Science involves disciplines that use the scientific method to determine the most probable explanation for what we observe in the physical universe, and this method involves observation of the available evidence, experimentation, presenting results, peer review, further observation and experimentation, etc. Scientists examine the evidence before arriving at a conclusion. If new evidence is presented, scientists consider it and revise their views if warranted.

Thomas H. Huxley, who coined the term agnostic, was a scientist. He found it puzzling that many people spoke with certainty about things which could not be verified by any known methodology (this is what atheists and theists do) . Huxley believed that to claim to have "knowledge" (in Greek, gnosis) that a belief or claim is true or lie, one must have verifiable evidence to support to disprove the claim. To Huxley, to present a claim as certain without evidence was ethically wrong and intellectually dishonest. He stated that claims of certainty in any matter, whether science or religion, should be backed by evidence, and proposed the agnostic method to examine claims based on evidence. If there was no justifiable evidence, one was "without knowledge" of the certainty of the claim or belief, or agnostic. He called practice of using such a method agnosticism

Agnosticism is not about belief, it is about using a method to verify the probability that a claim is true or factual by examining the evidence. A person is free to believe or not believe the claim, and may choose to believe a claim without evidence, based on philosophical reasons or personal preference.

So, according to Huxley's definition of agnostic and agnosticism, those who practice the scientific method are indeed agnostic in the sense that they use a method to examine the evidence for a claim before determining the probability that the claim is true or factual.

In Huxley's words:
“Agnosticism is not a… creed of any kind, but the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.”
T. H. Huxley. Essays, Volume V, IX

LordReed KnownUnknown

Workch:

Science involves disciplines that use the scientific method to determine the most probable explanation for what we observe in the physical universe, and this method involves observation of the available evidence, experimentation, presenting results, peer review, further observation and experimentation, etc. Scientists examine the evidence before arriving at a conclusion. If new evidence is presented, scientists consider it and revise their views if warranted.

Thomas H. Huxley, who coined the term agnostic, was a scientist. He found it puzzling that many people spoke with certainty about things which could not be verified by any known methodology (this is what atheists and theists do) . Huxley believed that to claim to have "knowledge" (in Greek, gnosis) that a belief or claim is true or lie, one must have verifiable evidence to support to disprove the claim. To Huxley, to present a claim as certain without evidence was ethically wrong and intellectually dishonest. He stated that claims of certainty in any matter, whether science or religion, should be backed by evidence, and proposed the agnostic method to examine claims based on evidence. If there was no justifiable evidence, one was "without knowledge" of the certainty of the claim or belief, or agnostic. He called practice of using such a method agnosticism

Agnosticism is not about belief, it is about using a method to verify the probability that a claim is true or factual by examining the evidence. A person is free to believe or not believe the claim, and may choose to believe a claim without evidence, based on philosophical reasons or personal preference.

So, according to Huxley's definition of agnostic and agnosticism, those who practice the scientific method are indeed agnostic in the sense that they use a method to examine the evidence for a claim before determining the probability that the claim is true or factual.

In Huxley's words:
“Agnosticism is not a… creed of any kind, but the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.”
T. H. Huxley. Essays, Volume V, IX

LordReed KnownUnknown

Later you will say you're using your own sense, Shey Thomas Henry Huxley be your Papa or black man like you?

Well people agreed with the idea that gravity and black holes exists not because they can see any of these things but due to the reaction of objects close to them so the true God also proved He is the Creator by telling us how the languages began through the disobedience of man to move towards all the corners of the earth surely that's arguable because nobody today witnessed that event but then He goes on to say He will send out His active force so that people from different geographical locations on this planet will come together and form one big and happy family of peace loving worshipers {Isaiah 2:2-4} and they will agree to doing things in common as if they're speaking the same language {Zephaniah 3:9} at the same time all others will be confused due to their disobedience and the result will be killing themselves throughout the earth! Revelations 6:3-4

So the true God has proved Himself whether you agree or not!

MaxInDHouse:


Later you will say you're using your own sense, Shey Thomas Henry Huxley be your Papa or black man like you?

Well people agreed with the idea that gravity and black holes exists not because they can see any of these things but due to the reaction of objects close to them so the true God also proved He is the Creator by telling us how the languages began through the disobedience of man to move towards all the corners of the earth surely that's arguable because nobody today witnessed that event but then He goes on to say He will send out His active force so that people from different geographical locations on this planet will come together and form one big and happy family of peace loving worshipers {Isaiah 2:2-4} and they will agree to doing things in common as if they're speaking the same language {Zephaniah 3:9} at the same time all others will be confused due to their disobedience and the result will be killing themselves throughout the earth! Revelations 6:3-4

So the true God has proved Himself whether you agree or not!

And that is evidence of what?

You've started o, you this man..

correctguy101:

And that is evidence of what?
You've started o, you this man..

That is evidence of the one and only true God!

Before Tinubu became president he can say he knows how Nigeria's problem began and how to solve it ọmọ that's just claims.
If he is allowed to rule Nigeria and problems are been solved in places where citizens are following his instructions then it's no more a mere claim but indisputable fact!

MaxInDHouse:


That is evidence of the one and only true God!

Before Tinubu became president he can say he knows how Nigeria's problem began and how to solve it ọmọ that's just claims.
If he is allowed to rule Nigeria and problems are been solved in places where citizens are following his instructions then it's no more a mere claim but indisputable fact!

I hear ya...

Those infidels wey get your power dey come.

Worldch, where have you been. Been long I see your wahala on religion section..
Come answer Lord MaxinDHouse, this daddy no get power..

correctguy101:

I hear ya...
Those infidels wey get your power dey come.
Worldch, where have you been. Been long I see your wahala on religion section..
Come answer Lord MaxinDHouse, this daddy no get power..

They've been silenced for good that's why they will rather go after misinformed religionists as they know very well that when it comes to REASONABLENESS their hide and seek can't work with me.

How can someone who didn't dispute gravity and black holes simply because those that raised the ideas back it up not with the sight of Mr Gravity and Mr Black holes but the reaction of objects around that area dispute the faith in God that all mankind throughout history have been thinking of how to worship?

Is it not the same logic?

What is dragging mankind throughout history and in all geographical locations on this planet to worship what they can't see if there is no God/Gods?

correctguy101:


And that is evidence of what?

You've started o, you this man..

I don't even respond to him 😂

Workch:
I don't even respond to him 😂

You that was following me from thread to thread before?
Well God's word has been fulfilled:

"No weapon formed against you will have any success, And you will condemn any tongue that rises up against you in the judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah, And their righteousness is from me,” declares Jehovah! Isaiah 54:17

Workch:
Science involves disciplines that use the scientific method to determine the most probable explanation for what we observe in the physical universe, and this method involves observation of the available evidence, experimentation, presenting results, peer review, further observation and experimentation, etc. Scientists examine the evidence before arriving at a conclusion. If new evidence is presented, scientists consider it and revise their views if warranted.

Thomas H. Huxley, who coined the term agnostic, was a scientist. He found it puzzling that many people spoke with certainty about things which could not be verified by any known methodology (this is what atheists and theists do) . Huxley believed that to claim to have "knowledge" (in Greek, gnosis) that a belief or claim is true or lie, one must have verifiable evidence to support to disprove the claim. To Huxley, to present a claim as certain without evidence was ethically wrong and intellectually dishonest. He stated that claims of certainty in any matter, whether science or religion, should be backed by evidence, and proposed the agnostic method to examine claims based on evidence. If there was no justifiable evidence, one was "without knowledge" of the certainty of the claim or belief, or agnostic. He called practice of using such a method agnosticism

Agnosticism is not about belief, it is about using a method to verify the probability that a claim is true or factual by examining the evidence. A person is free to believe or not believe the claim, and may choose to believe a claim without evidence, based on philosophical reasons or personal preference.

So, according to Huxley's definition of agnostic and agnosticism, those who practice the scientific method are indeed agnostic in the sense that they use a method to examine the evidence for a claim before determining the probability that the claim is true or factual.

In Huxley's words:
“Agnosticism is not a… creed of any kind, but the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.”
T. H. Huxley. Essays, Volume V, IX

LordReed KnownUnknown

Aptly put.

Workch:
I don't even respond to him 😂

Lols..

When I tell you people to make peace with it all, you won't listen...
See now, my dear Lord Worldch is now running from his fellow human..

Let the believers breathe and you believers, let us infidels breathe too..😂

Too idle today, now devil don use me go drink tombo...

Abeg, I need go bath and sleep now... I just dey type on...

Workch:
Science involves disciplines that use the scientific method to determine the most probable explanation for what we observe in the physical universe, and this method involves observation of the available evidence, experimentation, presenting results, peer review, further observation and experimentation, etc. Scientists examine the evidence before arriving at a conclusion. If new evidence is presented, scientists consider it and revise their views if warranted.

Thomas H. Huxley, who coined the term agnostic, was a scientist. He found it puzzling that many people spoke with certainty about things which could not be verified by any known methodology (this is what atheists and theists do) . Huxley believed that to claim to have "knowledge" (in Greek, gnosis) that a belief or claim is true or lie, one must have verifiable evidence to support to disprove the claim. To Huxley, to present a claim as certain without evidence was ethically wrong and intellectually dishonest. He stated that claims of certainty in any matter, whether science or religion, should be backed by evidence, and proposed the agnostic method to examine claims based on evidence. If there was no justifiable evidence, one was "without knowledge" of the certainty of the claim or belief, or agnostic. He called practice of using such a method agnosticism

Agnosticism is not about belief, it is about using a method to verify the probability that a claim is true or factual by examining the evidence. A person is free to believe or not believe the claim, and may choose to believe a claim without evidence, based on philosophical reasons or personal preference.

So, according to Huxley's definition of agnostic and agnosticism, those who practice the scientific method are indeed agnostic in the sense that they use a method to examine the evidence for a claim before determining the probability that the claim is true or factual.

In Huxley's words:
“Agnosticism is not a… creed of any kind, but the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.”
T. H. Huxley. Essays, Volume V, IX

LordReed KnownUnknown

what if the logical evidence of the said certainty isn't science methodogically based but a conclusion derived from reading about consistencies like miracles and prophecies written in a holy book in relation to what is obtainable to today's reality?

Workch:
Science involves disciplines that use the scientific method to determine the most probable explanation for what we observe in the physical universe, and this method involves observation of the available evidence, experimentation, presenting results, peer review, further observation and experimentation, etc. Scientists examine the evidence before arriving at a conclusion. If new evidence is presented, scientists consider it and revise their views if warranted.

Thomas H. Huxley, who coined the term agnostic, was a scientist. He found it puzzling that many people spoke with certainty about things which could not be verified by any known methodology (this is what atheists and theists do) . Huxley believed that to claim to have "knowledge" (in Greek, gnosis) that a belief or claim is true or lie, one must have verifiable evidence to support to disprove the claim. To Huxley, to present a claim as certain without evidence was ethically wrong and intellectually dishonest. He stated that claims of certainty in any matter, whether science or religion, should be backed by evidence, and proposed the agnostic method to examine claims based on evidence. If there was no justifiable evidence, one was "without knowledge" of the certainty of the claim or belief, or agnostic. He called practice of using such a method agnosticism

Agnosticism is not about belief, it is about using a method to verify the probability that a claim is true or factual by examining the evidence. A person is free to believe or not believe the claim, and may choose to believe a claim without evidence, based on philosophical reasons or personal preference.

So, according to Huxley's definition of agnostic and agnosticism, those who practice the scientific method are indeed agnostic in the sense that they use a method to examine the evidence for a claim before determining the probability that the claim is true or factual.

In Huxley's words:
“Agnosticism is not a… creed of any kind, but the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.”
T. H. Huxley. Essays, Volume V, IX

LordReed KnownUnknown

How does lack of belief equal knowing that a god doesn't exist?

Agnostics are theists sympathizers, who created the creator?

Workch:

He stated that claims of certainty in any matter, whether science or religion, should be backed by evidence, and proposed the agnostic method to examine claims based on evidence.

The spirit of the almighty leprechaun sitting on my shoulder says that Huxley can claim agnosticism about leprechauns and unicorns to his heart’s content but science does not require agnosticism. Pretending that religion and the sciences can even be discussed with the same framework is either dishonest or delusional.

The sciences have methods to collect evidence fir study while religion and other similar bullshit are strictly about belief without evidence. A claim of certainty in religion can be summarily dismissed as quickly as the person making the claim can formulate it because the claim would be invariably based on bullshit and nonsense. And if there is a modicum of truth it is often pedestrian and buried in metaphor or allegory.

So you can talk till you’re blue in the face and cite a thousand “agnostics” who are searching for evidence of nonsensical beliefs, at the end of the day, agnosticism has nothing to do with science.

The agnostic is one who can’t discard his concept of god but wishes to differentiate it from other gods whose mythology or attributes he disagrees with. Thus the god becomes “unknowable”.

Whether it is the active god of the theist, the myriad gods of the polytheist, the lazy or indifferent god of the deist, the “unknowable” god of the agnostic, the god the atheist does not believe in, the gods of the Assyrians, the gods of the Sumerians, the god of the Yorubas, the god of Tom Cruise, the gods who authorized the Indian caste system(with the priests conveniently at the top), the god the Carthaginians sacrificed their children to, the god that the Romans sacrificed their children to, the genocidal god of the chosenites, and all the gods you’ve never heard of, I confidently declare them all bullshit.

The Roman emperor Flavius Vespasian was said to have healed a blind man and made a lame walk during his visit to the temple of Serapis Christus in the 1st century.
If you ask most people what they know of Serapis, some would probably guess it a cosmetic line or fashion label. But once upon a time some people were theists because of Serapis while some were atheists about Serapis. Lol, of course some were “agnostic” and are still searching for evidence that will let them decide if Serapis exists or not.

paxonel:
what if the logical evidence of the said certainty isn't science methodogically based but a conclusion derived from reading about consitencies like miracles and prophecies written in a holy book in relation to what is obtainable to today's reality?

anything that cannot be tested is prone to fraud.

correctguy101:


Lols..

When I tell you people to make peace with it all, you won't listen...
See now, my dear Lord Worldch is now running from his fellow human..

Let the believers breathe and you believers, let us infidels breathe too..😂

Too idle today, now devil don use me go drink tombo...

Abeg, I need go bath and sleep now... I just dey type on...

it's hard to win an argument against an intelligent person but it's impossible to win against a fool, so why should I even try doing it?

LordReed:


How does lack of belief equal knowing that a god doesn't exist?

It's not, atheists don't know, they just don't believe he exist.
Atheism is not based on knowledge, they are the opposite of theists.

Workch:
anything that cannot be tested is prone to fraud.

in that case, agnotism should only exist in the rhelm of science and should not have any opinion in religion since religion is strictly theoretical and does not require scientific apparatus

paxonel:
in that case, agnotism should only exist in the rhelm of science and should not have any opinion in religion since religion is strictly theoretical and does not require scientific apparatus

No, religion claims should also be tested. Alot of fraudulent claims are in religion and one needs to test them.

Workch:
No, religion claims should also be tested. Alot of fraudulent claims are in religion and one needs to test them.

What about cartoon claims?

Workch:
It's not, atheists don't know, they just don't believe he exist.
Atheism is not based on knowledge, they are the opposite of theists.

Then why is this statement here: He found it puzzling that many people spoke with certainty about things which could not be verified by any known methodology (this is what atheists and theists do) . How are atheists being certain if they are not claiming knowledge?

Workch:
it's hard to win an argument against an intelligent person but it's impossible to win against a fool, so why should I even try doing it?

Valid point..

The funny thing is these faithful believers will now quote from their book that part that calls us infidels fools too...
So the circle goes on.. It's best not to bother about it all.. iits all crazy business anyway


It all depends on my mood, I don't mind entering any place of worship. Only mosques I avoid for I don't understand whatever it is they're saying in there (but one of my women don carry me enter before) smh

Morning brother

Workch:
No, religion claims should also be tested. Alot of fraudulent claims are in religion and one needs to test them.

how do you test religious claims?

paxonel:
how do you test religious claims?

You come out at midnight during a full moon and dance buck naked while saying incantations.
Or you listen to some jackass say the silliest and convoluted shit imaginable in order to convince you that nonsense makes sense.

paxonel:
how do you test religious claims?

Using scientific methods.
We can test if Noah's flood really happened, we have done it and it never did.
We can test Virgin unfertilized conception mammals, all evidence suggests that Mary's vrigin birth is most likely a lie.

Workch:
Using scientific methods.
We can test if Noah's flood really happened, we have done it and it's never did.

Noah flood is just one out of the millions of flood mythologies stories. Because the jewish mythology is popular it doesn’t mean it is of more value.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

Before testing for Noah flood, are you not suppose to “test” if Noah was a real person?
Who gave birth to noah?
Who gave birth to noah parents?

When are you going to test for Zeus flood too?

This is why i said Agnostics are theists sympathisers, mostly monotheists.

When are you going to test for brahma flood?

I’m agnostic about Sango and Thor. Who really is the god of thunder and lightning??
Even though science says gods do not cause thunder and lightning, I’m still agnostic about Sango and Thor because there is no evidence they don’t exist.

KnownUnknown:
I’m agnostic about Sango and Thor. Who really is the god of thunder and lightning??
Even though science says gods do not cause thunder and lightning, I’m still agnostic about Sango and Thor because there is no evidence they don’t exist.

you are not agnostic to it, you are just denying the fact that evidence suggest that a man can not cause thunder and we fully understand how thunder works hence the description of Thor and sango is utter nonsense.

KnownUnknown:
I’m agnostic about Sango and Thor. Who really is the god of thunder and lightning??
Even though science says gods do not cause thunder and lightning, I’m still agnostic about Sango and Thor because there is no evidence they don’t exist.

Is workch, agnostic to a god?
Or is he agnostic to a “creator”?

Because god doesn’t mean creator.

Workch:
you are not agnostic to it, you are just denying the fact that evidence suggest that a man can not cause thunder and we fully understand how thunder works hence the description of Thor and sango is utter nonsense.

Thor and sango is a “god” just like the deistic god.

Maynman:

Is workch, agnostic to a god?
Or is he agnostic to a “creator”?

Because god doesn’t mean creator.

I don’t know. The Big Bang could be the fart of a gigantic leprechaun. I’m agnostic about it though.