"Agnostics are fence-sitting cowards"

DonZabu

No we're not. That's a completely false dichotomy.

┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻

How is it a false dichotomy when there's no second option?

RedEyedAbyss

Elaborate, please.

Stormtroper

^^ I guess it is if you say that the only non-coward options are theism and atheism.

DonZabu

The way these guys set it up, you either believe in god(s), or don't believe in god(s), and if you aren't either of those, you're a coward, as if you're backing away from something or failing to stand up for something. What that something is, I have no idea.

RedEyedAbyss

Still, I don't see why agnosticism is considered a position instead of a lack thereof.

MadassAlex

Why not?

It's probably the most scientifically rational one, to begin with.

RedEyedAbyss

But then why is "I don't know if evolution is true" not a position? Scientific theories may leave some doubt, but they still have a defined explanation.

DonZabu

It's the position of "I refuse to declare certainty over something that I don't have the proper information for. That'd be presumptuous."

MadassAlex

^^ It is, and implicitly the main position of evolution-supporters.

A hypothesis can only ever be supported rather than proven conclusively and entirely. Science will only ever say "Based on this observation, X appears to be Y". It is unhappy to draw conclusions without absolute data.

^ Ninja'd.

┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻

Isn't this more of a general insult than a false dichotomy?

As far as I know, it isn't possible to be not an agnostic, theist, and atheist at the same time.

Nyktos

@MadassAlex:

It's probably the most scientifically rational one, to begin with.

I don't see what's scientifically rational of entertaining a possibility that has virtually nothing to support its being true. Obviously declaring you're 100% certain God doesn't exist is no more scientific than saying you're 100% certain He does, but most atheists wouldn't claim to be 100% certain.

Vivi

But saying you don't believe it makes you an atheist.

MadassAlex

There's no evidence to support God's existence, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A scientist does not argue from ignorance.

It's not the job of science to disprove or prove anything, anyway. Their job is to make observations and then make reasonable conclusions based on those observations with the flaws and limitations of their research taken into account.

Counterclock

Agnostics are no more cowards then the pagans that mock them.

it is true, that under the truth of the mighty books of ole'. a beast of skin and sin stirs the souls of our young.

RedEyedAbyss

"Their job is to make observations and then make reasonable conclusions based on those observations with the flaws and limitations of their research taken into account."

And why do you assume atheists don't do that? It's not like they absolutely deny the existence of God unless they're fundamentalist.

MadassAlex

I'm not assuming anything -- I was referring specifically to the job of a scientist, whether they be atheist, agnostic or religious.

Counterclock

To verify the existence of something, we must first assume we are wrong till we are presented with the truth!

even the mighty platypus was dismissed as myth till we saw it with our eyes.

BlackHumor

There's no evidence to support God's existence, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Like I said over in the thread specifically for this, yes it is.

DonZabu

^^^^ Atheist: "I don't believe god exists."

Agnostic: "I can't confirm or deny whether or not god exists."

MadassAlex

Yes, I understand that.

Nyktos

@MadassAlex:

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Sure it is. It's not proof of absence, but it can be pretty strong evidence thereof.

Really, whether agnosticism is the most rational position depends on your definition of "agnostic". If it simply means claiming not to be certain whether or not God exists (weak agnosticism), then it is, but at that point it isn't mutually exclusive with atheism (or theism, for that matter). If it means claiming that it's fifty-fifty or so on whether or not God exists, it's no more rational than claiming to be certain he does.

Forzare

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

can we not have this thread *again*

MadassAlex

Sure it is. It's not proof of absence, but it's pretty strong evidence thereof.

---

If we're splitting hairs between "evidence" and "proof", then this debate has gone far enough.

DonZabu

^ Yeah. By no means, did I mean for it to go this far.

Nyktos

@MadassAlex: If we're splitting hairs between two very different things, the debate has good too far?

MadassAlex

No, if we're splitting hairs between evidence and proof.

RedEyedAbyss

@Don: Like funnyguts, I find the former definition more useful. The latter says very little.

Nyktos

@MadassAlex: In what context are those not completely different?

MadassAlex

Perhaps you'd like to offer your definitions of each first?

Nyktos

Evidence: Something that suggests something is true.

Proof: Something that proves something is true.