Why is it considered so unreasonable to be Agnostic?

[Jack]

Hoping that's not you misunderstanding me; am agnostic but still willing to admit agnosticism is kind of stupid, fence sitting, however annoying to the 'believers'. To neither believe nor disbelieve; know it illogical but still claim to do it. Would much rather simply claim to be an apatheist, but knowing either way would be something I would care, so that claim wouldn't be true.

[RageBeoulve]

Hoping that's not you misunderstanding me; am agnostic but still willing to admit agnosticism is kind of stupid, fence sitting, however annoying to the 'believers'. To neither believe nor disbelieve; know it illogical but still claim to do it. Would much rather simply claim to be an apatheist, but knowing either way would be something I would care, so that claim wouldn't be true.

Well I don't really think there is a god, but i'm not willing to say that I believe this, because its not a fact. If something cannot be proven, its speculation. Stating bullshit as fact, is a lie.

So to me, these theists or atheists stating that they believe with the whole of their being one way or another, arguing and speculating about thousands of years of speculating is VERY stupid looking to me. A bunch of liars lying to each other over and over again, forever. Point at them. Point at them and laugh. They believe in speculation, and to me that's wishy washy.

[Scrapheap]

Lol I don't see the difference. A god is a god is a god.

And that, young Skywalker, is why you fail.



All theistic gods claim magical abilities that violate the laws of the known universe. Therefore if we don't observe the laws of the universe being monkeyed with, we can discount those claims. The claim of Deists, is simply a universe creator that always operates within the bounds of physics. We never observe the laws of pysics being violated, therefore the claim of Deists in unfalsifiable.

[RageBeoulve]

Lol I don't see the difference. A god is a god is a god.

And that, young Skywalker, is why you fail.



All theistic gods claim magical abilities that violate the laws of the known universe. Therefore if we don't observe the laws of the universe being monkeyed with, we can discount those claims. The claim of Deists, is simply a universe creator that always operates within the bounds of physics. We never observe the laws of pysics being violated, therefore the claim of Deists in unfalsifiable.

Deists still believe a magical thingy used some magic to spark a magical big bang.

Latest in string theory is that the universe is like a soccer ball shaped bubble, and all matter and antimatter in the bubble is just an explosion. (simplified)

So deists believe this is possible because some creature farted or something? I don't get it. This shit just "happened" until we find out what caused it. Theres no proof at all that something is responsible for it or isn't. NONE. Until you discover something, its a completely irrelevant unknown.

[ZEGH8578]

Rage, to me there are two sides to this

Inwardly, I like to know. I like to sortof make my mind up: Could there be a god or a power or something, to me, in my mind, in my own personal secret? I decide what I know. I weigh the options, and settle on what I consider most likely.

So, if you argue about what I know, for me, then I will be quite stubborn. I know what I know.

If we, however, talk more "outwardly", we discuss life and philosophy in general, I'm not gonna go out of my way to crash what you believe to be true, and I always try to remember that agnostics, or even moderate religious folk are a 'good compromise', to put it that way.

But for me, privately, I do insist/pretend to know my own truth.

[RageBeoulve]

So its normal to state speculation as fact then? I don't like that.

[RageBeoulve]

Until the answer to a question is solved, the answer is "I DON'T KNOW". Right? I mean that's the only way things make any sense at all.

2x+4=10

Without solving and finding x to be x=3, the answer to what is the value of x is "I don't know". After finding that x=3, the answer is x=3.

Wtf is wrong with that undeniable logic, dammit?

[ZEGH8578]

Rage, put it like this:

When talking to others, I need to back facts up before stating them as facts.

When talking to myself, I don't need to. I rely on my memory, my own experiences, what I have seen and learned about life.

If we were discussing theology, I would have to back up.
If we discussed what I felt to be true, I would need to back nothing up.

[RageBeoulve]

Ahh so bullshit is fine for people's "feels".

[Scrapheap]

Deists still believe a magical thingy used some magic to spark a magical big bang.

No they do not.

The god of the Deists could very well be an alien super scientist from another dimension.

Since deists make no claim other than a universe creator, no supernatural magic needs to be invoked.

[Jack]

So its normal to state speculation as fact then? I don't like that.

For some. Is it necessary for people to say, 'I think' or 'in my opinion', when expressing every unquantifiable thought?

[ZEGH8578]

Ahh so bullshit is fine for people's "feels".

Sometimes, depends on the situation.

The other day I was being extremely stubborn, because the debate begun to veer into what I know, it came into the realm of "but you cannot possibly know".
It depends on situation, statement and weight.

I can get very unforgiving if someone tries to use misunderstood science to back spiritualism up.
That is the danger of being so informed, is that there are fewer and fewer compromises to do - for the sake of keeping the peace, when theistic discussion is up.
I have an explanation even as to why peoples brains came up with spiritualist notions in the first place, so I'm gonna be impossible to convince that a biproduct of this reaction has any foundation in reality:
1) A biological error makes us make up "gods"
2) Knowing 1) I am supposed to believe a particular one of these gods is real, despite all. <--- this makes me difficult to debate theology with

Agnostics are a better alternative, cus compromises are reached more easily.

[RageBeoulve]

Ahh so bullshit is fine for people's "feels".

Sometimes, depends on the situation.

The other day I was being extremely stubborn, because the debate begun to veer into what I know, it came into the realm of "but you cannot possibly know".
It depends on situation, statement and weight.

I can get very unforgiving if someone tries to use misunderstood science to back spiritualism up.
That is the danger of being so informed, is that there are fewer and fewer compromises to do - for the sake of keeping the peace, when theistic discussion is up.
I have an explanation even as to why peoples brains came up with spiritualist notions in the first place, so I'm gonna be impossible to convince that a biproduct of this reaction has any foundation in reality:
1) A biological error makes us make up "gods"
2) Knowing 1) I am supposed to believe a particular one of these gods is real, despite all. <--- this makes me difficult to debate theology with

Agnostics are a better alternative, cus compromises are reached more easily.

Indeed. I like my "dude I don't fucking know till I find out" way of looking at it. Yours is pretty complicated, Zegh. 

Anyway, the reason this amuses me can be explained like this. Imagine its the first time you checked out the "ancient aliens" series, and you hear all these neato theories and shit, and its entertaining you. All of the sudden the screen cuts to Giorgio, and he presents some bullshit piece of evidence like some cave paintings that look like humans, then he claims they're aliens, and makes that smug face like he's privy to some huge secret nobody else knows about, and he's some kind of a brilliant scientist. Doesn't that make you either laugh heartily, or feel like knocking his head off, depending on your mood?

[RageBeoulve]

So its normal to state speculation as fact then? I don't like that.

For some. Is it necessary for people to say, 'I think' or 'in my opinion', when expressing every unquantifiable thought?

Yep. When talking about science it is.

Deists still believe a magical thingy used some magic to spark a magical big bang.

No they do not.

The god of the Deists could very well be an alien super scientist from another dimension.

Since deists make no claim other than a universe creator, no supernatural magic needs to be invoked.

could very well be

That's right. It COULD. I think you get what I mean, dude.

[Jack]

Yep. When talking about science it is.

This thread is a discussion of theology, not science.