In spite of the fact that there's no evidence supporting the existence of god(s), I also must concede that there's no evidence against its/their existence. However, because this lack of evidence doesn't appear to have any measurable effect my every day life (or anyone else's for that matter), I've concluded that it doesn't matter either way; so I'm not interested in finding said evidence, if indeed it exists at all. With this in mind, I consider myself an agnostic as opposed to an atheist. Am I still welcome here? I don't have the privilege of creating groups as of yet...
Everyone is an agnostic, whether they like to admit it or not. There is no way to disprove any god or gods. Agnostic just means you don't know for sure, and you can't know for sure. I understand the possibility that I'm wrong and a God or Gods may exist, but I don't believe it at the same time. You're either: A) Agnostic theist or B) Agnostic atheist.
Saying something cannot be proven wrong is not an argument and completely antithetical to the Scientific Method. It's circular logic that has no grounds in reality or how we perceive it.
The scientific method never assumed it could prove or dissprove anything to an absolution. Given that wiggle room between im pretty sure this is how it is, and im certain this is how it is demands that a conclusion after testing via scientific method is and forever will be under scrutiny for future correction, alteration, and possibly replacement. Al together this allows full well for agnosticism to exist within the realm of the scientific method, because agnosticism generally allows for the posibility for future proof of existance or non existance just as a conclusion of science is inherently subject to future proof or disproof.
Wow this really is kinda dead.I was hoping some people were talking in this group. I guess not.
Agnosticism is the view that nothing of the nature or existance of Gods can be known. As previously mentioned this means we must all admit we are agnostic as well as atheist, the terms are not mutually exclusive. Why is a lack of evidence a suitable grounds for skepticism? We shouldn't expect negative claims to offer predictions, such as the negative claim 'there are no magic elephants on mars' will not be able to produce any predictions about the real world. The burden of proof instead falls to the predictive positive versions of these claims such as 'there are magic elephants on mars', and should these positive claims remain unproven the skeptical negative versions are justifiable.
Yeah, I'm agnostic too. But whatever, close enough.
^Same here^
