pariah

I don't understand why most agnostics call themselves that. I mean its basically atheism with a little tag at the end: "but there COULD be something out there we dont know about". Every agnostic I know firmly beleives that Christianity is wrong along with all other religions practiced on earth, like an atheist.

So why do they bother saying that they are agnostic? I'm pretty sure that if you asked any atheist if it were possible that there was a higher power that had never revealed itself to us, they would say it was possible.

I was wondering cuz the other day my (atheist) friend refered to them as the "pussy atheist"

seebs

Probably because, for most of the time the words have been in use, "atheist" has implied "strong atheism", and "agnostic" was used for "weak atheist". The words are very confusing, and I think it's rude at best to harass someone about word choice, as long as the word chosen can reasonably be understood to mean what they're using it for.

Demigawd

I agree with Seebs on this one. I consider myself an agnostic, rather than an atheist, because I understand that my stance (ie. nobody really knows) may very well be wrong. As wrong as your stance, as his stance, as her stance, etc.

ex-xian

The term agnostic has taken on a conotation of "I don't know for sure." That isn't what the word or the belief system actually is. Far from being a "pussy atheist" agnosticism is a legitimate ontological position.

An agnostic is one who believes that the answer to the question "Is there a god" is "it is impossible for any human being to ever have an answer to this." That is, that nature or reality in it's most basic and true sense in inherently unknowable.

nermal

If you look further back in this forum, there's a thread which has gone over most of this.


http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=50479

Ed

Marduk

ex-xian and Demigawd put it right, I use the term agnostic to mean "a god like the one you describe seems highly unlikely, but since I'm not omniscient and could be wrong and if that's the way things really are then me whining about it won't make any difference anyway"

Volker.Doormann

Neither a belief that it is impossible for any human being to ever have an answer to the question "Is there a god", nor a belief that it is possible for any human being to ever have an answer to the question "Is there a god", has any real meaning, because both beliefs have no knowledge about of the truth.

Volker

Kintaro

Atheism doesn't imply a closed mind you know.


If there's something out there that is contrary to atheism, when I have enough proof to satisfy me, then I could accept it. As of yet, nothing has happened, the probability of it happening in the future is so slim, I just say atheist because the millionth of a .... of a millionth of a chance does not warrant the agnostic label in my book.


I am here. Divinities are not. Therefore, atheism is the only logical religious stance.

ex-xian

I think this is still a confusion of the issue. The agnostic doesn't say that I'm not sure if god exists, or maybe god exists, the agnostic says, it is impossible to have the knowledge of god's existence.

Your argument is true if you accept that the world as you see it is the world as it is. I am still stuck on Kant's argument that we only have perceptions of objects, but we cannot know the objects in and of themselves. If he is correct, then our knowledge about the true nature of reality is necessarily limited. If that's the case, then the logical postion would be atheism.

There are some good objections to Kant's argument; my favorite is the causal theory of perception--but that's a post for a different forum I guess.

Volker.Doormann

The blind does not see light. But this does not prove, that it is not possible that there are other human creatures, that are aware of a light. Your logic only can be valid for you personally, but not as a general claim of truth.

Volker