[
Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #283]
Yes.
We agree then.
But...
Not yes then...
...agnosticism is a position on knowledge.
Knowledge is the outcome of the interaction between individual consciousnesses and their experiences in nature.
The default is noted as ignorance [Lack of information to begin with - as in the human baby] but nature forces knowledge through experience.
All
3 positions are related to The Question of GOD [as in - we either exist within a creation or we do not] so all positions are positions on knowledge of the question in relation to the experience of nature.
We have no certain knowledge of whether a god exists.
The diagram indicates this as "Lack of information to establish either way" = "no certain knowledge."
This is why the agnostic position exists. It can also be used in other disciplines outside of Atheism and Theism.
Fine, that's the reasonable position.
Agreed. Re the OPQ, noting that the question asked is a somewhat contentious one as it is asking about
individuals rather than the positions individuals hold, bending the 'don't get personal' rule...
Giving the benefit of doubt, the question would have been better framed;
"Q: Is Agnosticism more reasonable than Atheism and Theism?"
But Theism and Atheism are belief -positions and logically, where one doesn't Know, one doesn't believe a claim until we do know.
This may well be a contentious idea from a bygone era which really needs an overhaul.
The main problem with it is the use of two words which mean separate things, yet have been allowed to be conflated, leading to accepting the less reasonable, [Atheism and Theism] as the better position, than the more reasonable position of Agnosticism.
Therefore atheism is the logical position derived from agnosticism.
The OPQ is not asking for an answer to that question. Both Atheism and Theism derive from Agnosticism.
You may now say that's ok, but the evidence points to a god.
You should know well that this is what I may now (for the time being) say, yes.
Very well.
(I see a message forming)
Betterment...
Lost beings...
Surrender...
Unnatural...
Look inward...
Naked truth...
Inner Critic...
Epitomized...
Very well...
I would agree that agnosticism as such is no basis for a position about the existence or not of a god,
I agree, as it relates to Agnostic Theists and Atheists...
other positions are fair game for critiquing... fair game...incoming...
Relax...
Desire...
Battle...
Active..
With...
"Fair game"...
Incidentally, fair game
is one of those sayings which can be conflated with "fare game"
and
and "fair game" [as in a gathering of people for a variety of entertainment]
but it is the evidence that determines whether the belief or not in the god -claim is validated as probable.
I see by your answer here, that you are trying to
Since neither Theism or Atheism has any more knowledge than Agnosticism re The Question of GOD - and Agnosticism remains without formalized [organized/established] beliefs either way, we have no choice [within the construct of honesty] but to acknowledge that Agnosticism is more reasonable than either Atheism or Theism.