That's known as the "battered wife syndrome" in sociology.

Yawn.

No, I mean BOOKS (not textbooks) written by respected scholars in their field of studies.

If you people are unable to use spoilers, than your posts will be deleted.

in sociology.


The battered Agnostic syndrome because Agnosticism follows many of the same ideals and thinking patterns as the battered wife.

More like battered people, when they just don't wanna argue because they had their beliefs battered one time too many.

Look there undecided at this point in there life why should any one care at least their trying to figure out what best for them. Calling them names is not going to help. People of faith do more to help others then none people of faith most think it is the government job to handle it. If they have strong convection in the faith and do not shove it at me I do not care in some case's I respect these people.

Atheists perform good deeds as they are aware of the need for the betterment of humanity, not for the selfish purpose of earning oneself points in heaven. Unlike Christian hypocrites, atheists don’t see the need to equate atheism with charity for propaganda or selfish purposes. Atheism is just an ordinary everyday matter, and so is charity. Using charity as an excuse to propagate a particular set of religious beliefs is nothing more than a cheap evangelistic ploy.


If we are going to look at the difference between theists and atheists with respect to charitable giving, one of the concepts we should introduce is that of rational charity. This is the idea of putting one's money where it can do the most good, and not wasting money on that which has no effect, or that which actually harms the people that one is trying to help.

We get significant examples of this from religious charities.

There are those who devote a considerable amount of effort building churches where they could be building water treatment plants, and teaching a set of religious myths where they could be teaching people to better understand the real world in which they live.


On another note I can name many atheist... who Donate great sums of money on worthy investments for the future.
Robert Wilson Donated $22.5 million to elementary schools.

Atheist Bill Gates is the owner of the nation’s largest charitable foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

According to many reports, “ 50 of the nation's largest foundations had committed more than $100 million in grants aimed at reducing foreclosures, keeping food bank shelves stocked and providing services to the homeless and financial counseling for others.”
All happen to be run by Atheist.

Go Atheism.

Oh like DarkPhoenix is doing now? I could care less about the subject, that's what apathetic atheism means. I don't particularly like being called a coward or a fool, just because I don't believe as Dark Phoenix does. DF, your extremist approach in terms of tone and word choice drive away people. If you REALLY want people to care about and accept your arguments you should think about that. Unless of course you're just using intemporate language because bashing people on the internet makes you feel like a bigger man.

I'm an individualist, it's thereby inevitable that I don't mix well within a collective, when I have no intention of me being assimilated completely by an organization. Furthermore, I bash ideas for the sole purpose of my self-empowerment, and if the end result is an even stronger idea then all the better. While I have no obligation of me helping those who don't want to help themselves in the first place. When there's no one to fight alongside me, it's only evidently that I will fight alone for my own cause.

My bad. It should have been DP not DF. Not that you're not somewhat intemporate yourself. but at least you're more restrained with the gratuitous insults.

I think my "Objection!" application usage as of late suggests otherwise.

To believe in something that has no real proof one way or the other, is illogical and not the other way around. To not even consider the possibility of something, no matter how unlikely, goes against the pursuit for higher knowledge and understanding of the world around us. Things like science and technology would develop slowly if there weren't people thinking outside of the box about things that seemed unlikely at the time due to limited knowledge on the subject.

If you are going to choose whether or not a God/Creator exists it would only be an opinion based on the limited scope of the person's knowledge. Even if all of the knowledge gained by humans was somehow combined and stored on a single super computer, I doubt there would be a concrete answer to whether or not God exists. I hope we can all agree that completely believing in an opinion, without hard evidence, is illogical.

So in my opinion, agnosticism is the most logical choice. I do believe that the God stated in the top holy books is most likely a fabrication created by humans, since there is some evidence to support that. Though, whether or not a God like figure exists in some form, is no concern of mines and does not affect my life in any way except for my interaction with other people when the topic comes up.

Further proof that agnosticism is the way to go: How many arguments, between those who believe in God and those who don't, have ended in an agreement between both sides (other than agreeing to stop arguing)? Almost none? This would be because you can't prove either side which makes it pointless to argue about. The most you can do is use clever word play and provide evidence that sounds concrete in order to convince someone of your position. Agnosticism is not about proving the unprovable but understanding that certain things currently can't be proven and therefore you work with what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Then if new information arises, you re-evaluate your position regarding that topic.

The denial of the possibility of knowledge would, logically, have to conclude in a lack of beliefs, as it is illogical to hold something to be true without knowing it to be so. Yet what many agnostics do is that they selectively make claims and somehow, when baffling matters are concerned, they miraculously return to their original position of 'We can't know.' Agnosticism which denies the possibility of knowledge altogether should be identified as epistemological nihilism, whereas selective agnosticism is a mongrel of a philosophy with no solid foundation, mimicking inductive reasoning, yet attempting to establish itself as separate from it. It is often invoked against the flawed, positive formulation of epistemological nihilism that a philosophy which negates positive beliefs would contradictorily negate itself, if positive. That it is impossible to have knowledge seems to me to be more of a positive postulation than radical scepticism, which saves epistemological nihilism in this situation. So why am I to accept that agnosticism denying the possibility of knowledge is anything more than epistemological nihilism deluxe for the sophisticated and the socially conscious? Also, how is a view limited to inductive reasoning a system of its own, divorced from inductive reasoning?

I am not denying the possibility of knowledge and saying that we can never know, I was saying that we don't know at this point in time due to our limited knowledge/abilities. If anyone researches it and finds new information on the subject, I'm all ears though I think we all know that there has been no headway into this argument for decades if not centuries. We are human, therefore imperfect/flawed and need to hold certain beliefs, even if they are not completely proven, in order to move forward and function. Any system of belief will be imperfect when a human being practices it so it's really about having the least imperfect set of beliefs. That is why I say I believe in things that have more proof for it than against it since of course we can't prove anything to be a 100% certainty due to our flaws. Believing or not believing in god has no bearing on anything we do and there is no more proof for there being a God than there is for there not being a God, which is why I say it is pointless to decide on one. Whether there is a God or not, I'll still do what I feel is right which is what the idea of a God is supposed to promote anyway.

The main point I was making is that religious and atheist beliefs are inherently illogical, regardless of the spin a single human puts on the belief, since the belief or disbelief in God is not based on enough factual information to be proven to a reasonable degree. I am not saying everyone should follow my beliefs but that they should understand that you can't prove or disprove god therefore you can't logically believe in one or the other. This is an argument about agnosticism being inherently illogical which is untrue. Humans are the ones whom are illogical due to our inherent flaws.

Also on a less sarcastic note, this dude is right. Of course I've only read the OP and select replies in this thread so forgive me if missed something someone has already said.

Unless the time-lines of all realities and all dimensions are cyclic or infinite, since we exist at this very moment, we had to have been created by something; At some point in time we went from nothing to something. It is in this process I believe, not in a sentience who molded us out of mud and created the universe in seven days. I do not know who or what was the catalyst, and I believe at this point in time we lack the ability to find any meaningful evidence pertaining to this question.

Because the universe as we know it is causal, that is a suggestion that the creation of the universe is also caused by something. Yes, I realize that this does not suffice as concrete evidence, but it suffices as a norm. If you seek to disprove this norm, the burden of proof is on you. In other words, YOU have to show evidence that the time-lines of all realities and all dimensions are cyclic or infinite. We don't have to find proof that the universe is caused by something, we simply default to the norm.

To use your Godzilla example, proof is needed to establish the existence of Godzilla because he does not exist in the norm. If instead the norm was a series of tracks and collateral damage that suggested something akin to the prehistoric T-rex roaming the shores of Japan today, proof would be needed to establish the non-existence of Godzilla or a creature similar to it.

Does this mean there was most definitely something that caused the creation of the universe? No
Does this mean it's more likely something caused the creation of the universe rather than the universe being an infinite loop? Yes

Anyhow, this is what I believe in and I think this is what Agnosticism entails. So I'm an Agnostic I suppose, and this is my stance.

My final question to those who find Agnosticism to be illogical, how do YOU think the universe came to be?

While I agree that we need to rely on quite possibly fallacious information to some extent, I do find that we need not hold fallacious beliefs, or any beliefs. I may act in a certain fashion with a view to exploiting past experiences. Let us say that I played Minesweeper a number of times, a thousand time, let us say, and not a single time did the game place a mine in the lower left corner of the field. I do not know the exact algorithm used to randomise the field, yet I don't wish to lose, in fact, I wish to win and I will not win by not making a decision. I am in a situation where I must make a decision, but I have no definitive truth upon which to rely and proceed, so I will look at a possible trend. I will simply act, hoping that what I spotted is indeed a trend, but without any certainty. I will not hold that it leaving the lower left corner empty is incorporated into the algorithm.

I am quite undecided, personally, on the issue of knowing. I tend to agree that humans, as they are now, are rather inept at making accurate observations, but I am not ready to claim that physics, that matter does not allow of accurate observation as a rule. Also, believing things proven on the balance of probability (more than 50% in favour) is, I find, far too generous. Especially considering that belief is not required in order to be able to act upon observations that the individual holds to be uncertain.

Ultimately, my approach is much the same as yours, as it incorporates relying on observations that may be erroneous, but without ever recognising them as true.




The burden of proof is on him who purports to posit a fact. If you argue that a causal halo is inherent to the universe, without that very claim having been proven previously, the burden of proof is upon you to bring support, as the opposition cannot be expected to argue against that which was never established, to begin with. If I am your opposition, I cannot be expected, indirectly, to tailor your argument for you by creating it as a negative of my own.

Agnosticism denies gnosis, knowledge, which is the exact same thing epistemological nihilism does not accept. So in this regard, agnosticism "forte" would be a mere positive form of the otherwise negative epistemological nihilism, whereas agnosticism that does not, altogether, deny the possibility of knowledge, and advocates revision upon new facts surfacing is nothing more than a form of inductive reasoning.