Comment by Jānis Ķimsis on August 14, 2010 at 3:44am

I think most atheists would also be agnostics, going by that definition. I'm also an agnostic atheist, but only because I think it would be intellectually dishonest to not give a tiny possibility of a god existing. For all practical intents and purposes, though, I'm completely sure there is no god.

Comment by Kevin Sullivan on August 14, 2010 at 3:53am

The way I look at it, Theism and Atheism is pretty much a stance. Gnosticism or Agnosticism is how opened minded you are about things. I guess when it comes right down to it, the real question is "Am I going to be an asshole about this?"

Comment by Kevin Sullivan on August 14, 2010 at 3:55am

Jaime, you said it better than I could have,

Comment by Fancy Nancy on August 14, 2010 at 4:36am

You can't prove a negative ... so it just depends on your personality maybe? I mean my Dear Husband has always been atheist and is shocked when I question that 'belief' whereas I find it difficult to give up that minute possibility that Camus is wrong and there is a point to it all .. yet I'm also with Jonathan Miller (apologies if I've mentioned this before) that with all that happens in this world, it is impossible to believe that the clouds will part and a great voice will boom out 'it's all right really' (aka the problem of evil) ... sorry I went to bed reading a philosophy book and I'm in a Camus phase ... atheism without proof seems part of the absurd human condition.

Comment by Kevin Sullivan on August 14, 2010 at 12:52pm

Or as Ricky Gervais put it: Religion is like someone coming up to you sand saying they have super powers. "Prove I can't fly!" "Fuck you! Prove you CAN!"

Comment by willailla on August 14, 2010 at 5:47pm

God, aka X the unknown, is incomprehensible to the human intellect. Using reason, logic, etc. its imagined existence can only be expressed as metaphorical paradoxes, i.e. absurdities. If there were a god it has failed to give us a brain capable of conceptualizing its existence--which would be rather odd--not, though, if it is an inherently, indifferent, impersonal force of nature. In other words not something we would think of, or term, as god but as X the unknown.

Comment by Jon Heim on August 19, 2010 at 2:52pm

"I can't know for sure if there's a higher power, but I've pretty much concluded there isn't one."...and wouldn't worship one if there was one. can I add that?

I think that; like most Atheists, I need stuff proven to me in order to believe it. The day a higher being is proven to exist, I'll be the first in line to convert. Well not really...every god is a jealous hateful being, not worthy of worship. You would also have to prove to me that I have a soul, Spirits exist and that everything in the bible is true. so...I'm pretty safe in saying that I'm an atheist. lol

Personally, If I were to believe in any god it would be a Pagan god.

Comment by Kevin Sullivan on August 19, 2010 at 3:24pm

X the Unknown is also the name I would use if I were a pro wrestler.

Comment by Jaume on August 20, 2010 at 9:03pm

Michel: I'll go as far as arguing that agnostics are religious in a way. You are agnostic of "something", you can't be agnostic of all the things that might possibly exist. As an agnostic you leave your mind open to and are ready to reason that "something specifc" might exist, god, allah, an omnipotent creator, a supernatural realm, a soul, magic, there is an object to your agnosticism.

Looks like a straw man to me. Here, you restrict agnosticism to a limited set of objects - all of which have the 'woo factor' - to disparage it as 'religious'. But it hasn't to be so: would you say that two or three thousands years ago, being agnostic wrt the shape of the Earth was unreasonable? When all the evidence you could have came from shadows on the moon? Or ships at sea if you were lucky enough to live on the coastline?

Comment by Jaume on August 21, 2010 at 5:25am

Michel: Agnosticism is always about some "woo" factor.

You obviously use a more restrictive definition than I or others do. For instance, I knew a few self-described 'political agnostics' who're unsure about the relative merits of, e.g., capitalism vs. socialism, and the more they debate politics, the stronger their agnosticism. In complex issues like politics, where it often boils down to 'having your cake or eating it' dilemmas, I'll always have more respect for inquisitive agnostics than dogmatic ideologues.

It's about things you admit are unprovable.

Many of these things that can't be proven today may well be tomorrow.

At what percentage of doubt does an agnostic become an atheist?

It has nothing to do with percentages. Agnosticism is all about taking untestable assumptions for what they are, while others may call them 'truths' or 'falsities'. Some of these assumptions may still be useful (as is often the case in, e.g., sociology or politics), but many are not - as is often the case in hard sciences. Or teleology. And here comes Occam with his sharp razor, and here's your atheism. Percentages are irrelevant, and I'll never forgive Dawkins, a man I otherwise have immense respect for, for bringing percentages into the religious debate.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page