Agnosticism

>>there is no god, he doesn't exist!
>>provides no proof
Atheists don't believe in a God, nor do they 'believe' there is no God. Basically, kys agnosticuck.

Because agnostics are completely illiterate in epistemology. They insist that "you can't know" without ever providing argumentation behind their claim, ans being completely ignorant of what the word "knowledge" even means.

>Atheists don't believe in a God, nor do they 'believe' there is no God.
Literally what. Care to lead me to the point in my post that projected this inaccuracy unto you?

There's plenty of valid arguments for atheism, that you have never read philosophy of religion is your problem, not ours.

>They insist that "you can't know"
Well, lets look at the other side, shall we? Keep in mind Agnostics say we cannot know """"NOW""""". Yes some say we may never know, that's another point entirely. For you can never know if you don't look and agnostics like everyone else, are searching for the answers.

Okay, onto your point. You say we provide no evidence to back up our claim, well that's true. Because if it were not true it would mean there is actually evidence against our claim. Care to point me to said evidence? That evidence would mean that you have either proven god to be real, or disproven him completely, empirically. Also keep in mind, you can disprove Christian/Islamic/Judaic dogmas, that doesn't disprove god. To say so implies those are the only religions to ever have existed on earth.

Our claim is simply there is no evidence of our reasoning, our existence, nowhere does it say to stop looking, it actually expresses the opposite, to find out your own subjective reasoning.

You're a literal fool if you think either science or religion has the answer as to why we are here, there is no answer yet - agnosticism is the only true belief system available to any logical person in this current time.

Oh, so you've disproven god have you. Go on.

It is YOU who is making a claim about the impossibility of knowledge in a certain area, the onus is on you to justify this view.

You don't "disprove" things outside of math and logic.

>It is YOU who is making a claim about the impossibility of knowledge in a certain area, the onus is on you to justify this view.

You simply do not understand. You are asking me to prove god, or disprove him, like I am asking you to do. That is the only way to invalidate my claims. Why are you projecting? I have said many times our reason is lost to us KNOW, it's not impossible for us to know, but you are implying we have the answers and can empirically prove them, note I am talking about our reasoning, not scientific methods.

>You don't "disprove" things outside of math and logic.
Kek.

Gnostic vs. agnostic is a completely different question than theist vs. atheist.

>KNOW
lel, now*

>You are asking me to prove god, or disprove him, like I am asking you to do.

No, I'm not. What you need to do is provide epistemic justification for the proposition "It is currently impossible to obtain justification for theism or atheism"

This is a positive claim that you need to argument for, otherwise your views are without foundation.

>"It is currently impossible to obtain justification for theism or atheism"

mhm, and how do you do this without proving either of them?

Don't run away now. You are actually asking me to do the impossible, which is why agnosticism exists - we don't know, yet.

You cannot refute this logic, you are asking me to prove certainty in something which is uncertain. The only way to disprove agnosticism is to find our reason i.e. providing the certainty.

I have told you, I cannot do what you ask - that's literally why this belief exists. If I could prove god, or the lack thereof, I would not be agnostic.

>You cannot refute this logic, you are asking me to prove certainty in something which is uncertain.

There's no logic to refute, you just accepted that it's impossible to justify the epistemological views of the agnostic, therefore agnosticism is without foundation.

Again, it is you who is making a claim about the impossibility of knowledge.

'sigh' we used to get bait that wasn't utter shit

>therefore agnosticism is without foundation
What ever helps you sleep at night. The only way it can be without foundation is if you are implying they are ignorant which in turn means you have proven either theism or atheism, so again, prove it.
>'no'
Therein lies the validity of your argument, 'no'.

Are you done?

To add to this, who said anything about knowledge, why are you projecting?

>who said anything about knowledge, why are you projecting?
Outside of our reason for being of course.

You still don't get it, do you? Your claims are not about mere uncertainty, you are making an extremely strong epistemological claim, namely that knowledge about certain field is *impossible*, not uncertain, impossible. I reckon you don't even know what epistemology is, otherwise you would realize the implications of making such claim.

>namely that knowledge about certain field is *impossible*, not uncertain, impossible.
At this moment in time yes. That's the part you are willingly missing?

You literally said "we cannot know", so yes, knowledge is a central topic of this discussion.

Literally irrelevant.

Read the rest of the parts when ever I said that, literally used caps so you wouldn't miss it.

The keyword being now, you know, this point in time. With all the knowledge we have available, currently?

So you are done now. Like literally read my first post. >Nowhere in agnosticism does it deny advancement. Agnosticism simply states we cannot (at least in this current stage) know about our existence and our purpose, that doesn't say we WON'T know, it simply means in this current time with the evidence we have we cannot empirically prove the reasonings towards our existence, like a Christian (for example) or atheist does.

I couldn't have worded it any better to avoid your utter retardation.

Why? Because you have no argument when you willingly ignore my whole point?

>we cannot know as we don't have enough information right now
you take that as to mean
>we will never know
>it's impossible TO know

and then you blame me for being an idiot? Kek.

Chiggity check yourself before you wreak yourself.

You honestly think Agnostics would exist if there was empirical knowledge out there regarding out existence? That we currently are aware of?

Like I said, the fact that you said "now" is irrelevant. If you are being so insistent on it, let me put it this way:

You claim "we cannot know now", do you have justification for this belief?

>do you have justification for this belief?
The lack of empirical evidence either proving or disproving gods existence.

We are literally going round in circles here now.

It is you who has no argument, after all, it is you who is making positive statements, not me, that require justification.

Let's do a little though experiment: suppose God exists, and he decides to "prove" his existence to a believer, this the believer would have knowledge about God's existence. You claim this is impossible, why?

Conversation with a typical agnostic:
>Do you believe in God?

>I don't know
>You don't know if you believe in God?

>No I don't know if God exists

>(didn't fucking ask you that) So then you do not believe that he exists

>You can't actually be sure he doesn't exist
>You can't actually be sure anything
DOESN'T exist. I'm asking you if, in your perspective of the universe, is there a God. You don't know if you'll wake up tomorrow but you assume you will. Do you assume there is a God or don't you?

>Well you especially can't be sure God doesn't exist

>The lack of empirical evidence either proving or disproving gods existence.

That provides no justification for the quoted statement, let me remind you that the statements "God's existence is uncertain" is semantically disnct from the statement "It is now impossible to know about God's existence." The latter is a far stronger claim.

>You claim this is impossible, why?
Now you are making no sense. Obviously god revealing himself to someone who already believed is not empirical evidence to prove god's existence. This scenario happens all the time?

Kek, you're a literal idiot aren't you? You can stop posting anytime.

>this the believer would have knowledge about God's existence
This makes literally no sense.

>It is you who has no argument, after all, it is you who is making positive statements, not me, that require justification.
What ever helps you sleep at night. Funny how this is no long about the fact you thought I was denying knowledge and your projection has shifted elsewhere, seriously just stop posting I would love to give you my day and let your retardation unfold, but I am leaving soon I will give you as much time as I have though.

>God's existence is uncertain" is semantically disnct from the statement "It is now impossible to know about God's existence." The latter is a far stronger claim.

Ahhhhh, so you've finally moved your goal posts to align with mine. Glad you're no longer being an idiot.

Cya.

>Obviously god revealing himself to someone who already believed is not empirical evidence to prove god's existence.

It would be empirical evidence, or more broadly, epistemic justification for the believer.

>This makes literally no sense

The believer would have justification for his belief, thus have a justified true belief I.e. knowledge.

Honesty it is frustrating to argue with someone so ignorant of the terms being discussed, and incapable of realizing the implications of his views.

Not at all, are you retarded? You madd the latter claim, which is wholly unjustified. You either have reading comprehension problems or are mentally deficient.

>It would be empirical evidence, or more broadly, epistemic justification for the believer.

Empirical evidence is not subjective justification.

>The believer would have justification for his belief, thus have a justified true belief I.e. knowledge.
A subjective one yes, not empirical by any means.
>based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

How am I, or a non-believer, meant to verify gods existence when he reveals himself only to believers? It's not empirical.

Kek, get out a thesaurus.
>do you even know what 'x' means
Really now?

By the way, do you not understand tht by "stronger claim" I mean a claim tha demands greater argumentation to be justified? I'm not sure if you even understand the discussion.

THen literally what is the point of that claim. Are you seriously trying to argue strict semantics? Really? Is that all you have? Because I am not willing to argue semantics with a Veeky Forums retard. I don't have it in me today. I thought you were arguing the idea, not the strict semantical meaning of my words.

>I'm not sure if you even understand the discussion.
Yeah, it's clear now. You had no intention of arguing an idea or belief just using your new found vocabulary on the internet.

Done and dusted.

"Empirical evidence" means knowledge obtained through the senses, how would such case not be empirical evidence? Let me remind you that empirical evidence doesn't mean universally available evidence, I have empirical evidence about the existence of my father, yet you don't.

>"Empirical evidence" means knowledge obtained through the senses
Kek, you understand you were accusing me of not understanding terms.

>I have empirical evidence about the existence of my father,
Wrong, I have the internet where somewhere your father's birth records are recorded. Literally just stop.

Ah, so you know realize how weak your position is, right? By accepting that's possible to know about God's existence, you undermine your whole case. Thus, your agnosticism cannot be anything more that a personal assessment about how certain you are about something, not a view of epistemological relevance.

>Kek, you understand you were accusing me of not understanding terms.
You have done this many times, you are treating me like an idiot in favor of your argument which only means you yourself are an idiot. You are leaving out the vital parts of your definitions and using them in your argument.

That's simply ignorance. You are actually arguing god revealing himself to an already established believer is empirical evidence for gods existence.

This is my last reply. I thought I would give you my day, but you are stinking of some filthy Euro.

Yeah man, my position is weak because you leave the core part of the fucking argument out of it. That being currently, in this present moment, there is no empirical knowledge regarding gods existence, you keep taking that to mean we will never know, that's fine, that's your idiocy - literally not my argument, simply your projection.

>Kek, you understand you were accusing me of not understanding terms.

Define it. Let's all laugh at whatever response you will think of.

>I have the internet

How is that empirical evidence? You don't even know me, thus you cannot search for anything. Thus, you possess no empirical evidence about it.

Empirical evidence is not universally available. I have empirical evidence of what's in my house, you don't.

(you).

Happy?
>Thus, you possess no empirical evidence about it.
(that evidence still exists though)
:^)

>is empirical evidence for gods existence.

Are you retarded? My whole case is that it would be empirical evidence *for the believer*, not for you. Empirical evidence is not universally available, for the last time.

Its calles making a joke, just like your IQ level you retarded faggot kys srrsl :^)

>Empirical evidence is not universally available, for the last time.
Empirical evidence, is by definition, universal. That's the point. If that's your whole beef with my argument replace it with an idea that is what you say it's not, and forgive me for having a shit vocabulary.

Jesus.

>that evidence still exists though

But is wholly inaccessible to you. Incredible you are too dumb to understand such a simple concept.

Again back at the point of what it means to be empirical knowledge.

>not accessible to you
But it is.

>implying it's not possible to doxx off Veeky Forums
No I can't do it, it's entirely possible though.

>Empirical evidence, is by definition, universal

It literally is not. Nowhere is the term defined as such. Not only retarded, you are illiterate as well.

Okay fine, I used the wrong word, sue me. My point remains :^).

You cannot UNIVERSALLY, at this point in time disprove or prove god's existence therefore agnosticism is the only logical choice.

xD

>No I can't do it

So, *you* can't obtain empirical evidence about it, thus conceding my point.

I don't know if it's more intense now than before, but people these days get really buttmad over identity politics. Team A is destined to forever be archrivals with Team B for the sake of superfluous excuses. If you don't subscribe to either or try to make a Team C, you're committing an even worse crime.

Can an oldfag call me out on this?

That's not the point though, the evidence exists. As far as we know, right now, no evidence of god's existence exists UNIVERSALLY.

Really, why are you still going?

>Can an oldfag call me out on this?
The only thing Veeky Forums hated in 2007 were peadofiles/animal cruelty and suprisngly racisim.

>My point remains

No, it doesn't. Your views show their cracks with each post.

And your deduction doesn't follow, I cannot *universally* prove a lot of things, I cannot universally prove what I ate for breakfast, so I should be agnostic that I had any breakfast? Doesn't follow, your views are borderline epistemological nihilism.

Lovely how you had to backpedal and talk about "universally" proving things, a request that would make nearly all knowledge impossible. Knowledge is very rarely universally available.

>I cannot universally prove what I ate for breakfast
Kek, yes you can. You can pump your stomach, you can vomit.

now you're literally posting 'no' and ad hom. Getting less and less involved with each post, bro.

>Knowledge is very rarely universally available.
Mhm, gods existence, i.e the creation of the UNIVERSE and reasoning for our existence (the thing which the term UNIVERSAL is based on) would in fact be quite universal, by you know, definition and etymology.

This is actually getting fun.

Veeky Forums was surprisingly SJW before /pol/. They literally ruined everything.

>You can pump your stomach

Grasping at straws. What about what I ate a week ago? During last Christmas? According to you, you shouldn't believe things unless you can "universally" prove them, which would make virtually all knowledge impossible.

Christ, this is just a circlejerk at this point.

If you feel the need to call out someones benign worldview, you are wasting your time and energy. If you're an atheist and are dogmatic about it, you're a hypocrite.

>would in fact be quite universal, by you know, definition and etymology.

Is this bait? By no definition does the knowledge about such thing necessities being universal.

Because agnosticism is literally just apathy, and declaring yourself one without some sincere intentionality betrays a misconception about atheism

Unless you really believe "can't no nuffin" is a real epistemological stance, an agnostic will often belive that atheists claim knowledge of absence. As though atheists (types often geared for stem or science in some way) literally don't understand reductionism, a common complaint they level at religion

>surprisingly racism

No. Veeky Forums hated stormfags but there was abundant racism.

Nigger

lolno

You cannot even prove that you yourself exist you stupid shitposter. Your words are anecdotal evidence at best, if I were to ask a random sampling of humanity if your shitposting ass existed most could not give me a concrete answer, and when you (if you exist) die then we won't have a primary source to argue for itself and instead be left with a mush of ambiguous data. What impetus or justification is there for your existence?

It's currently impossible to obtain justification for either belief: you exist, or you do not exist.

Atheism = Sophism and an intense lack of knowledge of actual scientific or philosophical rigor

t. chanologyfag

>pedophiles
Veeky Forums was full of pedos and still is
>animal cruelty
you're right about this but it was mostly an edgy joke "lol we care more about animals than humans XD"
>racism
LOL

actually chanology started around 07 so he might be right about the racism part

chanology was more of an 08/09 thing

You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
You cant just be agnostic.

If you don't now, then you can't be a believer, therefore, you're an non-believer. Just a cowardly non-believe.

I never understood this argument. Why am I a coward for admitting that we don't know? You are the one who hides behind a veil of belief and who's afraid to acknowledge your own ignorance.

See

Because the average agnostic is ten times as smug as religious or atheist zealots about his profession of ignorance. It turns people off.

Most people who call themselves agnostics are just being intellectually dishonest.
Half of them are deists who don't really follow an organized religion, the other half are atheists who don't want the stigma of calling themselves such.
It's really very fucking rare to find someone who really honestly has no inclination towards either atheism or deism.

Because the majority of 'agnostics' are literally just soft atheists, which means they're atheists and trying to deny it, which is irritating and retarded. I know why they do it. They don't like what they perceive the label 'atheist' represent. They bought into the 'atheists are all literally militant, obnoxious, ignorant fedora tippers' meme and instead of challenging that stereotype or owning up to it, they run away behind a new label, attempt to obscure the truth behind semantics.

That or they literally just don't care and/or don't know anything particularly deep about arguments for or against god(s) existence and often times think this somehow makes them intellectually superior.

Dualism at work, ladies and gentlemen
>They're closeted deists!
>They're pussy atheists!
And yet supposedly, agnostics are the arrogant ones.

Cancerous Western dualistic thinking.

The west loves "U MUST PICK A SIDE" kind of thinking.

>Dualism at work, ladies and gentlemen
Yes, that's pretty much my point. Most people are dualistic, their agnosticism is an annoying pretence.

You don't have to pick one. You already are on one

The fact that "annoying pretence" exists means there's more than two sides to a single argument.

Agnostics could be said to be intellectually lazy, fine, but the polar opposites are intellectually dishonest. Neither side could provide evidence and all they have is sophistry and mental gymnastics.

As for "annoying" shrill atheists shitposting on the internet and godly terrorists make shit of the middle east are a thousand times more annoying than some cunt going "i really dont know man."

>As for "annoying" shrill atheists shitposting on the internet and godly terrorists make shit of the middle east are a thousand times more annoying than some cunt going "i really dont know man."
The problem is that for every humble guy going "i really dont know man" there are veritable hordes of smug faggots looking down on everyone else because they're proud of being neither religious sheeple nor fedora tipping atheists. It's not an intellectual third way to them, it's a social third way that does not reflect their actual beliefs. As such it's hypocritical and irritating.

Literally not an argument

For me, it's because being agnostic implies not believing there is a god. If you did believe, you would know there is a god. So I think most agnostic are atheists who don't want to say they are atheists.

>Neither side could provide evidence

Debunk this argument
iep.utm.edu/evil-evi/

My brain blew a fuse trying to understand your logic.
>If you did believe = Automatically religious, Cant be agnostic.
>If you're agnostic = automatically atheist,
>"No idea" is not an opinion for this user.
>Even if Atheism literally means "I am 100% sure there is no God."
>Which is totally antithetical to agnosticism.

>Atheism literally means "I am 100% sure there is no God.

Nice strawman

>What's bad in admitting you just don't know?
Because chances are you're being a hypocrite about it.
The whole point of atheism is basically "there's no proof of god, so there's no god".
If you disagree with this without being a theist, you necessarily need to refuse to disbelieve anything that hasn't been proven not to exist which it's impossible because it's a negative claim.
Not disbelieving anything has so many repercussions it's basically impossible for it to be coherent with anyone's worldview.