Why I feel Agnosticism is the way

[Anonobot]

Atheism to me is just as pompous as Christianity or any other major religion out there. I have come across relatively the same amount of bigots from both sides. Atheism has devolved from the original concept of being without religion, Atheists today actually BELIEVE there is no god, whereas us Agnostics just don't know, and don't follow things blindly without evidence.

Agnosticism is like Sweden, it's neutral, it's just the scientific side of the fence seems a whole lot more logical than the other.
Now, don't get me wrong, being Agnostic doesn't mean I am not spiritual or don't have beliefs. I certainly am very "spiritual" when it comes to the Universe, to me, the Universe is my god, it has it's laws and ways of being, and my religion is to understand those ways.

I also BELIEVE that there is something outside of the visible Universe that so far we cannot explain, or are nearing a breaking point on attempting to explain (string theory, multiverse, etc [I love these theories]). Belief and thinking are practically the same thing. You THINK therefor you ARE.

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence, and vise versa. To believe something so strong (as in there is nothing out there besides dark matter and interstellar space, galaxies, constellations, and planets, etc.) is practically just the same as believing in an all powerful cloud monster.

Just my $0.75. I probably didn't wrap my head around what I wanted to explain fully, but I hope you guys get my point.

[Mermaid]

I am a atheist, and I don't think I am pompous. It is my belief, and is not something I try to push on others. It's basically none of anyone's business but mine. Just as your agnosticism is your business.

[FinalSomnia]

In this thread: We discuss how the word "agnostic" is about knowledge - not belief, someone posts a picture describing that very sentiment, and APA posts something random.

[Anonobot]

I am a atheist, and I don't think I am pompous. It is my belief, and is not something I try to push on others. It's basically none of anyone's business but mine. Just as your agnosticism is your business.

Definitely wasn't saying Atheists are pompous, just saying the % of them between all groups is relatively the same. That's all!
I used to be Atheistic, but I'd rather have a system that is more open to change than others.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Agnosticism is the lame fence-straddling position.

[stromboli]

Agnosticism is not a way. It is simply a noncommittal position.

[Anonobot]

Agnosticism is not a way. It is simply a noncommittal position.

Thank you for being a grammar Nazi without actually providing anything to the discussion.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

[PickelledEggs]

Agnosticism is not a way. It is simply a noncommittal position.

It's not even a position. It's a sneaky way to not say your position. You're either gnostic theist, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, or gnostic atheist...  And I don't even know of any gnostic atheists even in the public eye.

Sent from Planet X

[PopeyesPappy]

Surprise surprise. Another newb telling us how we think, what we believe and how stupid it is...

[hrdlr110]

There are zero gnostics with regard to gods, you may think you know, but nobody "knows" because there is zero proof. All theists are agnostic, and likewise, all atheists are agnostic.

[GSOgymrat]

If Q presented himself and proved he created all life in the universe why would he not be god? It sounds like you are saying there cannot be a god because no god can possibly meet your criteria.

[stromboli]

Thank you for being a grammar Nazi without actually providing anything to the discussion.

That would be because there is nothing to provide to the discussion. You are effectively saying "I'm noncommittal, so there!"

[Hijiri Byakuren]

If Q presented himself and proved he created all life in the universe why would he not be god? It sounds like you are saying there cannot be a god because no god can possibly meet your criteria.

Is this supposed to be a rebuttal?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

In this thread: We discuss how the word "agnostic" is about knowledge - not belief, someone posts a picture describing that very sentiment, and APA posts something random.

Wa..wait a minute. How did I get dragged into this piss fight?

By the way,  did you know that the ends of my shoestrings are frayed?