The debate "Agnosticism is invalid. If you dont actually believe in god you actually dont believe in God." was started by
November 9, 2017, 10:40 am.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 15 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff and 9 visitors agree.
historybuff, AntiTHEIST, blue_rayy and 12 visitors disagree.
1. please explain how "drink coffee or not drink coffee", "get out of bed or don't get out of bed", "believe in God or don't believe in god" are not binary. specifically.
2. What is the difference between an agnostic looking for more evidence (that, let's be real, probably won't come til the day you die), and an atheist who is open to new evidence? (direct copy/paste)
3. if you are unsure of something, do you believe in it?
4. please address my version of your walk in the woods analogy, and my critique of your version.
I am not repeating myself. I addressed your analogy, countered it, added the a/b vs a/not a point, and then restated it in 3 short statements to clarify. your argument is almost verbatim from your original post, doesn't address my analogy, or any of the direct questions I asked, and appears to be entirely emotion based.
you feel people should have more options and views cannot be explained in a simple binary choice. buy in not asking about their detailed view on God or metaphysics. I am not saying all choices are binary, but you appear to be claiming that no choice is binary.
to avoid going in circles, I have 4 questions/concerns I hope you will try to address. I'll post them seperate.
you're just repeating yourself. you see the decision as binary. but a binary decision does not allow for a proper explanation of people's views. and if theist and atheist don't sufficiently explain people's diverse opinions, then we need other terms, such as agnostic.
arguing that those diverse opinions are invalid doesn't help anyone.
theism or a (not) theism
a or not a.
you can pick anything else or combination. but if you didn't pick theism, you picked a theism.
well let's look at these analogies.
you come upon a fork in the road. you have a choice between path A or path B. I see this as "do you believe in Jesus or Muhammad. you can even make your own path C or D, (Moses or buddha) or stay where you are or turn around. tons of options.
but theism vs atheism isn't A or B
it's A or "not A". one of the options is a negative.
so the proper analogy is "you walk through the woods and see a bench. do you sit down or do you not sit down" this choice is a binary by necessity, not my doing. If you do not take the path of "belief in god", whether you take the path of science or magic or just stand still or go away, you didn't pick god, therefore you do not believe. by not picking A you by default pick not A.
again, I disagree. you say it's like getting out of bed. I think that is a flawed analogy. I'd say it's more like coming to a cross road. you can choose to go left, or you can choose to go right. but choosing neither is certainly an option.
why do you feel you need to narrow people's views to a binary system?
What is the difference between an agnostic looking for more evidence (that, let's be real, probably won't come til the day you die), and an atheist who is open to new evidence?
if you suspect someone is lying, even without certainty you can say you don't personally believe them atm. If you don't believe, you disbelieve, which is the definition of atheism. certainty is not needed for a negative position, only a positive one.
therefore if you are not sure if there is a god. you currently do not believe there is a god. you just aren't certain... no one is certain.
I'm quite sure the usage of the term agnostic has not changed, I could be wrong but the historical context is not what I'm talking about. im saying it's a logically invalid stance and we both know many people hold illogical views.
this is what is known as a forced option. an either or. you get out of bed or you don't, and by not choosing, you still choose (to stay in bed).
one can state that "belief isn't like a bed, not making a decision is not like staying in something your already in (Like a bed)". But remember, atheism is a negative position. it has no defining characteristics besides not having the positive counterpart. there is no middle ground. so if you can't say you believe in something, then you don't believe in it. if your unsure, then you don't believe, until you decide you do.
I disagree. the common usage of words has evolved based on need. an atheist believes there is no God, period. a theist believes there is a God, and usually strictly believes theirs is the correct one.
there are a large group of people who don't want to take an absolute position of there is no God, but are not religious either. like it or not this group of people certainly exist and need a word to describe that group.
I'm sure it's hard to accept but belief in God is an either or choice. it's like deciding to stay home or go outside. If your agnostic and don't want to make a decision, congradulations you decided to stay home. there is literally no middle ground.
otherwise I'd have to claim to be agnostic regarding subatomic rainbow colored unicorns and leprechauns on mars.
certainty is never possible for the lack of existence of something, whether it is divine or mundane. Agnosticism is a PC cop out to facilitate the end of a discussion or the end of thinking.