this is not intended to be insulting, demeaning or offensive, but
All atheists who realize that the concept of a infallible deity/creator is a fallacious argument are default agnostics, myself being one of them. It’s the nature of not being able to disprove those fallacious argument that makes them so.
edit:^^
thats why there is a difference between “belief” and “logic”
I’ve read this 4 times now, and it still makes no sense.
Yeah, not exactly sure what you mean here.
Yes, as a non-believer, I am also acquainted with many arguments that people give as to why I should believe. I’m not agnostic or undecided on these arguments: I find them to be flat-out wrong and unconvincing. It’s nonsense to say that I can’t disprove those ARGUMENTS. Of course I can: I just need to show how they are flawed.
That’s a different thing, of course, than being able to disprove the existence of god. But I never started with any reason TO believe in god in the first place, so I never really had any reason to try and grapple with that issue. It’s particular arguments that I’ve faced off against.
I’m a default atheist AND a default agnostic, both at once.
I think it is the old “atheists think they can prove there is no god” definition.
Aden, atheism is lack of belief in any god. Period. If you join, you can search for the hundreds of threads on this very subject.
Still, even disproving the various “proofs” for god does not mean that god does not exist - just that a particular argument is fallacious. Even theists can disprove particular arguments without becoming either atheists or agnostics. So the part about diproving does make no sense.
Oh, maybe he’s saying that since we can’t disprove God, that therefore we can’t know whether or not God exists, and that we are therefore agnostic. That argument doesn’t work, though. The reason we can’t disprove God is that God isn’t properly defined. We can disprove specific gods, just not the general concept of God that is synonymous with “everything we don’t know”. The fact that we don’t know something doesn’t mean we can’t know it.
It seems to me the word God means" A "being, to some, To me it is just Being;since it is impossible to say:Nothing Exists!
Monavis
bingo!
When that which is poorly defined, cannot be disproved, the truth of it, or reality, is unknowable. Particularly in the case where deities are described “all powerful”, including the power to keep their existence hidden, or unknown. By asserting such a hypothetical claim one has created a situation beyond the realm of logical argument, beyond being disproven. This is because the same initial claim can be used as a counter argument to each new attack upon the claim. Like I said the hypothetical situation is then beyond being being disproven, not because of it’s likeliness, or factualness, but it’s inability to be proven as untrue or un-factual.
A metaphysical, or diety related notion that is unresolvable or unknowable, is by some definitions, agnosticism.