Is there such thing as pragmatic agnosticism? Like I believe in a God and I have faith...

Is there such thing as pragmatic agnosticism? Like I believe in a God and I have faith, but I'm just gonna act as if this wasn't so important.

Is there a such thing?
Consider the fact that the US has hundreds of millions of people that consider themselves christian. Go to any church on Sunday - see if the numbers stack up. The discrepancy is absurd.

Most people are exactly like you, in fact I was you at 13 or so.

I could get into a tirade but I won't, just remember that it boils down to this: faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Some consider that a virtue, others a vice.

>I believe an almighty being created the universe to his liking and therefore all men either follow his design or exist perversely, but that's not important lol
Sure thing, bro

It's called "im a gigantic pussy too afraid of the crushing ego of others to express myself in any way"

T b h I've spent years as a devoutly religious person and i just dont see any benefit anymore. I dont care about heaven and im not afraid of hell. I still want to be good to people but i think God will forgive me if i figure out my own way to do it.

I've come to the conclusion that some people, regardless of perceived intelligence cannot remove themselves from belief in god.

Whether this is a "god" gene, a lack of creative thinking, a fear of death or nothingness is hard to say at this point in human society. I think at a certain age due to indoctrination it becomes incredibly hard to shed the beliefs as people essentially have formed their mind around this belief.

The best thing you can do is educate yourself. And that doesn't mean by reading the bible or listening to some religious expert - it means challenging yourself. There are plenty of good books and debates out there. I'd recommend Christopher Hitchens (if you like rhetoric), Richard Dawkins (if you like science) or Alan Watts (if you want your brain to explode) they're all on youtube if you're interested in learning more.

Is this considered effective bait by Veeky Forums's standards?

i love the bait post
whenever someone either can't be bothered to or just actually can't scrounge up an argument the post is bait

the few points i made are essentially just regurgitated points by the persons i mentioned. and yet you are effectively their intellectual superior

i like this very much

posting meme to cement your viewpoint
joke's on me

>I believe in a God and I have faith
Then you're not an agnostic.

I really hate how "agnostic" has become so watered down and distorted because people don't understand what the word is supposed to mean and have taken to using it as a description for various in between states of believing or fence-sitting. The word was never supposed to mean that. The classic definition of agnosticism as outlined by people like Ingersol is basically atheism with a different epistemology. An agnostic think that because there's no way to know if god exists or not, it's not a valid question, and people should go with the null hypothesis. In a way, it's a practical ideology at it's core: because you can't know if God exists, you might as well act like he doesn't, since his existence isn't apparent, and it makes no difference.

Yes, it's called panentheism. Just remember that the intelligence/consciousness/whatever gap between us and God is the same as between a cell and us, at least (although we may be on the level of enzymes in this comparison).

Apatheism, according to wikipedia.

I relate to you. I've tried to reach out to this hypothetical higher power sporadically, with mixed results, but I usually go with the godless model of the universe for being more parsimonious.

Most people must assume I'm atheistic because that is what most people around me that are my age seem to be and I don't really try to challenge their claims - I just don't think people are really interested in examing these beliefs once they've settled into a position thatlets them feel good with themselves (this goes for anybody, not just atheists), and I don't see the worth in taking that from them.

What about Christian existentialists?

You wouldn't consider Kierkegaard to be a true Christian? Because he both believed in God and that the people trying to prove God were wasting their time.

From the wiki:
>Let us call this unknown something: God. It is nothing more than a name we assign to it. The idea of demonstrating that this unknown something (God) exists, could scarcely suggest itself to Reason. For if God does not exist it would of course be impossible to prove it; and if he does exist it would be folly to attempt it. For at the very outset, in beginning my proof, I would have presupposed it, not as doubtful but as certain (a presupposition is never doubtful, for the very reason that it is a presupposition), since otherwise I would not begin, readily understanding that the whole would be impossible if he did not exist. But if when I speak of proving God's existence I mean that I propose to prove that the Unknown, which exists, is God, then I express myself unfortunately. For in that case I do not prove anything, least of all an existence, but merely develop the content of a conception.

>You wouldn't consider Kierkegaard to be a true Christian?
I absolutely would, because, like you said, he believed in God. Acknowledging that you can't prove God's existence doesn't automatically make someone a nonbeliever; most Christian thinkers throughout history have acknowledged that God can't be proven. That's the whole point of faith, it's believe in something without evidence.

And agnostic person looks at the position of someone like Kierkegaard, which is that faith is important choice because you don't have proof, and comes to the opposite conclusion. That because you can't have proof, you shouldn't believe.

>pragmatic
>agnosticism

Ah humans trying to fight for illusionary chances in the illusionary realm of Maya!

What happens when God turns out to be nothing but teeth and fangs? What happens when God turns out to be a mere Boltzmann brain? What happens when God turns out to be a 5th dimensional n00b who has the ridicule of his peers due to his attempts at using cheat codes?

You put all your precious things in one image but never think that one image will fail. But Maya loves popping bubbles!

I think most people have come to accept agnostic to mean you can't present evidence for one position or the other.

Since we already have the term "atheism", using "agnostic" to mean "atheist because they don't see evidence for divinity" seems super-redundant because who would believe there is evidence for God but still be an atheist?

IF YOU DO NOT THINK THAT GOD, BELIEF IN GOD, OR FAITH IN GOD, ARE IMPORTANT, YOU NEITHER BELIEVE, NOR HAVE FAITH, IN GOD.

STOP BEING A HYPOCRITE, AND JUST CALL YOURSELF AN ATHEIST.

>religion
>logic
choose one

*tips fedora*

That isn't existentialism, that's negative theology and it's not new.

That's called Apathetic theism.

God is none of that, but nice try.

>I think most people have come to accept agnostic to mean you can't present evidence for one position or the other.
Even that has nothing to do with what OP proposed.

Have you met God? Did you meet the maker of Leviathan and Behemoth? Did you meet the burning bush?

In a sense, your cheap apologetic is far more satanic than an atheist. Atheists at least claim no God. You claim God and try to mold him into a moral-aesthetic object. Like teflon, God would never have anything to do with the evil and privations of this world. But God is the same God who created Behemoth and Leviathan. Why in the holy fuck would you constrain his decision making processes to human scale? Does he lift a cup and collect your tears at night? Does he tell you sweet nothings when you start to remember "the hole"?

As I said, Maya loves popping bubbles and she grows ever more demented as life passes by.and all the dark irony tears your soul.