Search results

What about the gods that haven't been proposed?

Says who? It has much more in common with traditional Agnosticism. Some consider it entirely distinct fron any other philosophy. This isn't like dealing with rigid laws of physics. Theology and Philosophy are open enough that people can and will create their own philosophies.

I reject your claim that I'm an Atheist under the rule of A-Atheism. I am without Atheism. Ignosticism FTW.

Or you can simply hold possibilities. The logic and perception of manind is obviously flawed and hindered.

Plenty of room for middle ground. To say there's only "either, or" is just black-and-white thinking. People need to see more of the gray.

Exactly.

Take credit for being Agnostic? I don't really understand what you mean here.

Here's my point: there is a position, called the Agnostic position, where one's answer can simply be "I Don't Know" without actually rejecting the claim of god's existence. Agnostics consider all possibilities, without making any assumptions. I've been told "you can't be neutral" before, but my...

Atheism means "without god" or "to deny the gods". To say "without Theism" is only translating the word halfway, and would technically include Deism. Which is obviously ridiculous.

LoL it is kind of interesting how there are different forms of "nonbelief". Like Sam Harris said "We don't identify ourselves as non-alchemists or non-astrologers". It's as if being a nonbeliever suddenly became a religion in itself with varying denominations of its own. I know that part of...

Much of our known science is open to philosophical interpretations, especially when dealing with vague and abstract concepts like the true nature of reality. Discoveries in quantum mechanics have actually made some physicists kill themselves over the implications.

I think Agnosticism is the default position, because there's a fundamental lack of knowedge to begin with. "New Atheism" tries to include Agnosticism under its banner with the modern definition of "lack of belief", but this is a very new interpretation of Atheism, and an extremely broad one at that.

You can always claim to know something, but whether or not that claim is justified is a different story. So the nature of what's considered to be "spiritual" can't be based in science? I would say it's a metaphysical question. Agreed.

There are definitely scientific facts that we can be so "reasonably certain" of that it becomes accepted as "knowledge". There is of course, always that chance that our entire perception is flawed and everything we think we know is a distortion of what reality actually is. What's the...

Isn't our understanding of Science predicated on the view that nothing can be known with absolute certainty? As I said, Agnosticism is primarily intended for knowledge of the spiritual nature. Although there are still other areas of study where it seems perfectly rational to state that one...

So many Straw Mans, I don't know where to begin... I'm willing to examine evidence that might verify a claim. If you think you have some, then go ahead and present it. My worldview is not materialism. I've stated before that I'm open to the idea of higher realities, or whatever may exist. If...

Been there, done that. I spent the majority of my life believing that these ideas were real, without questioning it. Now I'm just looking for evidence to verify ANY spiritual claim, and questioning, yet I'm the one who's being close-minded?:confused: I would also say that being Ignostic is a...

I still don't see why the Biblical god is the "absolute truth", or how it's a fallacy to question the nature of "god". I'm sure you'll give me some good old-fashioned circular logic though. As an Ignostic, I think finding a verifiable definition for "god" is the most important aspect to focus...

Anyone can be Agnostic towards anything. I don't think the term is used often enough in all honesty. It is meant to refer to "spiritual knowledge" though. So if someone admits they only have "reasonable certainty", how is that any different from being in an Agnostic position?

The difference is that Leprechauns have a definition and description that's generally agreed upon. At the very least, we can say that we haven't identified what appears to be a Leprechaun in reality. With the god concept we're stuck at trying to form a definition. Absolute knowledge is only...