pseudonous

I agree that is why an agnostic can't be a theist. An agnostic makes no claim to knowledge of god.

SirArthur

If you can stay exactly on the middle of something... which you can't.

Imagine this as simple balance, put God on one plate, Atheism on the other. For one's God will weight more than Atheism (Agnosticism-theistic) for others is Atheism which weights more (Agnosticism-atheistic) but for pretty few or none God and Atheism will weight the same (strict/strong agnosticism).

The second part of the juxtaposition doesn't stand for "Theism" or "Atheism" on its strict sense.

pseudonous

I agree, but the idea of a "first cause" is also unscientific. By definition there is nothing outside the universe. The word "cause" denote a relationship between two things. Therefore, there can be no cause of the universe. The question itself is an empty verbalism.

Science only concerns itself with questions about the present state of the unvierse. Of course, astronomers can see the past through thier telescopes. However, no scientist is attempting to answer the question of the first cause.

I don't just lack a faith in a personal god. I lack a faith in all gods. There is insufficient evidence for any of them. In that repect I am atheist to all gods. On the other hand, the lack of evidence runs both ways. I can not claim that any of the gods, except certain well defined gods, do not exist. Thus I am agnostic.

Any claim requires a justification, even the claim that a god does not exist. A lack of evidence for is not evidence against. If your claim that a personal god does not exist is really base on reason or logic, you should be able to give a justification.

pseudonous

It is very easy not to consider it very relevant. Even if you did find it important, your probably never going to know. Many people can except this, given their choice. Everyone except theists and strong atheists. This is a weak agnostic position. A strong agnostic would claim you will never know whether god exists with certainty.

Why not just say,

For one's God will weight more than Atheism (theist) for others is Atheism which weights more (atheist) but for many the issue is unsolvable and does not require an answer (agnostic).

Gettin' In Tune

I agree. Perhaps "scientific" was not the best word. It is one of the strongest and last arguments to speculate about the possibility of god or an unknown force. The argument is based on simple assumptions, observation, and common sense. To dispute it requires thought and intelligence.

I agree, but there is speculation in science at the cutting edge.

As you stated above:
There is no room for a supernatural entity.

We know the nature of thunder, so we can safely rule out approximately 40 or so thunder gods. We learned how the Sun operates, so we can safely rule out solar deities.

We can test for the power of prayer to an external agency, miracles, intervention, concern for morality, and the possibility of an afterlife. We can test for the validity of numerous theological claims; many which boils down to claims of the supernatural. I think it is reasonable to rule out a personal god since it requires adherence to the supernatural.

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

Vinterland

Emphasis my own.

This is correct, but again, an agnostic-theist will not claim any knowledge of God either. They will simply believe. Belief =/= knowledge

Apply this as well to the atheist who will make no claim to know of God, and lacks belief. A lack of belief is still a belief.

__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.”

Gettin' In Tune

You keep making the mistake that agnosticism is a middle ground between theism and atheism. It is not. It deals with knowledge and not a belief. With my current knowledge, I lack a belief in a god (i.e. atheism). All personal gods are unsupported claims, logically inconsistent, unverifiable by scientific tests, border on absurdity, lack evidence, and some are just incomprehensible explanations.

I am agnostic in the sense that I am without some knowledge.

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

Gettin' In Tune

Do you see that this belief is irrational and not based on reason? You are claiming to believe in something that you have no knowledge of? What sort of an obscure, unintelligible god do you believe in?

Atheism is a refutation of theism. It is a refutation of irrational and nonsensical claims. If theism did not exist, neither would atheism.

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

pseudonous

I still like Huxley's definition. An agnostic does not reason farther than his reason will take him. Holding something to be true without a justification is just not agnostic. Besides I just read a post of yours were you stated you believed in the trinity and a whole host of other things. This is a claim to knowledge about god if I ever saw one.

SirArthur

Agnosticism deals with them both, knowledge and belief. Unless you are not human, you'll always have some belief.
Belief is omnipresent, and needed. Needed even for science, belief gives us clues, ideas, a point to start at. Without belief mankind is hopeless.

You'll always start to believe prior to start creating.