine being. These arguments are totally aribtrary and my not relfect to position of the actual "divine bieng if it exists."

2. Its another totally immersuable concept which doesnt have any impact on wherther a divine bieng exists or not.

3. Hell is likely concept made up to deter people from going against the religion. Religion, for the reasons I have stated, is not proof a divine bieng exists. Its a social structure that was created around a percieved divine presence.

That would be an atheist view, but if we are debating from an unbiased stance the arguments should not only come from the atheist view, but should consider the theists views as well.

Not really. I wasn't assuming athiesm was correct either. I was assuming a neutral standpoint. An agnostic one.

Originally posted by Alliance
Not really. I wasn't assuming athiesm was correct either. I was assuming a neutral standpoint. An agnostic one.

Then considerations of the theist side must be of equal relevance as the considerations of the atheist side. Hell can be considered a possibility.

As far as the idea of "God" goes, you have some points.

But not every belief system is predicated on a God(s)....just most of them. Some simply work with what they can understand, and accept what they can't. Take science for example....not what we normally think of as religion, but a system of beliefs nonetheless. Most of them leave the question of God to others, and simply work with what they know.

Issues of faith in a God will come up with those who are religious, but I realize you are working from an empyrical standpoint, so it has little bearing on this discussion.

Originally posted by Regret
Then considerations of the theist side must be of equal relevance as the considerations of the atheist side. Hell can be considered a possibility.

I dont understand. Whats your proof?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But not every belief system is predicated on a God(s)....just most of them. Some simply work with what they can understand, and accept what they can't. Take science for example....not what we normally think of as religion, but a system of beliefs nonetheless. Most of them leave the question of God to others, and simply work with what they know.

Originally posted by Alliance
Anything can be considered a system of beliefs, for example football regulations.

Fair enough.....not sure whether this is you agreeing with me or refuting me though. 😕

I'm sure we believe different things (from your posts that I've read, we do), but I think we're essentially in agreement here in this thread, so I wasn't trying to disprove you, just provide a different way of looking at the subject.

And we could argue the philisophical minutia of your claims, because I may have a few small problems with it, but they wouldn't be terribly important. I agree that you can't prove and/or disprove the idea of "God", at least in a Western-religion sense of the word God as some form of an omnipotent being. And I think that's the heart of your statement, so we're the same at least in that respect.

To me, the means by which the belief was arrived at, matter. A person can arrive at a belief (whether it' s theism, atheism or agnosticism) through irrational means, while another person can arrive at a belief through rational means.

I have a strong belief that rational means are greater than irrational ones.

I would consider #1 a more detrimental point.

I would consider that the ramifications if an atheist is wrong could be steep, it would be better to consider the option of agnosticism if only to make a hedge bet. That possibility must play some role in the debate.

Agnostic Argument

An agnostic cannot have an argument. 😆

Agnostic - somebody who doubts that a particular question has a single correct answer or that a complete understanding of something can be attained.

🙄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Agnostic Argument

An agnostic cannot have an argument. 😆

Agnostic - somebody who doubts that a particular question has a single correct answer or that a complete understanding of something can be attained.

🙄

Where does it say an agnostic cannot have an argument?

Anyways, the argument presented is basically true, since there is indeed no proof of either side, but you can also believe in something that is just pretty liely (like ones own existance for example). Truth though is that every rational being has to at least agree that agnostics have a point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Where does it say an agnostic cannot have an argument?...

Prove it. 😛

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Prove it. 😛

That was a question...as the question mark implied, you don't have to prove a question.