Agnosticism is not a copout

Uncertainty is just a method you use to deny the obvious truth. The truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The obvious truth is uncertainty.

And Mama caught Luigi with Mimi and threw his dinner across the kitchen...These tales get so exaggerated.

And in all seriousness, edgelords are generally men with an identity crisis, compounded by an inferiority complex.

And sticking an ism on the end of a word is an esotericism.

And "belief" by definition, defines agnosticism anyway.

I agree that there are people who truly dont know if God exists, but I am not one of them.

People who use the term agnostic and then go on to argue an anti-theist position are copping out. If you honestly don't know, then argue, like you don't know. But don't come at people confident in their faith and say, I'm agnostic, thinking it makes you look less bigoted. Ricky Gervais is a perfect example of this.

Agnosticism should be the default position for any statement until you have a reason to believe it's true or false. Every true statement has a negation and vice versa, and most theories about the size of infinities would probably suggest there are the same amount of true and false statements. So if there's literally nothing indicating whether a statement is true or false, I'd argue it's 50/50. As if there's a book in a foreign language with 50 true statements and 50 false statements and you picked a random one without knowing what it says.

That said, a "reason" to disbelieve a statement could be something as simple as your intuition usually being reliable and indicating that the statement seems false. That would probably at least be enough to move the odds below 50/50.

Confidence in faith, is also saying I don't know.

Confidence in faith, is simply an established point of view relative to acquired but unverifiable data.

An ideological argument that is merely based upon confidence in faith, is always going to be untenable.

Agnosticism on the other hand, is a reasonable and honest view point. Where I don't know, is the honest answer, so not a cop out at all.

Confidence in faith is the big cop out....Basically meaning I don't know, but refusing to say so.

Confidence in faith, is also saying I don't know.

That's your personal experience.

Confidence is taking your clothes off without checking what you should be hiding.

Mine is so small I don't need to hide it

Statement of fact Poly.

If you know something, you know it.

If you have to rely upon faith, then you don't know it.

Shouldn't need to hide anything.

Hiding certain bits is just an acquired and established trait relative to the human inability to come to terms with it's sexuality.

Religious bollocks as it were.

BS.

It won’t be seen anyways.

OMG, did Poly just say SL had a Big Stick?

He said BS.

You know Poly is a women, don't you?

Actually I'm a woman, singular. Poly can confuse people.

Sorry I got the gender wrong.

No problem. It was a dig at FLRW 's grammar.

No problem. It was a dig at FLRW 's grammar.

People who use the term agnostic and then go on to argue an anti-theist position are copping out. If you honestly don't know, then argue, like you don't know. But don't come at people confident in their faith and say, I'm agnostic, thinking it makes you look less bigoted. Ricky Gervais is a perfect example of this.

Some people definitely do identify as agnostic to look less bigoted (Neil deGrasse Tyson springs to mind) but afaik Gervais is an atheist. An agnostic atheist, but still an atheist.

Anyone who comes at theism all aggro is an atheist imo; if they claim otherwise, then yeah, seems like a dodge.

I hear this occasionally and I'm getting kind of tired of it.

Huxley coined the term agnostic to describe a reasonable philosophy: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration, and do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Reason extends beyond one's understanding of reason, so I don't know why someone would only rely on their reason alone and no external source. You might have to explain further what you mean, but it sounds like even taking advice from someone or believing what one reads in an intellectual excerpt from another philosopher is out of bounds in practicing agnosticism, and that's just ignorance and stubbornness to a fault.

Admitting that you cannot know if God exists or not seems like a pretty rational stance, yet it's sometimes maligned as cowardice by ideological edgelords.

We don't know that God exists. Is it likely that God exists? Is it more likely that God exists than that He doesn't exist? Now those are real questions, and I hope agnostics don't ignore them.

Sorry I got the gender wrong.

Even I know @Poly is a woman, and I've never interacted with her before lol

Is that a bias or preference?

I prefer sexy witches

Is that an arctic choice?

Is that an arctic choice?

Whatever gets my third flipper flappin'

Stay in shape. You won’t regret it.