Why is it considered so unreasonable to be Agnostic?

[RageBeoulve]

For real yo. Both atheists and theists always begin foaming at the mouth whenever someone takes the agnostic stance in an argument, which is basically like saying "I don't know, and you probably don't either". Whats so terrible about admitting that you don't know if there is a creator? To me it seems the most reasonable current stance to take.

Check it out. We basically know next to nothing about the universe and how it really works. Every time we think we are on the verge of a big answer, that answer just turns out to be a whole bunch of new fucking questions. Considering how little the human race really knows about the universe it exists in, it would seem to be extremely close minded and unreasonable(lol) to state that without a doubt, one confirms or denies the existence of a supreme being.

I say to you, people who are so sure of yourselves. Wtf is the thinking there? Where is the proof either way? Thats like a toddler stating with absolute confidence that they completely understand what it means to be an adult, and whats more they know all about the trials of being a parent and a productive member of society.

Really, guys? Get over yourself and try to be a bit more openminded. You don't really know, and you might never know. Is that so hard to admit?

["couldbecousin"]

  *waves agnostically at Rage* 

[RageBeoulve]

The weeble knows the real deal. Honesty is best, right Cbc?

["couldbecousin"]

  Well, if I don't know, I don't know, that's why I say I am agnostic.  But I don't care what others believe.   

[RageBeoulve]

  Well, if I don't know, I don't know, that's why I say I am agnostic.  But I don't care what others believe.   

I wouldn't really care either if it didn't become a problem just about every time I tried to have a discussion with someone about "life, the universe, and everything". You know, one of those conversations where two people bounce ideas off each other and are supposed to learn some things and walk away from it enriched and slightly more mature?

Almost never happens, and it usually boils down to EGO.

[Al Swearegen]

  Well, if I don't know, I don't know, that's why I say I am agnostic.  But I don't care what others believe.   

I wouldn't really care either if it didn't become a problem just about every time I tried to have a discussion with someone about "life, the universe, and everything". You know, one of those conversations where two people bounce ideas off each other and are supposed to learn some things and walk away from it enriched and slightly more mature?

Almost never happens, and it usually boils down to EGO.

A lot of people who call themselves Atheists do only because they think that saying Agnostic will make them sound wishy-washy. A lot of people like myself will not say i know for sure there is no god but only in the same way as i do not believe there are invisible faeries. Either is not a position that I credit or affects my life in any meaningful way

[RageBeoulve]

  Well, if I don't know, I don't know, that's why I say I am agnostic.  But I don't care what others believe.   

I wouldn't really care either if it didn't become a problem just about every time I tried to have a discussion with someone about "life, the universe, and everything". You know, one of those conversations where two people bounce ideas off each other and are supposed to learn some things and walk away from it enriched and slightly more mature?

Almost never happens, and it usually boils down to EGO.

A lot of people who call themselves Atheists do only because they think that saying Agnostic will make them sound wishy-washy. A lot of people like myself will not say i know for sure there is no god but only in the same way as i do not believe there are invisible faeries. Either is not a position that I credit or affects my life in any meaningful way

will make them sound wishy-washy

Exactly. "I don't want to sound like i'm <whatever>, so I will say something different than how I actually see things(evidence points to<whatever>"

Exactly, Al. Its all about the ego. Logically, there is not enough evidence to support either claim. Lets do the same thing with math.

X+Y=E

What is the numerical value of E?

Atheist: Oh its obviously 23. Everyone knows that jeez! *smugfaggotry*

Theist: Its god. *clasps hands in prayer* THANK YOU JEEZUS

Agnostic: ROFL I dunno dude. I need at least one numerical integer.

Atheist and theist: Omg you fag you are so wishy washy "I dunno" You sound like such a doofus lololol

Agnostic:  Whatever.

[Al Swearegen]

I do not promote my Atheism. I do find religion interesting and I will often be upfront in saying this is what I believe and go on from there. The only time i really judge anyone is if they are either trying to show their beliefs as somehow better or they are forcing their shit on me.
You can have really interesting conversations and learn if all parties are cool with just asking and answering questions instead of trying to prove things. If the position is taken that both parties belief this and will not change.

[TheoK]

Occam's razor: scientifically it is more likely that there is no God than that there is one. But of course Occam's razor isn't always right. But I want to see proves that there is a God.

[lutra]

Don't consider myself an agnostic chap.. for I'm pretty certain that 'god' does not exist.. and ja, that man created god in his own image (back then.. in them moronic days.. full of superstition, fear and illnesses whereof they didn't have a clue what caused them).

A sceptic, I am.. (for sure )

[TheoK]

Don't considering myself an agnostic chap.. for I'm pretty certain that 'god' does not exist.. and ja, that man created god in his own image (back then.. in them moronic days.. full of superstition, fear and illnesses whereof they didn't have a clue what caused them).

A sceptic, I am.. (for sure )

Et ego 

[RageBeoulve]

I pretty much agree with you guys, personally. Religion is chock full of holes, and its incredibly easy to shoot down most arguments in favor of it.

My problem is that there is no absolute evidence confirming either stance. You can't actually prove the existence of a creator, and you can't disprove it. Theres no solid cut and dry evidence, so I personally don't claim that I know without a doubt if a god exists or not.

(This aside, there probably isn't a god.  )

[Peter]

(A)theism and (a)gnosticism aren't mutually exclusive labels; (A)theism is a matter of belief and (a)gnosticism is a matter of knowledge.  If you believe in a god, but it's a matter of faith rather than knowledge (you don't meet your god for Sunday golf, can't spot it with a telescope, find traces of it in the geological record or construct a mathematical proof of it's existence), you're an agnostic theist; you believe in a god, thus you're a theist, but you don't know that your god exists, thus you're agnostic (lacking knowledge).  If you believe in a god, and you know through personal experience that it exists (it talks back to you, you feel it's presence, the geological evidence for the biblical flood is overwhelming), then you're a gnostic theist. 

I'm an agnostic atheist (a.k.a weak atheist) about most gods, since I lack a belief in them but I don't know that they don't exist, and I'm a gnostic atheist (a.k.a strong atheist) about certain gods, like the Judeo-Christian god, since I lack a belief in it and I know that it doesn't exist, at least in the form that's been put forth by the mainstream, since it's contradictory (the whole 'omnipotent/omnipresent/omnibenevolent: pick two' problem, or the square circle problem).

[RageBeoulve]

(A)theism and (a)gnosticism aren't mutually exclusive labels; (A)theism is a matter of belief and (a)gnosticism is a matter of knowledge.  If you believe in a god, but it's a matter of faith rather than knowledge (you don't meet your god for Sunday golf, can't spot it with a telescope, find traces of it in the geological record or construct a mathematical proof of it's existence), you're an agnostic theist; you believe in a god, thus you're a theist, but you don't know that your god exists, thus you're agnostic (lacking knowledge).  If you believe in a god, and you know through personal experience that it exists (it talks back to you, you feel it's presence, the geological evidence for the biblical flood is overwhelming), then you're a gnostic theist. 

I'm an agnostic atheist (a.k.a weak atheist) about most gods, since I lack a belief in them but I don't know that they don't exist, and I'm a gnostic atheist (a.k.a strong atheist) about certain gods, like the Judeo-Christian god, since I lack a belief in it and I know that it doesn't exist, at least in the form that's been put forth by the mainstream, since it's contradictory (the whole 'omnipotent/omnipresent/omnibenevolent: pick two' problem, or the square circle problem).

agnostic atheist (a.k.a weak atheist)

[McGiver]

I cannot know if this discussion will get better, but I'd like to comment in it so that I may receive notifications.