Agnostic.com

10 2

I'm the bad man in the group I see being Agnostic as neither believing nor disbelieving there is/are aπŸ‘Ž God(s). To me both sides have failed to reject the null.

  • 11 votes
  • 14 votes
Biosteelman 7 May 16
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

10 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

For a lot of agnostics it's keeping ones options open, just in case........

2

Why would we reject null?

I'm with him on this.

1

There is no proof. Does it matter which side it is on?

0

I can be called agnostic or atheist. I can even be an agnostic atheist. This is because I do not believe but I cannot take it so far as to claim evidence and take on a burden of proof.

1

it is interesting to note that people are people no matter how they label themselves, nor does it really matter! how do you fool yourself?

mzee Level 7 May 16, 2018
2

What does "reject the null" mean? If null is "nothing," then rejecting it would be accepting the existent. So if both sides fail to reject the null, then they're both accepting the existent? Can you clarify what your last sentence means?

Atheist have an Statement "God does not exist" the null is that God isn't proven to not exist.
Theist have statement " God does exist" the null is it isn't proven God doesn't exist.

Both theories have failed to reject the null thereby aren't valid statements.
Thereby the only valid statement of an agnostic is that God is neither proven to exist nor is it proven God does exist.

@Biosteelman One can't (and doesn't have to) "prove" that something doesn't exist.

3

Schrodinger's agnostic.

lol brilliant

@LenHazell53 thank you ☺

3

A = without; gnosis = knowledge. Agnosticism regarding deities is a knowledge position, not a belief position. It is the notion that no supportable knowledge claim can be made for OR against the existence of god. In the limited sense that it's about a knowledge claim rather than a belief claim, it's "about neither believing or disbelieving" but I don't think that's a helpful way to conceptualize it, and misses the point of agnosticism.

Supernatural beings and realms cannot be known because they are un-falsifiable hypotheses, not because they are not believable Although it's also true that gods are not believable, that's a question that is answered by atheism, not agnosticism. Or more exactly, it's a question that's addressed with critical thinking and skepticism, with atheism as the result of that.

3

Null would be disbelief. There can't be an in between the two there. You can't sorta believe something, you either do or you don't.

Both hypothesis have a null. So yes there is an in between statement.

@Biosteelman and what would that be? What is in between believing in X and not believing in X?

@Katrik agnostic...lol

@Biosteelman um no, Gnosticism is a knowledge claim, not a belief one.

@Katrik people believe what they know. Agnostics don't claim to know if God exists or not.

@Biosteelman yes, but that also means they don’t believe

9

I did it for the points. Woohoo.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:82415
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.