Wrong. Atheists believe they have absolute understanding of the fact - #104648980 added by Sethorein at my belief

Reply+3

(10/25/2013)[-]

So I see a number of comments bashing agnostics, but I don't really see why. There is no evidence one way or the other. If you think you have evidence for one side, please, feel free to share it.

#275 to #155 - kanadetenshi

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

Agnosticism does not concern belief, it concerns knowledge.

Knowing god exists and believing are two different concepts. You can't just be agnostic you either believe in god or you don't. Atheism nor theism is the certainty that god exists.

#281 to #275 - thedudeistheman

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

No, you don't have to give in to some dumb ultimatum. It's very possible to be just agnostic.

Also, from previous conversations, atheism is the certainty that there is no god/gods, and theism is the certainty that god does/gods do exist.

#210 to #155 - Sethorein#356 on commentsRank#356

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

the reason agnostics get beat on is because they're a cop out. You're essentially atheist but you don't wanna risk damnation by outrightly stating it. If you believe in God then do his ****. If you don't then don't.

#242 to #210 - thedudeistheman

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

I don't really agree with you there. Atheists don't believe in a god because they say there's no evidence. Theists believe in god because they say there's plenty of evidence (yeah, that's a dumb way to put it, but it's late and I can't think of a better way). Both parties claim to have absolute knowledge of the matter, when absolute knowledge isn't available.

#250 to #242 - Sethorein#356 on commentsRank#356

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

Wrong. Atheists believe they have absolute understanding of the fact that there is no proof of God's existence. Since the burden of proof remains unsatisfied God is not a verified concept.

Theists believe the bible satisfies the burden of proof.

Do you believe the bible satisfies the burden of proof?

#253 to #250 - thedudeistheman

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

I don't see how what I said was wrong, but I'll go with the flow.

I prefer not to talk about my religious beliefs, or lack thereof. I just don't like how agnostics get bashed on because they're supposedly, as you put it, a "cop out."

#255 to #253 - Sethorein#356 on commentsRank#356

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

what you just did right there. That's a cop out. You saw somewhere where you needed to have a divisive opinion and you chose to not have an opinion.

the burden of proof is something that can be determined whether or not you think it can be.

#256 to #255 - thedudeistheman

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

No, I didn't choose not to have an opinion. I'm very set in what I believe. I choose not to talk about it. Just because I don't talk about it doesn't mean I don't have an opinion.

#257 to #256 - Sethorein#356 on commentsRank#356

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

so you do have a divisive opinion you're just too scared to wear it openly. Still a cop out.

#258 to #257 - thedudeistheman

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

Yes, the exact words out of my fingers. You're a very good reader.

I don't tell people because this sort of information tends to alienate people.

#259 to #258 - Sethorein#356 on commentsRank#356

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

And yet all you do is make everyone else who does have an opinion think you're copping out. If you have an opinion express it. Don't be disingenuous by claiming to be agnostic just because you're afraid of people disliking you. Plenty will dislike you for being agnostic too so just have your opinion instead of getting caught up trying to keep everyone comfortable around you. There are 7 billion of us, you can still have plenty of friends who share your opinion and anyone who is "alienated" by you simply having a different opinion from them is a ****** person anyway.

#260 to #259 - thedudeistheman

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

I never said I was agnostic.

You only think I'm copping out based on assumptions you have no evidence to back up. Anyone else who thinks I'm copping out most likely is making similar assumptions.

#261 to #260 - Sethorein#356 on commentsRank#356

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

inference is easy in a casual setting. Pardon me for inferring that a person who is doing his darndest to defend agnosticism and condemn atheists and deists for claiming that they know answers to something he initially claimed could not be proven was indeed an agnostic.

#262 to #261 - thedudeistheman

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

Yes, I'm defending agnostics, but I've never bashed on atheists or theists. All I said was that there's no absolute knowledge one way or the other. And yes, I can say that and still believe something that would contradict that. There have been plenty of religious scientists, when science often goes against what religious texts say, but they're able to accept what science gives them and choose to believe in a higher power.

#264 to #262 - Sethorein#356 on commentsRank#356

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

Wouldn't you consider it hypocritical to defend agnosticism as the right point of view to have then proceed to not have that point of view...

#265 to #264 - thedudeistheman

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

It's not necessarily the right point of view. From as close as I can get to an objective viewpoint, that's what I'm gathering.

Even if it was hypocritical, people have the right to varying degrees and types of religion, or lack of religion. I was merely standing up for a group I saw getting unreasonably harsh detractors.

#266 to #265 - Sethorein#356 on commentsRank#356

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

what scale determines the reasonability of detraction? If you have an unpopular view you're gonna get dumped on... that's life.

#267 to #266 - thedudeistheman

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

I get that, but I don't think it's fair that you get to get to bash on someone for having a different opinion. I know it's not exactly the nature of anonymous people on the Internet, but it wouldn't kill some of these people to go about disagreeing someone in a more kind way.

#160 to #155 - noblexfenrir

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

Atheism doesn't require evidence because it isn't making a claim, it is simply refuting the truth of the one theists make.

Agnostic also has absolutely nothing to do with belief, you're either a theist or an atheist.

But fine, evidence for atheism? Theists haven't met their burden of proof.

#165 to #160 - thedudeistheman

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

So Atheism doesn't claim there is no God or god-like beings?

Agnosticism is the lack of belief one way or the other.

#167 to #165 - noblexfenrir

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

"So Atheism doesn't claim there is no God or god-like beings? "
Nope, it simply is saying I do not believe in a god/gods due to lack of evidence. It doesn't make the claim they don't exist, simply that the evidence for the claim of them existing is insufficient.

"Agnosticism is the lack of belief one way or the other."
No, agnosticism is the claim of not having absolute knowledge (where as gnostic would be claiming absolute knowledge.). I am an agnostic, but I am also an atheist.

#185 to #167 - thedudeistheman

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

Thank you for the clarification. I don't like having wrong information.