Hello My Name is Ryan. I'm an agnostic (maybe I Don't belong here?) with atheist leanings (oh nope yeah I do). I'm a huge comic book nerd and currently a college student with a psych major. I enjoy watching documentaries on biology and astrophysics (ergo I'm a huge Carl Sagan fan) and watching debates on religious topics.

My history is too long and torrid to go on for a long time but some key points to note:

I've lived in SD Nearly all My life (The prevalence of ignorance is disturbing)
I attend SDSU, and have argued with a supposed "Religious apologist" Frank Turek. I'd like to think that I won those arguments during the Q&A session because he got to points where he'd just say "Ok We're going to drop it".

I Hope to learn much here.

Views: 64

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Ryan, welcome to Atheist Nexus.

No, agnostic is still nontheist, so your good here ;)


Hope you enjoy your stay and come in and join our discussions.


See ya around in the forum :)

Are you agnostic about the  existence of a huge invisible spaghetti monster?  How about the city of leprechauns at the center of the earth?  An atheist is just someone who doesnt believe in those things, or gods, or monsters in closets, etc. without some kind of falsifiable evidence.  You dont have to assert those things DONT exist to be an atheist, its a passive thing.  You just dont believe in them, or ghosts, or santa clause...and its the responsibility of the person claiming otherwise to prove it to you.


just curious anyway.  Agnosticism always puzzles me.

I respect that you're being respectful but Please dont' pull the FSM On me...I'm tempted to just do the Mr./Mrs. Garrison response "OH yes that's it God's a Flying Spaghetti Monster and I'm a Monkey"

But in all seriousness: I know the burden of proof falls on them, but since there is no way to disprove  I just kind of side with agnosticism.

THough....I'm referred to and addressed as an atheist because I apparently use atheistic arguments.

I mean seriously I argue on behalf of atheism most of the time. I'm not like my Psychoogy of Pseudoscience teacher who is a hardcore Militant Agnostic but...you know I hadn't thought of it.

I feel rather disingenuous about it but IF I were to call myself an atheist over an agnostic it'd make religious people less likely to talk or discuss with me on theological doctrine or the effects of religion. Hmmm You've given me something to think about.

That and science is the best we have to describe the current situations and parameters we live in. I'm by no means advocating creation-intelligent design-ism. Because sure science may not be exact but its sure as hell more accurate than anything else.

Hmm I'm digginmyself into a hole.

I think the term agnostic as used by most people is a confusion between "belief" and

"know". They say they are agnostic because they do not KNOW.

But, no one actualy knows one way or the other. If we really did KNOW, we must

possess the same attributes as god (and we dont!)

It is not weather or not you KNOW, but weather you BELIEVE.


If you do not believe, you are atheist, not agnostic.


Agnostic has strict philosophic meaning, so unless they are into philosophy, I dont think

they are agnostic.


One examinens the available evidence for and againts any proposition and in the absence of imperical data, you hold off belief until the data proves otherwise.


The "just because I dont know, doesnt mean there is no god" argument is a falacy.

"Agnosticism always puzzles me."


Agnosticism can be a great psychological "escape hatch", a way to have your cake, and eat it too.

One can convieniently disbelieve until the "last moment", and they have that reserved doubt in the

backs of their minds saved "just in case"! ;)

I should rephrase...how people can become convinced they are "agnostic" puzzles me.  I think its funny that almost every agnostic I've met feels quite strongly that they are on the intellectual high ground and looks down on everyone else based on their apparent "expertise" on uncertainty.



T.H.Huxley defined agnositicism as follows, and this is perhaps, the truest definition of the term today: “… it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.” It is not merely a matter of whether or not one knows if God exists, but it is a matter of whether one can objectively define his belief, whether in God or in anything else.

In other words, he did not believe it was possible, or will ever be possible, to KNOW the nature and meaning of the Universe.

So, in light of modern advancements in physics and cosmology, is this possition tenable today?
See this is where I am. You probably can disprove it HOWEVER I have not read enough in order to justify this in my mind.

I can justify , as far as I've read and understood, that the likelihood of God is nil. Until I have read enough and become educated enough in the ways of physics and biology I don't feel as though its right to call myself something without being knoweldgable enough on the subject. 

And this may also be a matter of pragmatism of having to respond to "You don't know anything about physics and biology how can you say God doesn't exist while not being at least knowledgeable enough to justify your position".

hmmmm Is there a discussion on why for or why against agnosticism? I mean I personally believe in a pursuit of truth. And By truth I don't mean one ULTIMATE truth (Or the so-called meaning of life) but rather understanding what is there as opposed to what is not.

if that makes sense.
I mean I'm open to learning clearly but I'm also a skeptical thinker. NOT a completely close minded skeptic mind you but...Bah digging hole deeper.

"Until I have read enough and become educated enough in the ways of physics and biology I don't feel as though its right to call myself something without being knoweldgable enough on the subject."


I'm glad you think that way, having little knowledge of science does not stop most people from believing whatever nonsense they want.


Just understanding the biology of evolution is certainly enough to refute Genesis.

Most theist's have modified their arguments away from ontology, and turn of the century philosphy and have developed elaborate cosmological arguments based on twisted interprations from real scientists and quote mining.


As the "god of the gaps" grows smaller, theists are left with very little to argue, and when you think about it, why would they want to argue in the first place?


If they are born again true believers, and convinced that they are going to be with Jesus forever in heaven, why should they care what anyone else thinks

since there place in heaven is already secure?


They have that "faith".


Being an atheist also doest mean you cant change your mind.

If good scientific evidence of god ever became available, any scientist would be all over it and if a workable theory could be developed based on the new evidence, we would be the first to adopt it.


I dont think there even is such a thing as ultimate truth, those two words together dont make much sense. Even truth its self is an elusive concept.

A philosopher could argue that there is no truth, but this is not something normal people think about and doesnt aply to our lives and our perceptions of reality.


Until theists can come up with evidence, or even a good argument, I will remain an atheist.

Fair enough. I can see myself calling myself an atheist, as I said and I assume you understood from your response but until I'm more established to have a SOLID foundation I wouldn't just feel right. Its probably why I insisted on not being associated with my former church because sure I'd get social benefits but I'd feel wrong going if I didn't believe.

I mean who would have to know but me? Noone. But it'd just feel dishonest.
That's why I'm pretty much in the "not Sure" Category though I do have STRONG Leaning towards atheism.

Have you read any of the books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, etc.? Esp. Dawkins' "The God Delusion"?


Dawkins book in particular is filled with valuable refferences, even if you dont agree with him, it is very well researched and I have yet to find an error (except sometimes I think he missinterprets some of the ancient writtings).

Read a few Dawkins books:

God Delusion
The Blind watchmaker (Well mostly finished this)
But...most Dawkins Discussion on Why God Doesn't exist doesn't seem to have solid biological basis.

I ASSUME Blindwatchmaker will get to that before I finish. I'm currently on punctuating Punctuationalism So we'll see.

I've read God Is Not Great and while these are all great  examples of why Religion DOES poison everything it still does not necessarily DISPROVE God.

I've been watching most of their (Dawkins', Hitchens') debates and that's why I'm so strong in my atheist leaning.

I've watched all of Dawkins Documentaries as well.

As I've said (I believe I did): I'm currently digesting Cosmo's: A Personal Voyage and have read a Demon Haunted World. And I can subscribe to the idea that there probably isn't a Divine knob twiddler or bubble blower but like I've said: I need to read more on the scientific reasoning for there being no god. I don't know currently. Hence agnosticism for me temporarily.

Maybe when I finish watchmaker and The Failed God Hypothesis I'll be educated enough to not feel like a hypocrite on accusing others of being blindly faithful or faithful on very little evidence and poor arguments.

SO its not so much me wanting to have my cake and eat it too I just dont' want to make an impulsive stance. Not to imply you are I just want to avoid the lower ends of our group (atheists,agnostics, and what have you)...you know the metalheads who will stay stupid things like:

"666 GOD DOES NOT EXIST"...like bloody morons.

I think John Safran in John Safran vs. God put it best:

I want to avoid the hipster types, the METAL types (not all metal people but you know the ones I'm talking about), and frankly just stupid contradictory morons.

Not all atheists are like this but I'd rather not be one of those. I will read, continue to learn and adjust my views accordingly after some critical thinking and skepticism on the manner.


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service