No, but I don't exclude the possibility of there being something out there. I certainly don't believe in any faith system that exists right now. I try live my life as if there is someone watching me just for moral purposes. But I can't believe in anything that I can't prove.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).
Maybe agnostic atheist is more accurate then.
Reality exists. You don't need to prove it. It is self-evident. And those that will not accept that as fact are lost. The non-existence of god is just one small step away. If you can understand the implications of the law of identity, you will not need additional proof to be certain.
Omniscience is not possible or necessary for certain knowledge. Just because there is more to learn, doesn't make it possible to find impossible things. Nothing will ever demonstrate that the fundamentals of learning and demonstration are wrong. 2+2=4. Always. No new information will change this.
James Yount, you jest.
Otherwise with a brain like that you belong in the other camp.
No, I'm a pretty firm agnostic. My point was there is no proof either way, so why would anyone pretend they know all the answers? Being open to possibilities is what separates a thoughtful person from those with a superiority complex. Personally, I think it's better to live your life trying to make humanity better without the delusion that there is an all controlling god, but it's a problem when you present yourself as the authority on truth when talking with others. That makes us all look bad.
Yes there is - it called logic.
James, I am not sure who you are asking. However theists believe. Believers aver and affirm. Atheist deny and negate. Opposites. The former is making a claim without foundation. The latter is answering the claim with a resounding no.
That's fine Glen. I spend a lot of time refuting the claims of my more religious friends. But I've found that my side is more convincing when it takes these things on a claim by claim basis rather than making sweeping generalizations that alienates the one I'm talking to. I can't prove that there is no god figure floating around there somewhere, so I don't even try. I can express the merits of living out your life without believing in casper though. And I can even, do to my background, effectively explain to my Christian friends why I think the Bible's claim's are illogical. However, as in any debate, when one side makes an absolute claim without anything to back it up with, the conversation ends without resulting in any growth or understanding.
James, you do not have to prove it does not exist-just like burden of proof in a civil or criminal case. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you made a preposterous claim to your religious friends about the monsters and goblins in Timbuktu would you have the audacity to tell them they cant refute it. Cuz they'd laugh like hell if you did.
Ah, but what if tens of thousands of people started telling stories of monsters and goblins in Timbuktu. Would they so easily dismiss it? For whatever reason, there exists a yearning in humanity to believe in something greater than us. A large portion of our scientists believe in the probable existence of life beyond our planet, even more advanced intelligence. Is the belief that there is a superior being really such a huge leap? You can easily dismiss the outrageous rantings of a single individual because you can make a fairly good analysis of the likelihood that he is telling the truth and dismiss him without making any significant leap. Frankly, it wouldn't be very hard to send someone to Timbuktu to test his claims. The idea that there is a god is held my the vast majority of humanity. I'm an engineering student, and I wouldn't know how to even begin to quantify the statistical probability of whether or not there is a god. There are simply too many variables and too many limits to our ability to test a hypothesis.
I don't really care either way what people believe. But atheists look bad when they approach an argument with an absolutist attitude. It's counterproductive to the cause.
James, as an engineering student you should very well understand that it is strictly impossible to build a road connecting two fictional cities. Probabilities and variables have nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter if lots of people believe that the two fictional cities really exist (that's an argument from popularity, a logical fallacy). You still can't build that road.
You want atheists to appear to be reasonable by entertaining the "possibility" of the unreasonable. Sorry, but no can do.