Volker.Doormann

I think this assertion can only be of any true meaning, if they have knowledge obout. But because there is no prove of this Assertion, it is only a belief, that belief is more valid than logic.

Volker

ex-xian

I didn't make an Assertion. I presented an argument. If you have a different opinion, it is much more useful if you present an argument of you own, rather than make an assertion.

Volker.Doormann

I didn't make an Assertion. I presented an argument. If you have a different opinion, it is much more useful if you present an argument of you own, rather than make an assertion.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

If one says an argument, that shell be worth, then this argument must be related to an other accepted truth. If the argument is, that simultaneously is claimed that 'we' know that 'we' cannot know, then this is a contradictional argument. If Kant says we cannot know, than this claims that we can not say with reason: "we cannot know the objects in and of themselves." If we accept, that a contradictional argument as object is to be known as contradictional, then this means, that we accept, that we can know, and there is no argument of reason, that 'we' cannot know other objects themselves.

Volker

Seeker630

"I don't understand why most agnostics call themselves that. I mean its basically atheism with a little tag at the end: "but there COULD be something out there we dont know about".

I think this perception is due to misinformation about exactly what constitutes agnosticism and atheism. I am an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Atheism deals with belief. The two terms frequently overlap as in my case. I think most atheists are also agnostic. Agnosticism is not a middle ground of belief. Either you believe in the thing or you do not.

If you hold forth no positive belief in a deity, you are an atheist. That you may also be agnostic into the bargain merely explains WHY you are an atheist.

As far as why people identify themselves as agnostics; I suspect most of them have never researched what the term actually means. They have a generalized "fence-sitting" notion handed out by Christians or others as to what it means. In addition, your friend is correct up to a point--some people will call themselves agnostics because the word has a lot less of a social stigma attached to it historically than "atheist".

keyser_soze

emphasis mine, I think you might also consider that atheism and the disapproval of organized religions are not one and the same. Some object to organized religion on the basis of it's past actions, and the possibility of it's future actions. Even some who have faith feel this way, and are by no means atheists. I myself am agnostic, simply for the fact that I don't have access to all evidence in the matter, and cannot know with 100% certainty that a higher being CANNOT exist. Of course, based on common sense and basic reading skills, I am 99.99999% sure that the christian god doesn't exist, anymore than the greek gods do(I'm sure you aren't going to claim that they do, but you have no more firm a footing to claim that your god exists than they did that theirs existed btw).

EvilMudge

Are you sure you've got the right terms?

Atheism being a lack of beleif in a God or gods.

Agnostic, descened from the greek verb gignoskein to know, literally meaning doesn't know or has no knowledge.

With such broad terms you could define the vast majority of religious people as agnostic. But you could also lump the vast majority of atheists into the same camp - they're pretty sure there's no god, but they don't know for certain.

However according to Karl Popper, you can't logically justify either extreme, since the premise that there is/isn't a god is not falsifiable or verifiable.:banghead: and any attempt to do so by using logic is pointless, because any premise you choose to verify or falsify has also be verifiable or falsifiable :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

ex-xian

I think you're misunderstanding popper. He would probably say that the premise "There is no God" is weakly confirmable, that is, everytime you go somewhere and see god, the premise is weakly verified. It is, however, impossible to verify completely. The premise is falsifiable. One time meeting god would falsify the claim.