An agnostic with balls
The agnostic does not simply say, “l do not know.” He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know. He insists that you are trading on the ignorance of others, and on the fear of others. He is not satisfied with saying that you do not know, — he demonstrates that you do not know, and he drives you from the field of fact — he drives you from the realm of reason — he drives you from the light, into the darkness of conjecture — into the world of dreams and shadows, and he compels you to say, at last, that your faith has no foundation in fact.
– Robert Green Ingersoll
For me, Iam agnostic or atheist, I do not believed in organized religion.
ibig bang sabihin kung ikaw ay naniniwala sa isang Diyos, ito ay walang basehan at pawang isang iluyon o opinyon lamang?
I see agnosticism as a transition towards atheism – at least based on my experience. I used to be agnostic but only very briefly. You believe in a god or you don't.
My idea of that transition is a sort of "coming out" and finally being completely certain of your stand (after searching for evidence or the lack of it and then accepting it). If that phase is taking forever, then IMO there must be a lack of balls there. Procrastination perhaps. Or self-consciousness/fear of rejection. Plain as that.
my question about agnosticism is: What is the standard of certainty are they looking for?
in a sense, we are never sure of anything. does that mean we dont believe in anything?
faith isnt about absolute certainty. this is a key idea that alot of people, including mr inglesoll doesnt quite give people of faith credit for.
this is an inherently subjective and difficult question. my sense is that different fields have different standards of certainty.
I really view Agnosticism as a transition state to Atheism.
I mean people who are more comfortable sitting above the fence and not really choose a side. I'm talking about the existence of a god or gods here.
For me there are only 2 sides. There is a god & there's no god. Choosing in between or the "I don't know" statement is a logical fallacy to me.
Of course an Atheist didn't just got to an absolute conclusion that there is no god. We looked at evidences, facts and probabilities. After analyzing all of it. Then he/she can draw a conclusion from it. But an atheist is also open & a freethinker, if showed the evidences that he/she is wrong then he/she accepts it.
"Choosing in between or the “I don’t know” statement is a logical fallacy to me."
Creating a false dichotomy is also a logical fallacy
So you mean the arguments are: there is no god and there is a god, and there is "well I don't know" and there is "I'm kinda in between"
I really don't understand the point with the other 2 arguments.
@Michael: If I asked you whether if I was wearing an orange shirt right now, what would you say? Yes? No?
Sometimes, "I don't know" is the logical response.
@Frank
True. But it's not a stance.
I could look at the evidences if you are indeed wearing an orange shirt right now. And there are none presented. Then, I would conclude that you are not wearing an orange shirt right now.
I wouldn't say it is an absolute conclusion. Of course I could be wrong. Until you personally came to me and show that you are wearing an orange shirt. Then I would believe.
But this analogy you presented is not in parallel with the belief of a god. Would a believer asks you that, "Do you think I believe in a god?". Of course not. The only argument they got is, "There is a god". After you analyzed the evidences, the arguments & probabilities. It's either you believe them or not. Just answering "I don't know" seems useless.
@Michael:
Do you believe in string theory?
For me, agnosticism isn't really about an inability to choose a side. For me, it's a decision not to jump to conclusions about something I know so little about. I am, after all, just a tiny, insignificant creature in an impossibly vast universe. Who am I to say that my logic is capable of figuring out everything about the universe?
"I don't know" is neither a logical fallacy nor is it useless. It is simply an honest and humble answer, an admittance that, as human beings, we do not know and are incapable of knowing everything, and no matter how good our logic is, our reasoning is, ultimately, not infallible. Recognizing one's own weaknesses and limitations is a necessary step to nurturing curiosity in oneself. Curiosity leads us to ask questions, make investigations, examine evidence, etc. – all the things that engender open-mindedness and critical thinking. And without these things, we will not learn.
True, there is no logical or physical evidence of God's existence. But we are only human beings after all, and the current level of our technology is too primitive to enable us to fully investigate and scrutinize the exact nature of the universe, or if there are multiple universes, or if there is anything beyond our known universe.
Am I saying there's a God? No. I'm saying it just might be possible. The overwhelming lack of evidence makes that possibility even slimmer. But lack of evidence does not mean there is no evidence. It might mean we just haven't found it yet.
Several thousand years from now, we might have the technology to finally prove whether he exists or not. Right now, however, aside from trying to convince intolerant, unthinking, biased and arrogant religious (and some non-religious) people that what they are doing is unhealthy and wrong, I do not see the point of arguing about God. It is much better to focus our efforts on becoming better human beings than to pick sides about an issue that clearly cannot be 100% resolved given our present logical and technological limitations.
b-b-b-b-but i'm an agnostic atheist! D:
it's just a derogatory expression to mean agnostics don't have a firm stance, a real side (which is the connotation of "having balls" here). it's true, agnostics don't have a firm stance, though it doesn't have to be a negative thing. it's an insulting expression, yeah, but i don't get insulted easily. its already a given that not everyone has to agree or like agnosticism. or maybe i'm not insulted because i AM literally an agnostic without balls
Hmmm…this post seems contradictory to me.
"He (the agnostic) insists that you are trading on the ignorance of others, and on the fear of others." By 'you' does he mean the theist? If yes, then check out this phrase: "he (the agnostic) drives you from the realm of reason".
Anybody care to enlighten me? Honestly, I don't understand if the agnostic is being portrayed here as a rational or irrational guy.
What Ingersoll means by this is you remove any pretension from the theist that he is being rational (in the realm of reason) and puts him in his fantastical place (the realm of faith)
Thanks!
So here the agnostic is being portrayed as a rational guy, right? 
Agnostics are the socially acceptable atheists. Admittedly this is why I am more reluctant to call myself an atheist. In conclusion, some agnostics may be the brave type of which he speaks but some are just in limbo between organized religion and atheism w/ no strong conviction (balls?) to go either way.
militant agnostic perhaps?
Here here!