Agnosticism is [not] based on faith - it’s based on an unwillingness to give way to an ‘emotional’ faith - because reason dictates that we cannot know. Just as atheism is a willingness to let go of reason stating that we can know…and is also more emotion-based.
Perhaps it is agnosticism which requires the most effort. The ‘believer’ - deist or theist has faith - the atheist ‘knows’ beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no god 
but all the agnostic knows or intuits is that we cannot know. But because the agnostic still realizes he/she cannot know, (at least for those moments) don’t you think that that individual would have more questions, delve further and deeper into the possibilities of a deity? For the believer and non-believer, the door is more or less shut. If that makes sense - it does to me. But I may be wrong.
The believed- or disbelieved-in object holds you hostage. Are these beliefs a function of you, or are you a function of them?
Theistic conceptual frameworks have a lot of utility - any but the most closed-minded dogmatical “atheist” can admit as much. Exploring these frameworks to the point where you begin to see and purge their weaknesses and inconsistencies, progressively overcoming them qua limitation while submitting them to your higher intention, capacity and value - this has far greater utility, of course.
The “true” agnostic, who does not succumb to the temptation and error of using agnostic methodology as an short-cut for or excuse not to think, never refers to himself as “agnostic”.
A vs B vs C - atheism vs theism vs agnosticism: hide behind a label as a mask, keep distance from yourself [why?]. A half-acknowledged and desperately denied deceptive intention toward others makes sure your own self-intended deception is always more carefully hidden away.
The shit that I read in this forum is out of this world.
Atheism is to let go of reason? You gotta be fisting me.
Open your eyes man, it’s the exact opposite.
Reason is actually one of the things that atheist tend to promote! Reason ! As opposed to faith.
Are you really telling me that saying things like " I don’t know so god did it" or “yes there’s no evidence but I believe it” or “the bible is the word of god” is to use reason?
And atheism is more emotion based then say, theism? ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Perhaps, but it is almost certainly the most reasonable point of view.
For literally thousands of years now the “God!”, “No God!” folks have been battling it out. So, is there or is there not a God?
See what I mean? The agnostics [well, some of them] make the assumption that knowledge of this sort is beyond our grasp. We may as well profess to comprehend the very nature of existence itself.
And you can’t help but wonder how many things there are that we don’t even know that we don’t even know yet.
About lots and lots of things, I suspect.
While it is true that the debate is old, is also true that there have always been intellectuals who realized how silly the notion was.
Atheism is not new.
no, simply that it’s impossible to prove, and therefore impossible for anyone to know - they may believe, have faith, or think that they know, but they do not know.
most people may be convinced, but nobody knows - that’s all i’m saying. no, i really can’t imagine anything realistic that might happen to prove the existence of a creator god. i suppose there are things that might convince me as an individual, but that’s besides my point.
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?
How do you know God didn’t appear to the prophet of the Church of Latter Day Saints? How do you know nobody knows? How in the world could you know that?
the same way i can know that the earth is not flat, or that elephants don’t fly
youre talking about what people believe, or are convinced of - that’s not knowledge - i may be convinced that Obama has done a decent job during his first term in office, but that’s not something i KNOW, it’s a belief. nobody KNOWS what kind of job Obama has done in his first four years, that’s not something we can know one way or another.
what in the world? what’s knowledge?
if god appeared to you personally, you wouldn’t think “I know god exists”?
based on everything you’ve said in this conversation, like how knowledge can only come from “proof”, and proof is “convincing most people” or something like that…
if i’m wearing jeans, I actually wouldn’t be able to say I know I’m wearing jeans. I’d have to prove it to most people before I could say “I know I’m wearing jeans”
does that sound anything like what you believe?
no, i’d probably think it’s time for me to start cutting back on weed
seriously - do you think Einstein KNEW there was a god, the same way that he KNEW that e=mc squared? he may have been convinced there was a god, but he certainly didn’t settle the debate.
i don’t give a shit about einstein, what does einstein have to do with anything?
you say nobody can know because it hasn’t been proven to everybody. So that means i can’t know that i’m wearing jeans unless I prove it to everyone else first.
no, it doesn’t - i’d ask you to actually read what i’m writing and try to understand rather than merely grasping at straws for some semblance of something to disagree with.
i don’t give a shit about your jeans, what do they have to do with anything?
i can play that game too.
the fact that you are wearing jeans can in principle be readily proven - the fact that there is a god cannot.
I saw what you were saying. You said that if God had personally appeared to someone, that wouldn’t be enough for him to know that God exists. You said truth is “intersubjective” – which means apparently that it’s true that God does in fact exist, btw, since most people believe that.
So why can someone not know something unless they’ve already convinced everyone else first? I don’t understand where you’re getting these standards from.
but it hasn’t been proven, so I can’t know it, right? I can’t know it. I can’t know what kind of clothing I’m wearing because I haven’t proven it to other people – because truth is intersubjective.
it doesn’t work that way - again youre conflating knowledge with belief
that’s not what i said, dude.
answer one of my questions for once: are you suggesting that there is a correct answer to the question of whether god exists?
yeah
after reading this post, i really have no idea what your position is at all any more. i’m actually considering the possibility that you actually would agree with what i’m saying if you understood what “can’t” means to me when you say it.
cuz you see, this post reads to me like this:
“we can’t know…but maybe we can know…”