Ask an agnostic

#21

i would but youd just answer everything with “i dunno lol so why bother to form an opinion”

#22

As recent history has shown science seems to no longer be repeatedly rediscovering itself more and more accurately but to be discovering entirely new things.

#23

The way that I see science, specifically in relation to the so-called “flat Earth” of eons ago, is like this:

Pi is:
First: 3
Second: 3.1
Third: 3.14
Fourth: 3.142
Fifth: 3.1416
Sixth: 3.14159
Seventh: 3.141592
Eighth: 3.1415927
Ninth: 3.14159265

And so on.

And then some else comes along and says that in short fashion, you were “wrong nine times”. But, are you?

#24

Well good science should never really change. The process of observing is always evolving and thus the implications of the observations change. For the most part, our observations don’t change what is true. What changes is our ability to observe and the quality of our deductions based on these observations. The scientific method doesn’t change, just the tools used for observation and our abilities to analyze this data. To deny the many successes of science because of current limitations is silly.

I personally agree that anything suggested without evidence CAN be dismissed without evidence. The analogy was used that we don’t have evidence of life on other planets. However there HAS been evidence there the whole time. As our tools of analysis have evolved, the strength of the evidence has increased. I can’t think of an example where it wouldn’t be reasonable to dismiss something without evidence to support the claim. The more grandiose the claim the more this line of reasoning comes to the forefront.

Because we are finite beings with finite minds we will likely be agnostic for the foreseeable future. However, this is unrelated to the realm of theism and atheism. I just hope we can avoid the discussion where people debate the meaning of words. Oh boy, does THAT get stupid quick.

#25

the first person who answers Yes to the poll is a mentally challenged individual

#26

I beg to differ. Saying the Earth was flat was more like saying pi is “about 7” :wink: when you had all the evidence and tools required to prove that pi is actually around 3.1. Early evidence of the curvature of the Earth is the fact that when a ship approaches from sea the first thing you see is it’s mast. If the Earth were flat the entire boat could be seen from any distance, just smaller or larger depending on how far away the boat is. Calling the Earth flat was “wrong” not just because it was inaccurate, but also because the tools and evidence of the time provided a much more accurate answer. Calling the Earth flat was not a failure of science but a failure of society for imposing it’s inaccurate beliefs onto scientists.

Now of course this is just one particular instance, and after writing all this I realized it was entirely pointless because for other more fitting examples your description of science works well.

I think that the belief that everything spun around the Earth, though also marred by society’s restrictions, is a better example. In the very early days it would be a fair assumption that stars and the Sun rotated around Earth because if you watched them, they seemed to do exactly that. But with the telescope and more accurate astronomy, it became obvious that the Earth rotated around the Sun.

#27

garth: I’m talking BEFORE even the “ship disappearing below the horizon”…like before ships capable of “disappearing” existed. I’m talking, like, a REAL long time ago.

#28

Why would I ask an agnostic? Agnostics don’t know anything.

…get it? Cuz, like, agnosticism is the philosophical stance that one cannot “know.”

Awful shenanigans aside, a true agnostic is technically an atheist because they don’t affirm a belief in god. In fact, most atheists I know are agnostic as well. The terms aren’t mutually exclusive. But agnosticism isn’t a branch of atheism, if that’s what the OP means. The two are only related with regards to one question: is there a God?

#29

the agnostic answers LOL I DUNNO
and the atheist says LOL PROBABLY NOT

#30

The agnostic answers: LOL I DUNNO
and the atheists says: LOL I DUN BELEEV

#31

Saying you are agnostic is like saying you are half pregnant.

#32

Um, no.

#33

Agnosticism concerns knowledge, and is an adjective describing a type of atheist.

#34

or a type of theist, really

#35

Agnostic theist: “I don’t know but I believe.”

Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.