>>18747155
Devon Tracey seems to think so.

>>18747155
Evolved.

>>18747155
Everyone is agnostic because no one knows for sure if God exists or not. You can either believe or not, but you'll never know.

>>18747155
The smartest person is the one who knows he does not know, retard.

>>18747227
>You can either believe or not, but you'll never know.
That would only be true if your soul were annihilated upon death. In reality, you WILL eventually know once you wake up in Heaven, or, more likely, Hell.

>>18747246
low iq post.

>>18747262
Not really. Try again?

>>18747271
yes really. you're a moron.

>>18747155
They're mostly just people who don't like the atheist label for one reason or another, and feel superior for having a different label.

>>18747155
agnostics are atheists with a shred of humility

>>18747155
>are agnostics really just cowardly atheists?
No.

>>18747155
No, it's not a question of cowardice. It's a question of strict logical thinking. Agnosticism is the answer to the question:
>do you know whether a God/Gods exist? / Is it possible to know whether a God/Gods do and don't exist?
Which an Atheist would of course answer with no.
The question:
>Do you believe in a God/Gods?
An Atheist would of course also reply with no. Most Agnostics don't act like they believe in a God, so logically they should also reply with no.

But because people prefer to go with social vibes, instead of rational thinking, they tend to just say they are Agnostic. I guess you could say they are cowards in the sense that they are afraid to abandon social conformity and embrace a more radical thought process. But they are mostly just stupid cattle.

File: 1739466482894658.png (34 KB, 600x300)

34 KB PNG

>>18747155
Pretty much. Most are scientism cultists as well so still theists for all intents and purposes

Not really. They're usually lukewarm christcucks.

>>18747272
No. I'm not. :) You're so fucked.

>>18747227
I know for sure He exists

>Do you think there's a God?
>No, doesn't make much sense to me
>Wow so you claim to know stuff you can't possibly know, because what if I tell you that God is completely and purposefully undetectable by human senses and beyond mortal reason, and in his (or her or its) incomprehensible, unknowable nature, I am just now defining it as impossible to say he (or she, or it) doesn't exist. And yet you DARE to presume. Though, I and everyone else who actually believes in God have very specific beliefs about Him that we are very sure about for reasons, and he talks to me and reveals himself to me -- notwithstanding the decidedly unfalsifiable seed-of-doubt subtle-God scenario I have proposed to you, which I myself do not believe. You lack humility, and are possibly a midwit.
>Oh I guess I'm agnostic then, I don't want to seem arrogant or midwitted

I think if you don't believe God exists, you could probably just own it. Most of most people's beliefs are strong enough, when they aren't even assessments of fact, or agreeing on the nature of reality and perception. Like, I'm 80-90% sure that death penalty shouldn't be a thing in civilized countries. I'd just say I don't believe in the death Penalty and I'm anti-death penalty. Yeah, I could be wrong, but I'm still on this position. I don't what percent of me thinks supernatural stuff is just not real, but if it isn't 100 it's pretty damn close

Agnostics are holding the door way the fuck open for a contingency that they don't seem to think there's any good reason to believe; why? I think they got played into thinking God stuff is a different class of belief, or information, or plane of being. But that's a theistic proposition in the first place, you're sort of accepting their premises in spite of yourself

I believe in the god of Aristotle but not YHWH. what does that make me?

>>18747155
I used to think so and was an atheist for most of my life. I am now open to the idea of god but I dunno and have no basis for actual faith so agnostic seems like the best label but I still feel like a faggot self-applying it.

>>18747155
More like honest atheists. You can't possibly know that there is no god with out current understanding.
Apologists don't like Agnostic Atheists though, because there is nothing to attack.

>>18748780
A deist maybe, but the label is somewhat inaccurate.

>>18748788
Agnostic is just the more diplomatic way to say you're atheist. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, while 99% fall into the latter category.

OBVIOUSLY you can't once and for all prove whether some deity exists or not, but so far throughout human collective knowledge and history there seem to be zero relevant indicators for it. Ergo agnostic atheist.

>>18747155
They are atheists who didn't understand the question.

>>18747227
>>18747231
>>18748807
That's not the question.

>>18747155
There is a God = Theist
There is no God = Atheist
I don't know if there's a God = Agnostic

>>18748825
The answer is "no" then

>>18748733
Yeah this is the thing, and it also only really applies to the God(s) of existing practiced religions. Agnostics aren't generally agnostic on the existence of the Greek Gods.

>>18747155
No, they're the honest skeptics. Atheists are people who are so retardedly confident in themselves that they believe in negatives. To admit you don't know the truth is reasonable, and to believe in more than we can see is reasonable too in it's own way. To say there is definitely nothing beyond this because you haven't seen proof yet is retarded.

>>18747155
i would say they are cowardly christians. since pagan "gods" are so weak and incoherent you cant even make a case for gnosticm within their respective lore.

>>18748836
There is no God = Explicit Atheist
I don't know if there's a God = implicit Atheist/Agnostic atheism

>>18749604
Yes anon, if you just decide words mean things they don't mean you can pretend you are right.

>>18749607
ok
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

>>18749604
An agnostic can lean agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, but the distinction is that they do not take the position of "there is no God" with atheism or "there is a God" with theism. An agnostic is someone who does not know if there is a God or not and does not take a stance that there is one or not.

>>18748811
Many agnostics are just atheists who are being diplomatic but that's not what agnosticism is.

There are many declared theists who would in fact be agnostic theists but very few would outright take on the agnostic label or even be aware of the agnostic theist label. I've seen this skepticism all the time when I was a Mormon, there was even this whole "doubt your doubts" shtick going on to combat peoples skepticism.

I'm absolutely not an atheist as I do truly believe that there COULD be a God or gods or some creator of some sort, but I genuinely do not know if there is one or not, so I say that I'm agnostic.

No established religion be it Christianity, Shinto, Hinduism, etc, fills me with confidence in their beliefs but I also do not agree that just because I do not subscribe to their beliefs, that all theistic beliefs are therefore false and there isn't a God or that their beliefs must be false if I haven't been convinced of them. For all I known, the Mormons could be right after all, I really have no clue. But I also haven't been convinced by them that they are right, so I'm not a Mormon or theist and remain instead that I'm an agnostic.

>>18747155
>are agnostics really just cowardly atheists?
No. Atheists are really just cowardly agnostics, afraid to be open minded.
Atheists who don't even believe in the human soul are retards not worthy of attention, same as Abrahamic cultists who believe in prophets.

Agnostics are wrong in the sense that existence/non-existence of God is such a fundamental issue you HAVE to figure out the side you're on before you start making further rational decisions about your life.

>>18748842
In fairness, I think most declared agnostics aren't usually giving the benefit of the doubt to any particular god or gods, but to the vaguest possible notion of "god." Whatever God you're holding the door for is probably so abstracted and impersonal, it doesn't resemble anything any religious person believes. That's how I used to think, at least.

But even then, you're working backward from the assumption that these fanciful stories, false histories and wacky pantheons are just human distortions of a fundamental cosmic truth. I think it's natural and human to make up stories and characters to help make sense of the world. But I don't see why you'd think that, collectively, they must be onto something, even though in every detail they are clearly just making shit up out of whole cloth for human reasons. Believing that reality and natural processes must be the result of "something somebody did" seems like the bad idea at the root of it. Humans' own self-reflection tells us a lot about humans, but not the nature of the universe.

>>18749710
>existence/non-existence of God is such a fundamental issue you HAVE to figure out the side you're on
Wrong. That's using the concept of god as a rhetorical-device to amplify tribalism; brainrot

>>18749887
Maybe you're taking "side" in the wrong sense

Forget making decisions about your life, if the universe is created and ordered by a supernatural agency, then that's likely to have pretty stupendous downstream effects on every other logical process, belief or understanding you have about reality. It can be really hard to discuss the details of stuff when you don't have a position on whether it's possible, even notionally, to know some basic things about the universe

>>18749900
Thoughts about god or absence of god isn't required, either way, to learn & understand basic things about the universe/reality. Starting with an assumption about things like that carries a risk of shaping our psychology into bad form, which is the 'brainrot' I was talking about. That way of thinking seems to encourage tribalism - for or against the belief in god, it goes both ways.
Not accusing you of brainrot here, just saying. I am curious what you mean by "supernatural" though

>>18749915
>I am curious what you mean by "supernatural" though
That's a moving target because, to a theist, a supreme being is itself natural. But it's naturally outside of OUR "natural order." That's one of the ways it's hard to stake out a middle ground and be otherwise consistent

If it's possible for there to exist a mind, will or consciousness without a brain -- even without matter -- then that complicates everything else. A theist and I might agree there's no such thing as ghosts or demons, but he may well believe that souls exist. Arbitrarily enough (in my view), this is one of those "supernatural" phenomena theism can assume even when you keep a more grounded view of naturalism. It's problem created when you decide when and where laws of nature and logic don't count.

People on both sides of the issue are often talking past each other, so it may be useful to be willing to speak both languages. I'm just not too sure that's the role agnostics fill. There's a difference between entertaining an idea and thinking it makes about as much sense as any other

>>18749416
And here we have the stereotypical "atheist who feels superior because he chooses to apply the agnostic label to himself."

>>18747155
Yes.
t. STRONG atheist

File: 16 - 1.jpg (47 KB, 426x511)

47 KB JPG

>>18750054
>Yes.
>t. STRONG atheist

Agnostics are conveniently only ever "agnostic" about the Christian god, they are absolutely certain that Allah, Ganesh, Quetzacoatl, and Spider Man do not exist.

>>18750323
Hm, I think they're agnostic about the Desist God, but that's mainly because Christians are conveniently Deists when they're appealing to an open-minded atheist.

>>18750323
Uou can be unsure about specific beliefs while being more certain about others. This further separates agnostics from atheists who are equally certain that everything is false without exception.

>>18750054
Have you fought any other atheists to see who is stronger?

>>18750339
I’m a strong atheist, but agnosticism is only meaningful depending on how you define words. The dictionary is not going to settle the issue, but I think you can be an agnostic, it is the same flavor as religious pluralist, and an alter ego of deist.

>>18747155
Not all but most are. Atheism is usually defined as the rejection of a god concept but that's a pretty useless definition since humans don't and will never have perfect information.
Since all gods come from humanity it's better to define it as "The rejection of all human gods". Agnosticism ends up being a cop out used by people who don't want to commit.

>>18747155
>not picking a side in a debate iz LE BAD
Lol.

>>18750916
Atheists are always super asshurt you're not 'on their side' in their little crusade to upset their funDIE parents

Agnosticism, which means not knowing, is more intelligent than atheism because otherwise, you will get caught up reading stuff you dont actually care about and that doesnt matter to win debates. The same is true with politics and economics i would argue.

If you are a commited socialist or a commited capitalist, you will have to read both sides of the argument and then analyze the soviet economy, in case that you want to say defend the idea that socialism is a better alternative to capitalism.

If however you focus on learning stuff that you care about in the natural and formal sciences and never get in debates, everyone will like you minus a small section of the left who hates centrists. No one really dislikes agnostics, they hate loud atheists and if they do hate agnostics, then they are not justified in doing so.

>>18751284
>Agnosticism, which means not knowing, is more intelligent than atheism because otherwise, you will get caught up reading stuff you dont actually care about and that doesnt matter to win debates. The same is true with politics and economics i would argue.
Precisely the same thing applies to organized religion & religious people as much towards atheism IMO. It's not something humanly possible to know whether god(s) exist or not, so one would have to make an assumption to be able to say "I'm certain" one way or another.
Such a grand assumption is not a logically sound starting point for a reasonable philosophical belief system. That jumping on point seems to amplify the tribalism in our psyche, encouraging 'us vs them' models of reason.

>>18751313
Exactly. We cant even determine whether the existence of a God is something probable or not because there would be no sample. Statistics rely on preceding people and data to determine how likely it is for someone who is born today to live up to a certain age, however God would be unique, there would be no way to determine if his existence is even plausible or not because there is no preceding data.

In my opinion, the thing that sets atheists and theists apart is that atheists assume that intelligence (in humans and other animals) can just arise without a creator setting off a chain of events, so they believe intelligence can arise from irrational, natural forces colliding randomly and these forces are brute aspects of reality, nothing created them, whereas theists believe that intelligence could have only been possible thanks to the design of a supreme, intelligent deity and the root of existence has to be a conscious being, not irrational forces, but both are making assumptions about reality they cannot prove or even know their probability of being right.

>>18751313
It doesn't seem logical to assume that God is an unknowable factor, when it is only proposed by people who claim to know -- apparently baselessly -- that it's real.

Could the theists be, in some substantial sense, right by pure accident? If you think anything's possible, I guess; but if you think knowing God is impossible, then you don't.

I'm a weak atheist but I'm trying to get better about going to the gym.

>>18748144
So you know God’s will and who He will condemn? Seems heretical to me.

File: 1348622966973.jpg (8 KB, 187x248)

8 KB JPG

>>18747155
>cowardly
"I'm so afraid to be associated with some of the most annoying and argumentative people on earth."

File: 1756869634524409.jpg (40 KB, 512x357)

40 KB JPG

>>18747155
>are agnostics really just cowardly atheists?
Theists and their analog, atheists, are cowardly agnostics.

Neither knows, but they both pretend to know. God, in it's infinite mercy, allows both the cowardly and the courageous to advance, each at the speeds they're comfortable with.

Are Christians just weak Jews?

>>18752832
>Are Christians just weak Jews?
What is weakness in this context? Not sure about Christians, but Christ said he came to fulfill the law, not to destroy.

>>18752856
>Christ said he came to fulfill the law

He failed spectacularly

>>18752858
>He failed spectacularly
He said to love God with all your heart and mind and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself was the whole of the law and the prophets. Did he fail, or did we fail him (him being either Christ or God)?

>>18751953
>So you know God’s will and who He will condemn?
Yes.
>Seems heretical to me.
Because you have a worthless critical faculty.

>>18752864
That was just him copying Hillel the Elder

>>18752886
>That was just him copying Hillel the Elder
A wise fella. All the prophets' messages converge in the end. Christian and non-Christian.

>>18752832
Yes but jews are just weak canaanites

>>18747155
No but a bunch of atheists say they are agnostics to avoid having to debate with retards who want to convert them on the spot