Agnosticism

[Achronos]

In short because the only source for knowing about that god, the Bible, has numerous problems many of which should be enough on their own for any reasonable person to drop the belief.

This doctrine is known as Sola Scriptura, one to which I do not subscribe to.

For me the existence of God relies in history, philosophy, personal experience, so and so forth.

[Inevitable Droid]

Most agnostics are only agnostic toward one theological framework - Deism.  Ask them about Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, and they won't claim agnosticism; rather, they'll acknowledge that they reject those frameworks out of hand.

Being agnostic toward Deism is really just a matter of being unable to answer one question definitively.  Was the universe created?  Unknown and unknowable.
 
Does the Easter Bunny put eggs in baskets?  No.  How do we know?  Because people put the eggs in the baskets, and any household where no people do so, has no baskets with eggs come Easter morning.

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

Over two weeks now since I started this thread and not one agnostic has addressed the key points.

Hmm.  I guess your key point was that God and the Easter Bunny are equally implausible, so if we categorically reject the latter, we should categorically reject the former.

No, my key point is that they are not equally implausible. The god crock is vastly more implausible than the easter bunny crock. To illustrate this point, I offer this challenge: Try to invent a story which strays further from the natural world than a magic invisible poof zapping up the entire universe and all life with a magic wand.

The premise is false.  We know for a fact that parents pretend to be the Easter Bunny, filling baskets with candy and hard-boiled eggs.  Nobody sane or competent pretends to be God.  Furthermore, there is no reason for anyone to think the Easter Bunny exists.  No data, logic, or intuition suggests its existence.  It doesn't serve as the solution to any perceived problem.  By contrast, some people argue that there is in fact a reason to think God exists.  They offer as their reason the intuition that biology reflects far too much functional complexity to have arisen without sapient intent.  God serves as the solution to a perceived problem.  God and the Easter Bunny aren't equally implausible.

You have missed my point here. If the easter bunny analogy doesn't float your boat, then pick any fictional character from any fiction book ever written.

The "biological functional complexity" argument presumes to have identified the threshold of complexity above which a god is necessary and below which a god is not necessary. To presume to identify this threshold, in the absence of any other life-bearing worlds with which to compare ours, is absurd.

No one sane or competent says, "My intuition demands the Easter Bunny's existence."  Again, everyone sane and competent knows that parents pretend to be the Easter Bunny; moreover, the Easter Bunny doesn't serve as a possible solution to any perceived problem.

No one sane or competent says, "My intuition demands a god's existence".

Moreover, the potential problem-solving ability of fictional creations is utterly irrelevant to the likelihood of them actually existing. Evidence is what matters.

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

Over two weeks now since I started this thread and not one agnostic has addressed the key points.

Not one.

Not surprising either, given the fact that their position is untenable.

So I must answer on their behalf. I suspect that agnostics sit on the fence for exactly the same reasons that believers swallow the god story. That is, fear, greed and stupidity.

Or perhaps it is because we don't have any "fence sitting" agnostics on the forum...because that would be a more reasonable answer to why none have responded to you.

They are ALL fence-sitters. They are not on the fence WRT the tooth fairy. They make an exception for little goddy.

It's only honest to admit that ultimately we don't know if something right to call god exists (we wouldn't even know if a deist god did exist, for example) so there is nothing wrong with agnosticism in general.  You can't compare a generic creator god to an easter bunny and pretend like it's not apples to oranges.

Unfortunately, agnostics save this adjective for but one of the millions of unknowables in this universe. This is my problem. They make an exception for the biggest, stinkiest pot of shit of them all.

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

Considering that we don't know how the universe started I wouldn't consider a deist creator utter bs; it's really no less philosophically justified than any other origins theory that has yet to be proven.  The possibility is there since a deist god is philosophically sound (unlike more specific gods which are not) aside from not having physical proof, we just don't have a way to decide how likely one is and there just isn't a reason to actually believe in a god unless one is proven.  A deist god would basically just be a supernatural force anyway...none of that anthropomorphic religious crap.

We live in a world in which there has been not one verified example of a supernatural phenomenon. Not one. And this is despite the best efforts of god-shouters, psychics, astrologers and every other bullshit artist throughout history.

And in the face of this reality, you have stated that you would NOT consider this: "A deist god would basically just be a supernatural force..." to be utter bs.

The deist god is just as big a crock of shit as every other anthropomorphic god.

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

In further response to the OP...

Comparing the tooth fairy, or the easter bunny to a generalized god is, for lack of a better word, incorrect.

I can reject the Christian/Jewish/Islamic God or the Greek Gods in much the same way as the easter bunny or tooth fairy. They all have no evidence of existing and mountains of evidence of not existing. You can also trace them all back to a point of human origin.

But I cannot totally reject the concept of God in the same way that I cannot totally reject the idea that fairies exist. Both are un-empirical statements and cannot be proved or disproved beyond all doubt. Therefore, it would be intellectual dishonesty and arrogance for me to say that they cannot exist whatsoever. The fact that there is not evidence for a claim does not make it false, if there is no evidence in relation to the claim at all, it is an unfalsifiable claim, and cannot be proven or unproven. I do not believe such claims should be given credibility, but at the same time, they should not be dismissed as impossible. At some time in the future, we may possess the knowledge to disprove the idea of God, but even so, that time is not now.

As a side note, I do not label myself an agnostic atheist, or an atheist, because I do not see the point of the word. I prefer free-thinker, or nihilist.

Also, you say religion does not deserve our fence-sitting. There is a stark difference between religion and theism.

Fair point, I should have said theism rather than religion.

Also, I agree that absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. The whole point of this thread is that agnostics make a special exception when describing their position on the greatest crock ever told. Every other work of fiction ever invented in the history on mankind is more deserving of being viewed agnostically than is the magic poof.

[Inevitable Droid]

No one sane or competent says, "My intuition demands a god's existence".

Then Deists are both insane and incompetent.  Making that statement doesn't strike you as going too far?

Moreover, the potential problem-solving ability of fictional creations is utterly irrelevant to the likelihood of them actually existing. Evidence is what matters.

What's your reaction to dark matter and dark energy as postulated by modern physicists?  We have zero direct evidence of either existing.  They're postulated as solutions to problems.

My own reaction to the two propositions is that we shouldn't say more about either one than we have to.  Dark matter doesn't absolutely have to be matter, and dark energy doesn't absolutely have to be energy.  I would have given them more general names.

With regard to God, I likewise think we shouldn't say more than we have to.  Zero attributes should be applied to it, and zero actions beyond creation ascribed to it.  This of course makes the concept useless for any conceivable purpose, and for that reason, I respond to it with utter apathy.

The difference between dark matter and dark energy, on one hand, and God on the other, is that we presumably will be able to one day encounter dark matter and dark energy empirically.  We will never encounter God empirically, which renders the intuition suggesting God's existence a useless intuition, never to be followed up in any way, certainly never to be refined into a testable hypothesis.

[Whitney]

We live in a world in which there has been not one verified example of a supernatural phenomenon. Not one. And this is despite the best efforts of god-shouters, psychics, astrologers and every other bullshit artist throughout history.

And in the face of this reality, you have stated that you would NOT consider this: "A deist god would basically just be a supernatural force..." to be utter bs.

We haven't seen life on other planets either yet I doubt anyone here would consider alien life utter bs...because there are various reasons to think they are possible  and even highly likely.  Numerous people have even failed at trying to make us think that aliens have visited Earth yet no matter how scientists try they can't verify it.

How is this different from acknowledging that it is not impossible that something that acts contrary to what we understand to be natural could exist?  

Are you able to make your point without saying bs?   Also, it's it kind stupid to be on the war path against agnostics when they are one of our closest allies against impeding religious control?

[McQ]

...and agnosticism....now there'sa topic!

[joeactor]

Ah!  Finally!

Someone who knows everything and is not afraid to say so!

Thank god...

Why is it so hard for humans to admit when they don't know something?
Insecurity? Fear? A need to belong?

The only reason it appears there is a fence is because so many people are busy taking sides.
I guess there are fundamentalists in both camps, eh?

[Achronos]

Agnosticsm is the natural religion of man.

[LegendarySandwich]

Agnosticsm is the natural religion of man.

But it's not a religion...?

[Cycel]

Agnosticsm is the natural religion of man.

But it's not a religion...?

Achronos, I also wonder what you mean by this statement.

[Achronos]

Because finite man cannot comprehend the infinite God. But God has revealed Himself.

[LegendarySandwich]

Because finite man cannot comprehend the infinite God. But God has revealed Himself.

Uhhh...okay...

The question still stands.