Stand your ground and leave harmless people be ... confront the enemy actively harming society and individuals.... be the solution not the PROBLEM

The question seems to be: Should we continue to argue or is there a point at which we say, enough is enough? About what? Religion? Agnosticism? For me all of this arguing (philosophizing) about religion is waste of time. Before asking about gods, I would like to know where heaven is. Heaven, that supernatural realm where anything is possible, is but human imagination. So, that is the point, I think, that ends any need to argue about the divine. GROG

I think this is a particularly insightful question, that isn't asked often enough, and hardly ever answered well. I do think there is a place to make a stand. But getting to that place can be a bit of a journey.

Hovering in mid air can be exhausting. Sometimes we might want to just throw a dart and pick a side so we can rest. But I don't find that method very satisfying, or affording any kind of real net benefit.

The defense of agnosticism I hear most often is that we can't prove a negative. Or more precisely, we can't prove God doesn't exist. While that may be true, it seems like a red herring to me. There are untold gazillions of things that we can't prove the non-existence of that we, nevertheless, don't miss any sleep over. Russell's Teapot takes care of this problem adequately for me. I have no obligation to believe something for which there has been no evidence shown.

But of course that doesn't solve the entire problem. There is always "But what IF...?" Now Pascal tempts us with his wager. With matters so grave, better safe than sorry.

But I'm betting Pascal bet wrong. Here's why.

For one, a life lived insincerely just in case is not without costs, both material and psychological. There needs to be better justification for those costs than just in case. We could easily "just in case" our lives away.

And secondly, and maybe more importantly, such fears can be adequately put to rest by coming to understand their genesis. And, conveniently, this all falls in the category of questions for which we DO have some answers. This is where the aforementioned "journey" begins.

Our own psychological nature is a funny beast. It can try to prevent us from looking at it. Maybe one of the most terrifying challenges we can face is scrutinizing our own scrutinizer. This may be a place for baby steps.

But with persistence, and with a modicum of courage, we can come to understand quite a lot about the deep evolutionary and cultural forces that forged our psyches and planted our expectation of gods. Education is the universal antidote to fear.

One thing that evolution theory teaches us, for example, is that we don't really have any evolutionary need to know anything at all about "ultimate reality." We have evolved needs for finding food, shelter, mates, and so on, but worrying about existential abstractions is only an unfortunate side effect of having evolved such a large brain for other purposes such as managing complex language skills, solving the logistics of social coordination, and toolmaking.

Sure, it can be a tantalizing curiosity, and it's not useless to pursue knowledge for knowledge's sake, but there is no pressing practical need to know whether a literal God exists other than to alleviate a gnawing discomfort that we manufactured for ourselves out of thin air. And that discomfort is easily washed away by the light of knowledge which our species already possesses. All we have to do is locate it and add it to our understanding.

When these two tasks are completed - acknowledging the wisdom of Russell's Teapot, and replacing Pascal's fearful wager with genuine self-knowledge - there are no remaining excuses for continuing to hold the door open for agnosticism. If future evidence comes knocking, the door can always be reopened.

It's really not about being right or being wrong. It's about making a life that's livable, and having genuine peace of mind in the here and now, instead of spending this real life waiting for an imaginary one that never comes, or hovering forever in uncertainty. Agnosticism may be logically "correct" but it is of no practical value.

All that said, I don't consider myself an atheist... any more than an agnostic or a theist, because no flavor of religious literalism makes any sense to me. Religious figuratism, on the other hand, makes all the scientific, psychological, historical, and practical sense I'll ever need. But that's another, even more long-winded, story. Thanks for listening to this one.

Simple I do not care!!!

Assuming that philosophical doubt is fueled by the search for certainty that is entirely for you to decide how far you want to take it. However, I would not waste my time trying to prove that the bogeyman, leprechauns or any other fabled creature exists or existed.

It is so much in the nature of the imagination and language that it allows us to talk about things that do not exist. The mere fact that many people believe in something and talk about it does not constitute proof of its existence and that applies to all beliefs.

I won´t vote because the agnostic point is "if there is no way to solve the question, why are you bothering with the question?"

Basically, for the sake of proof, there is no way to proof any non falsifiable claim, so any non-falsifiable claim holds the same weight that is zero, because you can imagine virtually infinite of those claims.

So go on with your life, if a claim is not falsifiable, don´t bother

There will never be nothing left to question.

For starters, you cannot prove a negative..........so how can you get to "nothing"?

I didn't vote. What am I questioning?If it is the idea of whether to believe in gods or not, I go by logic and evidence. God belief has proven itself to have zero evidence. In case I am classified as "an angry atheist" I fully agree. My weapon of choice is a keyboard.

I'll keep questioning in my mind but I don't need to articulate my beliefs unless asked. Answer with a question "What do you want me to say?" I don't wish to argue these points with theists. When people preach to me, I treat them like telemarketers. "Sorry I'm not interested" Chalk me up as a Gnostic Apatheistis Atheist.

How are yes/no options in an "or" question?

I see no reason to accept the validity of any claim unless there is proof (i.e. in mathematics) or an almost overwhelming weight of evidence (e.g. as in the natural world).

As was instilled into me from my childhood, " If you never ask questions you WILL NEVER learn anything."

Add one additional option to make it complete: "Who gives a fuck?"

I remember my little brother was convinced the wind was blowing because the trees kept waving back and forth making it windy.
Imagine never questioning your first impressions, or your last.

I found out I really do exist. I have heard of Harry Potter style God but I does sound like a fictional story to me. I do not go around questioning per say about the existance of Harry Potter style God but if I ever see one then I know one does exist .

Otherwise, I may die never knowing if a Harry Potter style God exist.

Doubt? Why believe in the first place without proof?

Have believers of whatever nonsense that they are pushing prove their unsubstantiated claims.

I personally need to question and find answers, settling only at objectionable truths.

I strive to live an evidence based life supported by facts and data. When a claim is made with absolutely no evidence to support it, I disregard it completely until said evidence is presented.