Why agnosticism isn't a rational position

Okay, george, What is the difference between the non-human construct of god and superman?

0 Replies

Regarding belief in the existence of Zeus: there is no unambiguous evidence (homage to Frank) for or against his existence, but that does not warrant agnosticism regarding his existence. Since I have not an iota of doubt in my disbelief in Zeus, I am a Greek atheist.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Great , my thread got hijacked into yet another dreary conversation about the presumed nature of an imaginary person.
Wonderful

Well, don't blame me. It was real life's fault. No, MA's.

ER, maybe the devil made us do it. Twisted Evil

At any rate, all I really wanted to do was watch you beat up on Frank.

So, I'm sorry to have interjected any thoughts regardless of how true they may have been. :wink:

So, carry on whilst I bite my tongue. Smile

0 Replies

I'm a Japanese atheist. Wink

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

There may well be a god creator, and he may well be accurately described by one or several of the various theologies or belief systems. However if he exists, his existence is independent of these human constructs. Hence my distinction.

I guess some folks here were put off by the phrase 'human constructs' in the above paragraph. Perhaps I should have phrased it differenly. My point was that if there is a god creator he may or may not conform to any of the relicious or theological concepts put forward over human history. His existencs, in such a case, preceeds that of humanity and our theologies as well. The proposition that started this thread pointed to the difficulty in choosing among the (sometimes) contending theologies, and used that as an argument for atheism. That, of course, is a fallacy - and that was my point.

0 Replies

Hi Georgeob1,

The argument for atheism does not really come from "the difficulty in choosing among the (sometimes) contending theologies". Don't worry about the dog and pony show, it's all part the circus!

0 Replies

I'm beginning to think that talking about the rationality of agnosticism is not very rational. It's just a position one takes because it feels right. The same with theism and atheism.

0 Replies

JLN, Don't give up the ship just yet. However, I'm surprised at your surrender concerning your stance of atheism.

0 Replies

Remember, C.I., I've always stated that I am atheistic only because the alternatives make no sense. I do not believe in a No-God and worship Him (as did Madeline Ohare sp?). my atheism, therefore, is a non-position; agnosticism is a compromise position regarding an absurdity. I do not feel right compromising about absurdities.

0 Replies

I'm in the same boat, so we have a team of two - rowing our hearts out! LOL

0 Replies

I generally agree. One can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator. In that light, one could perhaps argue that agnosticism is the only rational position.

However, I find it a most uunsatisfactory position, mostly because I perceive an element in human consciousness (and my own) that goes beyond the merely physical. In addition, on a purely rational basis, I see the blind leap to 'no god' as a far greater jump than that required to god.

0 Replies

george, Believe me or not, I know exactly what you are saying. This is one human dilemma that has no easy answer. I know that all my siblings and most of my friends are christians and believe in a god. For them, it's not a matter of a god or no god; they have commited their lives to their savior. Most cultures in this world believe in religion; a common human trait that is hard to ignore.

We can discuss the rationale for all the different beliefs as it pertains to a god, but none will be forthcoming as a general agreement.

I've been the black sheep and maverick of our family since childhood. I guess being a rabble-rouser has always been in my blood.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
Great , my thread got hijacked into yet another dreary conversation about the presumed nature of an imaginary person.
Wonderful
Well, don't blame me. It was real life's fault. No, MA's.

ER, maybe the devil made us do it.

At any rate, all I really wanted to do was watch you beat up on Frank.

So, I'm sorry to have interjected any thoughts regardless of how true they may have been. :wink:

So, carry on whilst I bite my tongue.

Wonder why my name was first to come to mind when someone was needed to blame? Laughing

Thanks Neo. I'll remember you too.

Actually, DS apparently thinks any mention of atheism or theism is out of place in this topic, but that seems rather odd. How can you debate the merits of Agnosticism without comparing it to the alternatives?

I guess since DS has defined himself as god, then any mention of another makes him kinda uneasy. Rather insecure god, he seems to be. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I've been the black sheep and maverick of our family since childhood. I guess being a rabble-rouser has always been in my blood.

Why does this not surprise me?

You can be a cranky devil as well Cicerone, but you have spirit and are a good guy.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Remember, C.I., I've always stated that I am atheistic only because the alternatives make no sense. I do not believe in a No-God and worship Him (as did Madeline Ohare sp?). my atheism, therefore, is a non-position; agnosticism is a compromise position regarding an absurdity. I do not feel right compromising about absurdities.

My sentiments exactly
at-theism is just that...the lack of theism, the lack of a belief, a position, on/in deities.
A die hard belief in 'no-god' may be compatible with atheism as I see it, but the two are hardly mutually exclusive.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
Remember, C.I., I've always stated that I am atheistic only because the alternatives make no sense. I do not believe in a No-God and worship Him (as did Madeline Ohare sp?). my atheism, therefore, is a non-position; agnosticism is a compromise position regarding an absurdity. I do not feel right compromising about absurdities.

My sentiments exactly
at-theism is just that...the lack of theism, the lack of a belief, a position, on/in deities.
A die hard belief in 'no-god' may be compatible with atheism as I see it, but the two are hardly mutually exclusive.

This post states it so well, I have no need to add further comment.

0 Replies

What's apatheism, then?

0 Replies

"Agnostic means;"not knowing if there is a god", (by todays common definition anyway), and being that "god" is just one guess, agnosticism is nearly as irational as the theism itself."

this doesnt follow. The state of not knowing is refraining from making a guess. Agnosticism is not irrational guesswork but the only logical position given the circumstances.

Atheism is irrational, if only because it assumes perfect knowledge that God does not exist, and to have perfect knowledge, one is God. Therefore God exists. QED.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I generally agree. One can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator. In that light, one could perhaps argue that agnosticism is the only rational position.

Frank will love ya for that. Leaving aside a propensity to assail others with scurrilous and invidious characterizations, he holds that agnosticism is the morally superior position.

Quote:

However, I find it a most uunsatisfactory position, mostly because I perceive an element in human consciousness (and my own) that goes beyond the merely physical.

It is refreshing, though, to see that you acknowledge being inhuman, even if only inferentially. The human desire to concieve of the supernatural is concommittant with the human desire to avoid acknowledging unpleasant realities while indulging a compulsion to wish for reality to change to suit one's desires.

Quote:

In addition, on a purely rational basis, I see the blind leap to 'no god' as a far greater jump than that required to god.

How very silly--if not actually idiotic. The one alleged "leap" is no leap at all--it is simply a matter of adhering to William of Occam's injunction not to multiply causes. The latter "leap," however, entails imagining an entire host of fairy tales. No wonder the Jesuits also seem either falsely cynical or pathologically neurotic.

0 Replies

Why agnosticism isn't a rational position

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know