Agnostic vs Atheist
Sorry to rake up this seemingly old one up again but there have been so many posts on this that one more won't do much harm.
Until I joined this site it was not a question that bothered me much. I don't believe in god and that's that. However, there are some points that have been brought up on the agnostic side of the debate that I take umbrage with.
1, You cannot know for sure
2, You cannot prove a negative
I deal with both of these with the "Where are the scissors Darling?" argument. We have all been there and it goes,
"They are in the draw"
"No, they are not, I've looked, twice"
The scene will continue till either the 2nd party coincides by looking in the draw or the 1st pulls out the draw and shows them. But both will know 100% that the draw is scissor-less (or not).
There are lots of other cases where a negative can be proven. Litmus paper can prove the absence of acid. Gieger counters radiation and a cheap mains testers' electrical current, to name a few.
Agnostics claim it's a Schrodinger's cat situation. But in practice, even that is provable. We could use x-rays, thermal imaging or even just listen to hear if the cat is alive or dead.
Okay but a diety is different. It has no mass or energy and cannot be subjected to the same tests. To this, I say that there used to be thought that there was a substance called the ether. It was what light was believed to travel in space though before we knew that light had a very tiny amount of mass. After that, the ether was dispensed to the realms of scientific history. No longer needed on voyage as it does not do anything, is not detectable, and if we never thought of it in the first place then we would not be talking about it now. Does that sound familiar? In other words, agnostics argue on behalf of the possibility of an intangible pair of scissors in the draw. I for one would not run with that.
Now there is another reason for this post and it goes to motive. Why leave the door open? Even if it is only a chink? Like a spurned lover, do you cling to a straw? Readers will recall the character in the movie "Dogma". Who when told by the hot chick that he has no chance, badgers her to admit that if the universe were about to end then she would have sex with him. Is that the real reason that agnosticism? That when you die there might be an afterlife after all? Why else would you give it any thought at all?
I am perfectly happy to be a staunch atheist who knows that there is no divine authority as alluded to by all sorts of religions.
Religious people are true agnostics because they just believe rather than know.
Define a god and its conditions of existence/non-existence and we'll go from there. Most claims of gods or godly beings are so objectively and patently ridiculous that they can be dismissed outright, as they are presented not only without evidence but without substance, i.e. entirely untestable/undectectable.
The idea of a g-d is just ridiculous.
How could he/she not threatened to pull the car off the road if we kids didn't shut the fu-k up and get along?
"I will SHUT this ENTIRE water park day DOWN!"
"Do NOT TRY ME!"
"Give your brother a juice box, Jimmie. He's looking gray around the eyes."
Why did you write g-d and not god. Worried about divine retribution
Just a habit I picked up fairly young. I do also sometimes go with god.
I'm an atheist. It means without a god. I don't call myself an agnostic because it often implies uncertainty. Could the Universe be part of a super particle? Sure. But it's not worthy of considering given that the reason to think that there is comes from anything worthy to pursue it.
I don't have a worthy reason to believe that God exists anymore than the super particle. Agnosticism would mean there is a super particle.
With regard to the scissors if it was a ‘boy’ look they probably are in the drawer!
Lol. Can't count the times a kid insisted they weren't in the drawer when they were sitting there in the drawer in plain sight.
Possibilianism is something I subscribe to overall. Possibilianism is a philosophy which rejects both the diverse claims of traditional theism and the positions of certainty in strong atheism in favor of a middle, exploratory ground.
To quote who came up with the term "Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position — one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."
I apply this not only to religion but everything. Evidence for/against, hell we think we have little left to prove and discover but a picture of a black hole and scientists making vaccines much more expensive, scientists who got past our fear of resistant bacteria by creating, from horoscopes to stardust theory, this disproves things like healing crystals but explores as a species are learning how to use placebo and better understand the effect. Dieties are extremely improbable and forms of atheism have been around as long as religion. Evolution is prov
I think a lot of agnostic people aren't comfortable with either idea. The more I learn the more 'atheist' I become but also the more full of wonder I become. An issue I have is people stay surface level and stops at the first step of no god.
The text that claim a deity can defy the laws of nature and physics should be enough to end the debate if such absurdity existed. Sex is a glandular thing and physical concepts, thought and contemplation of such things could never be compared.
There is a similarity in agnostic and sex, desire. It can only be the desire to have a chance of a big sky somewhere that would want to keep the embers alight.