sie
Iron
- Joined
- May 28, 2026
- Posts
- 35
- Reputation
- 15
if you're not agnostic or you're someone who is a theist/atheist claiming their position with certainty, then youre either a. retarded b. ignorant c. a bad faith actor
theism and atheism are fundamentally about what you believe in, a theist thinks a god exists, while an atheist (depending on how the word is being used) either thinks god isn't real, or just doesn't believe in god
If someone says "god definitely exists" they are accepting that idea, even though they don't have proof for it, likewise, if someone says "god definitely does not exist" they are accepting that idea even though they don't have proof for it either
agnosticism is rather different, its more about "what we can know" rather than "what do we choose to believe", It's about whether we can be sure about god's existence, or god's nonexistence,
basically, the agnostic view is "there's not enough knowledge or proof to be certain about gods existence"
this is more a more rational position to take rather than just being an atheist/a theist, because both of those boil down to accepting an idea without any proof for it (with the exception of an atheist by the definition of someone who lacks belief in god rather than someone who is certain god doesn't exist, regardless there's still have no conclusive proof for that), while agnosticism is about acknowledging how we don't possess the knowledge that we need inorder to prove god's existence
and it's not that being agnostic doesn't mean someone has no beliefs at all,
a person can be both agnostic and atheist, they might just not believe in god but also know they can't prove god doesn't exist
the same can be said in regard to theism, a person can be both agnostic and theist, they could believe in god, and also know they can't be certain about Gods existence
imho the best way to look at it, isn't that being agnostic is the "correct choice" or that every theist and atheist is wrong
It's that being truthful about what we can know is better than making retarded claims like saying you are certain when there's literally no conclusive evidence to back you up
also worth noting how you can rationally believe something without knowing it with full certainty, I'm objecting against retards claiming certainty
-sie
theism and atheism are fundamentally about what you believe in, a theist thinks a god exists, while an atheist (depending on how the word is being used) either thinks god isn't real, or just doesn't believe in god
If someone says "god definitely exists" they are accepting that idea, even though they don't have proof for it, likewise, if someone says "god definitely does not exist" they are accepting that idea even though they don't have proof for it either
agnosticism is rather different, its more about "what we can know" rather than "what do we choose to believe", It's about whether we can be sure about god's existence, or god's nonexistence,
basically, the agnostic view is "there's not enough knowledge or proof to be certain about gods existence"
this is more a more rational position to take rather than just being an atheist/a theist, because both of those boil down to accepting an idea without any proof for it (with the exception of an atheist by the definition of someone who lacks belief in god rather than someone who is certain god doesn't exist, regardless there's still have no conclusive proof for that), while agnosticism is about acknowledging how we don't possess the knowledge that we need inorder to prove god's existence
and it's not that being agnostic doesn't mean someone has no beliefs at all,
a person can be both agnostic and atheist, they might just not believe in god but also know they can't prove god doesn't exist
the same can be said in regard to theism, a person can be both agnostic and theist, they could believe in god, and also know they can't be certain about Gods existence
imho the best way to look at it, isn't that being agnostic is the "correct choice" or that every theist and atheist is wrong
It's that being truthful about what we can know is better than making retarded claims like saying you are certain when there's literally no conclusive evidence to back you up
also worth noting how you can rationally believe something without knowing it with full certainty, I'm objecting against retards claiming certainty
-sie
