/sci/ - Science & Math

Agnostic Buddhist here.

all of you are faggots

I'm glad we can agree on why I'm not an athiest but a agnostic.

>>1684264


You assume God is a coherent concept and a possible object that is also able to be supported with empirical evidence.

Since God is an incoherent being that bears no relation to anything within our universe and since we can't even make appropriate metaphors for what God is, it isn't reasonable to assume this concept has any empirical or even rational legitimacy.

As such, the agnostic presumes too much if he believes we simply "lack evidence" one way or another. The concept itself is an absurdity, a squared-circle, a married-bachelor, a property with no object, an object with no properties, a limitless limit, etc.

Being atheistic towards God concepts is natural, assuming one actually analyzes the idea, and doesn't just have knee-jerk reactions to it.


The agnostic, like the theist, must demonstrate how the idea of God is coherent and verifiable, and then he can take his ignorant position and claim there is simply not enough evidence...etc.

Brofist, agnosticfag here.
Atheism is for hipsters.

>>1684303
6/10
would troll again

Agnostics just want to be Atheists without the fallout from religious people.

None of you agnostics actually believe in god, you're just cowards.

I'm agnostic to santa clause. i'm also agnostic to fairies, dragons, and unicorns

>>1684313
I'm just agnostic because you can never be 100% certain about anything. I think any smart person would agree with that

Absence of evidence <span class="math">is[/spoiler] evidence of absence. This is basic probability.

Quoting:
"In probability theory, absence of evidence is always evidence of absence. If E is a binary event and P(H|E) > P(H), 'seeing E increases the probability of H'; then P(H|~E) < P(H), 'failure to observe E decreases the probability of H'. P(H) is a weighted mix of P(H|E) and P(H|~E), and necessarily lies between the two."

So that's why. I can be as confident in the nonexistence of god as I can in the nonexistence of invisible teapots near Saturn.

AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM ADDRESS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LOGICAL ASPECTS OF KNOWLEDGE. YOU'RE A FUCKBAGGING ASSWEASEL OF A CUNTMUNGER.

agnostic theist here

I hate hardline atheists almost as much as religious people. Do you know how the universe began? No, you don't. The Big Bang is certainly not a good enough explanation of the origin of the universe because it doesn't explain what happened before that. Nobody knows what started everything, we may never know. Now shut the fuck up.

>>1684359
Trust me, dude, spouting bullshit like "WHAT HAPPEN BEFORE BIG BANG" is a good way to out yourself as someone who has never seriously studied science. You know not of what you speak. This sort of crap is as bad as people claiming evolution is impossible because it violates entropy.

>>1684303
>>1684317
Agnosticism, at least as I intend it, is not about God, it's more general. It's the impossibility of knowing with certainty about the origin of the universe (or if it ever had one), the purpose of life (or if it has one) and similar stuff. Everything, and maybe some options that our human minds cannot even conceive can be possible.

>>1684377
Sounds like you took a few too many philosophy classes and a lot too few science ones back in high school. Science admits the possibility of all things which are logically consistent, but it doesn't have to take them seriously without evidence. And don't talk about "not knowing with certainty about the origin of the universe" - there was a time when we didn't know with certainty the origin of life, but things change.

>>1684375
What happened before the big bang is a completely acceptable question. Read a Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking or the Labyrinth of Time. Before the big bang could be the end of a previous universe or the beginning of a parallel universe mate entirely of dark matter and energy. Dont overstate your grasp on knowledge newfag.

>>1684375
>trololol i pretend to know more than other people but i have no idea what i'm talking about lol

>>1684375
Obviously it's not just "hurp durp before the big bang".
I meant a far broader question (which will sound just as hurp durp) such as time itself - how does it exist, and why does anything have to exist anyway? The point I'm making is that there are no feasible answers to these questions, and attempting to pretend you know is laughable.

>>1684337
Well done that man.
Fucking sanctimonious fence sitting Agnostics. Grow a pair you useless cunts.

>>1684337
About fucking time. Going around and saying, I am an agnostic not an atheist and all that shit makes you look like a retard.

>>1684397

With new theories in math and computer modeling/power its not pipe dreaming to make theories of time before the big bang. And there is no way to know entirely ANYTHING due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle. And in science it is wrong to pursue research of things which you think you will be able to prove. Searching only for things you think you can prove ahead of time is known as the "Street Light Effect" as described in the July Discover magazine. "If I knew what I was doing it wouldnt be called research" -Einstein

>>1684359
Nigger, just shut the fuck up before you make yourself look even more retarded.

>>1684313

That's a bold statement.

Also, I consider myself agnostic because I am in some ways a spiritual person. If proof of God can be found, I will be more then willing to accept it. I personally believe we as a species are very wrong about many things.

Most of the agnostics I've met have described themselves as more or less "on the fence". I never claimed to be an athiest, nor was I ever an athiest. My spiritual views have evolved with time. Some things can be shown, some can't. Some things shouldn't need to be proven, otherwise faith wouldn't be a necessity.

Gnostic-Theist
Agnostic-Theist
Gnostic-Atheist
Agnostic-Atheist

Those are the options. Just "atheist" or just "agnostic" is incorrect.

>>1684437

heisenberg stops at meta levels. if it's big and slow and fucking stupid, it's definitely you.

Proofs are for geometry tests.

>>1684397
Yeah, there are thing we don't know, and there are probably thing we will never know... so fucking what?

Why is everyone ignoring >>1684336

??

He's right.

>>1684440
Why are you linking Stephen Hawking to back up your atheist nonsense when he is agnostic?

Fucking atheists... so dumb...

>>1684336

I wasn't ignoring it, it was just some heavy statistics. I'm glad you found an explanation you're satisfied with. I like the teapot joke, thats cute.

>>1684451
Actually just atheist or just theist works fine.

>>1684451
stop posting this bullshit. An agnostic cant be theist or atheist, is it so hard to understand?

AGNOSTIC:
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known." Coined by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895) from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known"

Agostic is supposed to mean that you're not sure what happened?
Well, that's what atheism is about as well, it's also recognizing that some imaginary man in the sky created the universe isn't very likely.

>>1684450
>Some things shouldn't need to be proven, otherwise faith wouldn't be a necessity.
This is where we disagree, you see.

>>1684444
>I personally believe we as a species are very wrong about many things.
Oh, there can be no doubt about this... but why single out this specific thing to be wrong?

simulation argument ftw:

at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.

>>1684453

People quick to jump to conclusions are often quick to make mistakes. I do think slowly but effectively. You, your thoughts, and your memories are all physical be it RNA, atom, quark, gluon, string, etc. And I was making a point that although we dont know anything 100% we still make assumptions that get us through life which up to this point in time has worked. Therefore, it is not wrong for someone to assume the existence/absence of god based upon their personal experience. In other words this question of God/ No God is purely subjective.

>>1684485
Are you retarded?
Look here:
>>1684337

SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING!!!! IT IS A METHOD. THE NUMBERS AND MEASUREMENTS THAT COME OUT OF THIS METHOD IS EXPLAINED IN A THEORY!

>>1684480
This is not heavy statistics, really it's not. In plain English:

"If seeing thing A makes it more likely that thing B is true, then failure to see thing A makes it less likely that thing B is true."

>>1684464
clearly op meant absence of evidence isn't PROOF of absence. Furthermore what would be such events E where 'seeing E increases the probability of H'; or 'failure to observe E decreases the probability of H' where H is the existence of God, I don't think we know.

>>1684477
He is an agnostic atheist you dumb ass. You are under the impression that atheist = people who have an active belief in the non-existence of god. That isn't the case. An atheist is someone who is without a belief in god. Atheism literally means without theism. Theism meaning the belief in gods. You don't believe in gods? You are an atheist. Theism and atheism are necessarily all encompassing, like sexual and asexual. Now, someone could be an atheist who has an active belief in the non-existence of god, but that is rare, because it's really fucking stupid.

>>1684521
I agree, stupid way of thinking really. Even on a smaller scale, e.g. just because you are used to seeing a nigger stealing from a gas station, and on one day there happens to be 10 niggers and 1 whitey in a gas station when something goes missing, it doesn't prove that a nigger stole the item. Even though it is very probable

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

gnositicism

possessing knowledge, esp. esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.

Step 1,
Destroy the fucking term agnostic.

>>1684510
>hurr durr a chart posted on 4chan
please stop trolling, please

>>1684586


if agnostics are so neutral and lacking in knowledge they should stfu and never criticize anything because they dont know anything at all, fucken assholes

derp derp I dont know how to do calculus therefore I'll assume it's impossible to do

Being an agnostic means that I don't have to argue with people on the internet about what they believe.

>>1684612
/thread

>>1684588
You are a fucking epic troll. Holy fuck.
Seriously, are you a politician?

You can say the same thing about all info posted on 4chan... Just because it's on 4chan doesn't imply it's false.

>>1684612
No, it means being an atheist and arguing with atheists about something they don't believe. Tell me something more stupid than that.

>>1684337
>>1684337
>>1684337
>>1684337
>>1684337
>>1684337
>>1684337
>>1684337
>>1684337

agnostics mainly argue the certainty of person's belief that a god is existant or non existant. believers and non believers in god bear the burden of proof and both sides still haven't made a credible case

>>1684337

Since no one can be 100% certain of anything your chart is meaningless.

>>1684673

an agnostic can take the position of atheist where he doesn't believe in a god or he can be a religious follower and believe in a god. in either case though the agnostic isn't 100 percent correct of his position.

>>1684629
Just because it's on 4chan it doesn't imply it's true either
hurr durr
a real agnostic doesnt answer the question "does god exist?"

>>1684673
Sure they can. No one intelligent could, of course, but if you don't understand rudimentary math, you could absolutely be completely sure of something.

>>1684673
you CAN be 100% certain, that doesn't mean you're right.
in fact, by definition you cannot be right for being 100% certain of anything outher than your own existence as a thinking entity.

>>1684733
>>1684739

What's the difference between that and belief? If there is no difference then there is no reason to make a distinction and the chart is still meaningless.

>>1684739
descartes...

>>1684673
since the chart clearly states that it is possible to be 100% certain, your statement is meaningless.

>>1684337
>>1684337
CORRECTED

>>1684773
When I say "I know gravity will still work tomorrow", this is not 100% certain. It's just 99.999999% certain, give or take a few 9s. Given sufficient evidence, however, I could be convinced otherwise. This makes me agnostic with respect to gravity.

Some people, however, have 100% confidence in something. This means no amount of evidence could even theoretically convince them. This makes them gnostic.

There are very, very few gnostic atheists. However, there are plenty of agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, and gnostic theists. This is why we need different terms for each group.

>>1684823

You're just describing faith. The only difference is in the degree of conviction to that faith. Absolute faith is gnostic? So a gnostic atheist is just very faithful in his atheism?

>>1684508

so you're not certain you exist?

>>1684823
So how certain are you that nothing can be known for sure?

>>1684842
There is a world of difference between 99.999999% confident and 100% confident, but, basically, yes.

>>1684823
>>I don't know what gravity is
oh...ok

100% certainty test - let's find out if 100% certainty is impossible 100% of the time.

if you're certain you exist... don't post.

.......no, hang on... that can't be right.

>>1684896
Heh, it was a simplification. There are two classes of true: empirically and logically.

I am 100% confident in logical truths - there is no conceivable amount of evidence that could convince me that the statement "If A implies B, and B implies C, and A is true, then C is true" is false.

That you can't be 100% confident in empirical truths is a logical truth. There's no contradiction.

>>1684939
Well, it seems like common sense that I can know with 100% certainty that the earth is not flat.

Let's just all agree that needing names for every strata of nonbelief is fucking aggravating and worthless.

>>1684976
Only by rounding. 100% certain means there is no conceivable amount of evidence which could convince you otherwise. What if I took you to the edge of the world and let you look down? Or built a starship and let you fly around the flat earth for yourself?

Obviously, these things are impossible by our current understanding - but our current understanding has been wrong in the past. Remember, 100% certain means there's no conceivable evidence which could convince you otherwise.

>>1685039

a thinking individual can be certain they exist as a collection of connected thought processes, if nothing else.

existence is a definite, 100% empirical truth.

i think, therefore i am a cunt.

Simple question.
Do you believe in god?
Answers.
a)No. = Atheist. Valid
b)Yes. = Theist. Valid
c)Well... bla bla... bullshit...aids... tl;dr = Agnostic. Invalid (you are a coward.)

>>1685426
this

>>1684264
I can see why you'd ask that. After all, Agnostics are Atheists too (unless they're insane).

Personally I call myself an Agnostic rather than an Atheist because some Atheists run around saying that deities don't exist (and I don't want to be labeled the same as them).

I have no clue how the universe came into being, and it's not all that far-fetched that some superbeing had something to do with it. I wouldn't say "likely", but it's definitely possible.

In the end, the truth is this: we don't know. We are without knowledge. We are Agnostic.

Some people just have trouble admitting their own ignorance.

>>1685426
>>1685482
You're the cowards. You're trying to hide from your own ignorance.

Agnostics have the balls to admit that they don't know.

"I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." -Dawkins...that pretty much sums it up

>>1685039
are you 100% certain that you didn't make this post?

>>1686032
He's not. Or at least, he shouldn't.

Maybe he's in a pod somewhere like in the Matrix, and the sentient computers are stimulating his brain with electricity and chemicals to make him believe that he's in his house posting on a message board.

Since the odds of that are very low, however, it's fine to act as if you were 100% certain. At least, as long as, in the back of your mind, you always remember that nothing is truly certain.

>>1686053
No, I mean, did he make THAT >>1686032
post.

>>1686058
Hah! I see.

Well, same answer mostly. He's *practically* 100% certain that he didn't, with the ever-present knowledge that nothing is truly certain.

I wouldn't want to imagine living while doubting every single thing that your brain tells you.

I'm ignostic you are all retards for assuming to much about the concept of God, to believe or not to believe or to think it is not knowable.

>>1684264
The negative correlation between religious claims and the reality of the universe is evidence against religion, and is present in such staggering quantities as to constitute proof. Like all scientific propositions, we remain open to refutation by evidence of supernatural phenomenon, but there is now enough evidence against god that it can be safely assumed to be a false proposition.

OH LOOK IT'S THIS THREAD AGAIN.

To you fagnostics out there: Do you also believe that a flying unicorn visited you last night? BECAUSE THERES NO EVIDENCE THAT IT DIDNT HAPPEN DERP.

0/10 troll thread.

Also: >>1684337

>>1686173
Interesting. I had never encountered Ignosticism before. My spell checker is giving the wiggly red for Ignosticism! Just to clarify you can not define the word God?
The idea if my understanding is correct is that you are ignorant of god and that you can not receive enlightenment into the nature of god. So to an Ignostic burning a bible would be better than burning a newspaper as nothing of value can be obtained from a book that relies on someone having a concept of what god is.
Anyway it smells like a cop-out to me.

I happen to believe that I'm anally penetrated by dragons every night in my sleep. This belief comforts me greatly. You have no right to tell me it isn't true, you're causing me grief and you CAN'T DISPROVE IT

>>1686303
Pics or it didn't happen.
Further more to >>1686287
What about souls? According to theists there is an invisible spirit inside them. Do you claim ignorance over something that theists would have you believe is a part of you? Do you claim ignorance of the existence of your brain?

Agnosticism, in the sense that Sagan uses it, is completely all right:

>We cannot know with certainty if there was a god who created the whole thing, who existed before the big bang etc. BUT IT IS PRETTY FUCKING SURE THAT HE DIDN'T DICTATE BOOKS TO SAND PEOPLE AND PERFORM MIRACLES.

This is the problem with 4chan "agnostics", they are mostly Americans who hold the belief that biblical truth may actually be right. No, it fucking can't. Not one agnostic scientist was agnostic about christianity, that would be fucking stupid.

>>1686287
That is a silly analogy, with any God argument any intelligent person at the start should say what do you define as God? If the definition is illogical (Like Christian Monotheism) I will take an Atheistic stance, if it is logical like pantheism or sun worship I will take a theistic stance, there are many people with different definitions, most of them incoherent.

>>1686327
>if it is logical like sun worship

>>1686323

I agree with this Agnosticism mixed with ignosticism, is the way forward. Because what belief in particular are you agnostic about? But I do also agree it's much more leaned towards and under the umbrella of Atheism in practice if I don't want to get too technical.

>>1686349
>>1686323

Oh, I should also say that this obsession with avoiding the label 'atheist' and saying you're an 'agnostic' at all costs is only present in the US as well. In Europe, almost two thirds of the population have no problem saying they are atheists.

>[citation needed]

Google "religiosity in the world".

I find it tragic that in America you can become a social outcast if you say you don't believe in Jesus Christ. How did that nation stoop this low?

>>1686330

If someone wants to call the sun God, who am I to disagree, it exists so I can't be atheistic about it.

>>1686371

Oh I see. I thought you were saying that it is logical to assume that the Sun has supernatural powers.

>>1684536
I stopped reading this thread at this point, it made the whole arguement redundant and pointless.

>>1686387

No dude, that IS the definition of atheism. 4chan has a distorted view, what they call 'agnosticism' is weak atheism, which most of us share, and what they call 'atheism' is hard atheism, which nobody believes.

>>1686373

If you think about it sun worship is quite logical, we are all star dust, star children so to speak from supernovae, so forget Jesus the stars died for us to live. And all the elements in the periodic table are manufactured from stars.

>>1686430

That's... that's actually pretty cool

I believe that the odds of a god is so slim that it's more convenient for me to call myself an Atheist. If I believe the probability of God existing is 1/10000nth, calling myself Agnostic could be misinterpreted as 50/50; it's a matter of convenience.

Everyone's Agnostic.

It's just that some of them:
Think that they know that deities exist, or
Think that they know that deities don't exist, or
Are insane and believe in deities anyway.

Agnostic atheism is the only way that respects truth (we don't know) and logic (since we don't know, it'd be stupid to believe in something).

why is "there is a god" the null hypothesis? THAT is illogical

in the absence of evidence, do not believe!

also troll

>>1684264
HEY HEY LISTEN !_!(@UI)(!U#)!*U#
OP
Atheists answers the question of belief
Lets say I ask you if u believe in god -if you say anything other then yes that means you are an atheist.

Gnosticism is the question of what ever you know
if I ask you do you know if god exists anything other then yes means you are agnostic.
So.. you can be an agnostic atheists or a gnostic atheist (you wont find many of those)

Hope I answered your question.
Now if you ask me if I know if god exists I would say probably not...

atheist:there is no god and I'm sure of it despite having no proof whatsoever
theist:there is a god and I'm sure of it despite having no proof whatsoever
agnostic:we don't know wether or not there is a god as we have no proof, but either hypothesis is equally as likely to be right or wrong

>>1688573
>.>
Atheism doesn't answer the question when ever you know there is a god... For fuck sake

It says I do not believe in one.

>>1686480
There's nothing wrong with calling yourself an atheist. Taking the position that God VERY PROBABLY does not exist, is atheism. It's the position that advocates for the non-existence of God, even if it's based on probability. It doesn't require you know it for certain.

You are not an agnostic. An agnostic does not claim to have such information, that he could form such a position making God so unlikely to exist.

>>1688588
Atheism is the advocation of atheos, or godlessness, or the non-existence of God.
If you mean to say you simply don't believe in God, call yourself a non-theist, or secular.

>>1688607
That's not what people mean when they say "atheist". Since words are defined by what people use them to mean, you are wrong.

>>1688599
I have seen plenty of evidence to support that the bible is wrong but I have yet to see any evidence that god doesn't exists
Its especially odd that the idea persists throughout different cultures alike despite and the fact that the idea of God brings peace of mind to so many people
Maybe we can't prove it, but just because we can't prove it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means we can't explain it with logic.

>>1684303
>Being atheistic towards God concepts is natural, assuming one actually analyzes the idea
no atheism is not natural as you must first be presented with the 'unnatural' concept first. Therefore you must first create the unnatural (concept or material thing makes no difference)
in order to assume the natural
>As such, the agnostic presumes too much if he believes we simply "lack evidence"
As per above, it is the atheist who is presumptious as to dismiss that which is not natural. In other words, if there is no theist then there is no atheism and thus before there is any discourse (before words are spoken or electrons in the brain have moved, unless you presume a thought can exist without any electrical application which is quite the awkward 'tactical' position for an atheist in terms of debate) agnosticism is the default

>Since God is an incoherent being that bears no relation to anything within our universe and since we can't even make appropriate metaphors for what God is
In the famous words of Richard Feynman "That's the way it, if you don't like it, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!" in regards to there being no metaphor and concept not needing to conform to anything rational or observable. The lack of a model is not proof of there not being any model - it is what it is.

>Being atheistic towards God concepts is natural, assuming one actually analyzes the idea
no atheism is not natural as you must first be presented with the 'unnatural' concept first. Therefore you must first create the unnatural (concept or material thing makes no difference)
in order to assume the natural
>As such, the agnostic presumes too much if he believes we simply "lack evidence"
As per above, it is the atheist who is presumptious as to dismiss that which is not natural. In other words, if there is no theist then there is no atheism and thus before there is any discourse (before words are spoken or electrons in the brain have moved, unless you presume a thought can exist without any electrical application which is quite the awkward 'tactical' position for an atheist in terms of debate) agnosticism is the default

>Since God is an incoherent being that bears no relation to anything within our universe and since we can't even make appropriate metaphors for what God is
In the famous words of Richard Feynman "That's the way it is, if you don't like it, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!" in regards to there being no metaphor and concept not needing to conform to anything rational or observable. The lack of a model (lack of human ability to make one or recognize one) is not the proof of there not being any model - it is what it is.

>>1688617
It is what most people use by the word "atheist". 15-year-olds trying to change it isn't enough to change what it means in mainstream use.

>>1688607
ok then I'm an none theist ,really does it matter?

>>1688619
see
>>1684336

We can be as confident in the nonexistence of God as we can of the nonexistence of pink rainbow-shitting unicorns.

>>1688619
Well, it doesn't seem that you are all that convinced that there is no God. Maybe you should call yourself agnostic. The Bible has nothing to do with the issue.

>>1688644
Speak for yourself. Who is this "we"? If you feel the probability of God is astronomically low, call yourself an Atheist. Most people don't agree.

I am an agnostic atheist as I personally have not done any valid research into deities and therefore have no true knowledge of whether or not they exist.
But I think it is highly probable that no deity of any form currently exists.
agnostic means without knowledge.
it has nothing to do with religion.
sage in all fields.

>>1688636
Find me one mainstream, reasonably respectable source claiming atheism is advocating the non-existence of a god (whatever the hell that means), rather than simply not believing in a god.

>>1688650
"We" being "the human race". Just like we can be confident life arose through evolution. Just like we can be confident the Earth moves around the Sun, not the other way around. That many - probably most - people don't accept these things doesn't make them less true.

>>1688653
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

>>1688659
Then you are just speaking out of your ass. The large majority of the human race, not only has reason to believe that God exists, but that they have some sort of relationship with God.

>>1688665
The large majority has reason to believe the sun goes around the Earth, too. What of it?

>>1688607
>>1688617
>>1688636
People disagree on its use, true. Some say it's denying the existence of deities while others say it's simply not believing in deities.

Officially it means "without god". This could fit both descriptions, so it's best to assume that what makes an atheist is simply the lack of belief in gods. It's just that there's two subcategories (those who deny their existence and those who just don't believe in them).

Some people who say gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism, but that's kind of a retarded system because gnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. No one is gnostic.

>>1688669
So you're speaking out of your ass when you say we can be confident in the non-existence of God. The opposite is true. We can be confident in the existence of God.

>>1688670
You can make a hypothetical argument for using atheism to mean lacking a belief in God, but since it doesn't really fit either with the historical usage or with etymology, if you're trying to say you simply are not a theist, you should use a word that directly means that, like non-theist.

>>1688673
Not upon examining all the evidence available and with basic grasp of probability theory. See >>1684336.

Same as we can be confident in the nonexistence of rainbow-shitting unicorns.

>>1688673

just because your jocasta complex causes you to have an innapropriate fixation on a fictional old guy don't make it real. no matter how many of you fags there are.

shit, does that mean harry potter exists in reality coz all the weeners think he does?

>>1688673
I'm not that person, but I can answer that.

We can be confident in anything in the sense that it's possible to be confident in anything. But I'll assume that when he says "can", he's implying that we have sufficient data to judge that the likelihood is so high that it's almost a certainty.

With that in mind...

If your definition of "God" is the deity from the abrahamic religion, then no, we cannot be confident in its existence because the available data indicates that it's nearly certain that it does not exist.

If your definition of "God" is some unknown superbeing, then we still can't be confident that it exists, but we can't be confident that it doesn't exist either.

If you aren't an agnostic atheist, then you are retarded.

Also, OP, you claim that having the idea that god probably doesn't exist is unscientific. Is that also the case for the idea that, say, the Loch Ness monster or Santa Claus probably doesn't (don't) exist? It seems pretty scientific to say "well, there is no evidence supporting any of these, so it is illogical to presume that they exist until evidence is found."

It's all semantics, anyways. Agnostics and atheists are in the same boat, since all atheists are agnostic, and most agnostics are atheists.

>>1688709
Yes.

>>1688709
A reasonable post? On *my* internet?