Ive noticed quite a few agnostics becoming quite vocal and opinionated recently with statements like "I dont know...and neither do you!". To me, agnosticism is exactly like any religion, twisting and rationalizing excuses for religion to be a viable alternative to reason, albeit with agnosticism a "live and let live" seems to more be the idea. What really gets me, though is that insipid argument in which they state that atheism requires as much faith as religion, and that Agnosticism is the only non-faith movement. Its BULLSHIT, of course. We are all atheists about the flying spaghetti monster and a celestial teapot, and yet we do not have "Faith" those things do not exist. Faith is a positive action where you believe in something that clearly does not exist. (the more clear it is that something exists, the less faith is required)

Anyway, I am as passionately anti agnostic as I am anti theist, because I see agnosticism as a gateway drug to religious delusion, and it only aids religion by turning a blind eye to it.

Thoughts? Am I alone in this? Should we ridicule agnostics on A/N until they leave or change their minds?

Views: 146

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

yes, no matter what we will probably continue to not know stuff. If you widen the definition of agnosticism to that extent, then sure, it will "remain" but then the term becomes too vague to really be useful, which is the central problem with it imho.

By being vague and vacuous, the result of agnosticism is silence on all matters. Extreme caution to a fault.

Also, agnostics do not have a corner on evidence based inquiry. By most definitions I've seen, they would argue there is no point in pursuing any line of inquiry because nothing is knowable anyway. Even that isnt knowable. wait...?

And while they stew, run around in pointless logical circles,etc. Atheists are left to struggle against religious delusion on their own, until that blessed day when the term atheist has no meaning because there is no such thing as a theist.
I'm not going to ridicule anyone for being an agnostic. I would politley state that no one "knows" anything 100%. The only thing you can do is bet on the smart money and the smart money is that there is no God.

http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/
I call for ridicule on statements that end with apologies to the "unknown god". It is insane to have to acknowledge every possible "great juju" or zeus or whatever when you make any statement about anything. No one does that, so why give any leverage to the more commonly held delusions?
Andrew Hall: I would politley state that no one "knows" anything 100%.

You know where a 100% of the blame lies for this ridiculous argument ? The insistence by some, regardless of how often they are corrected, to use the term "know".

=> .

"Know" is not relevant, it muddies the waters and is used in every theist argument ever presented against us. STOP SAYING "KNOW".

(Yes I know I used "know" in my comment. Please hold, I'll transfer you to someone who cares)
A lot of people call me agnostic because, as far as the beginning of all existence (not life, but the existence of anything) nobody has an answer. I will acknowledge that. If admitting that nobody knows how the universe came into being means that I'm agnostic, then so be it. But I do not believe in a god of any kind, not now or then or ever. I too think that in general agnostics are more weak-minded, however everyone has to go through that phase.

But I definitely don't think we should boot agnostics, or ridicule them. Then we're no better than the religious nuts who act like people who don't follow their belief system don't belong and don't deserve to belong. And I don't want to be a part of that kind of movement.
I have to agree with Callie. Even Carl Sagan claimed that agnosticism was a rational path despite having serious doubts about any supernatural god. And booting folks ..well not for agnosticism. Most claiming that I have found lean heavily toward Atheism.
The problem is that christians faith is based on that 1% possibility that atheists are wrong and god does exist, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They focus on it, feed off it.

That is why dawkins and others keep coming back to the point that it is reasonable to state we know and can live as if there is no god, just like we live with the understanding that there is no invisible celestial teapot floating around in the atmosphere. Acknowledging the remote possiblity is not only academic, it is irrelevant and harmful because the vanishingly small possibilities do not merit any consideration and only lend creedence and strength to delusional ideologies. If you agree with that and still consider yourself an agnostic, by all means stick around.

However, if you feel we, as atheists, need to temper our statements with apologies to the "unknown god" then I still call for the boot, as that is incompatible with atheism.
I still consider myself an atheist. I acknowledge the fact that no one knows everything about the beginnings of the universe in the same way that I acknowledge the fact that we do not have a cure for cancer. I thoroughly believe that there is a sound, scientific explanation for it, but will not try to argue the point until it has been discovered. The odds of a supernatural being creating it all are infinitely small. But claiming that we know for certain things which we currently do not have substantial evidence of is doing the same thing as religious people do. I am certainly an atheist, but I strongly encourage doubt to my religious acquaintances, and to do that with a clear conscience, I must also encourage doubt within myself.
Going back to your original statement
Anyway, I am as passionately anti agnostic as I am anti theist, because I see agnosticism as a gateway drug to religious delusion, and it only aids religion by turning a blind eye to it

I see agnosticism really as a giant leap toward atheism. The doubt is already there, reason and desire for a sky god quite possibly wrestling in ones mind. Giving us an opportunity to make head way for another deconversion. Some atheists for what ever mental baggage may require a disclaimer still, we should boot them?? Or beat em with a verbal Pesci bat?
I have to disagree at this point. I just don't see that as outrageous. I can question them about it possibly get them to think harder, or just feel more comfortable in what they already know is true.
and I hate "gateway drug" analogies as most of us here no it was also a myth;-p
When it comes to all the man-made gods, I'm an atheist. But I can also consider Spinoza's description of a creative force, so I'd have to say I'm agnostic because there is the slight possibility that the universe itself is its own intelligent creative force. I'm not agnostic 'just in case' there's an afterlife, I just don't know for sure that there isn't an intelligent force at work here. And yes, equating 'creative force' with 'god' is probably not useful.

I wouldn't get too hung up on party purity, we need everybody we can get.
I often call myself 'agnostic atheist'. I am as atheist as it gets about the deities described in every one of our man-made religious texts, but as far as the mere possibility of a conscious force behind creation, ultimately, I say I am 'agnostic'.

And this has nothing to do with 'hoping' for an afterlife or some other wishy-washy crap. Or lending any credence or room for possibility, whatsoever to any theistic belief system. I just know that we are far from having answers to the ultimate origins of time and space. Like I said, since I do not believe in any 'gods', I am an atheist....AND til given PROOF to think otherwise, I will thus remain. Hell, hypothetically speaking, even if such a being did exist, I'd lean towards deism and maybe even a being who was malevolent or apathetic natured, more than a 'loving' being as depicted by most religions.

We know for a fact that complex things like time and space, which are perceived by many to be limitless, exist. I just do not see a 'conscious force' that much further out, to be honest. Though we can judge all man-made texts by what is written and thusly reject them, as none have evidence and most contradict themselves, science and/or common sense. And as an ATHEIST, (the key part of 'agnostic-atheist'), I am FULLY on the 'atheist' side, when standing against the religious right in this country.

And though technically, i would be 'agnostic atheist', I do often choose the term 'agnostic'. A part of me just liked the neutral and humble sound of the word. And even though I think religion is nothing more than myths, I can find interest or inspiration in a lot of it, if only on a philosophical basis. Whether it be the martyrdom and extreme selflessness of the Biblical Jesus, pagan nature worship, Buddhist meditation or the countless Greek and Norse myths that were like science fiction novels from long ago. Maybe it's just the part of me that gets off on thinking of myself as striving to incorporate new ideas into my philosophies or be 'multicultural'. I dunno.

Either way, I get that there are 'fence sitters' who call themselves 'agnostic' but it is far from all. That's all I wanted to point out.
I call myself an agnostic atheist too. This is because I know that I cannot prove the non-existence of "God", (by "God" I mean the Abrahamic gods). And I'm no fence sitter either. I recognise two levels of agnosticism: {i} we can never know, (it is logically impossible to know); and {ii} I just don't know. I am in category {ii}. I have never come across a proof that "God" does not exist. Neither have I ever come across a proof that "God" does exist.

But I do not have any shred of belief in any god. That is not fence sitting. I acknowledge that I can't prove my position, (using logic). What I have done with my time is to look at all the arguments which are put forward to supposedly show that there must be a god, and to have a rational counter to refute those arguments.

It is impossible to prove a universal negative, unless we have some local qualification about that thing. In other words, I can't prove that there is not a flying spaghetti monster somewhere in the universe. Yet I don't doubt that there isn't one. There is no evidence for one, we know it was invented, yet what proof is there that by some strange quirk of possibility there is one? Whoever dreamed up the FSM may have just hit on a true thing by accident.The chance of it is vanishingly small, and even considering it is laughable. Yet it still can't be PROVED not to exist, (at least not according to my definition of proof).

My standard of proof here is very high indeed. It is not enough to accept or dismiss a possibility by saying it is just garbage - even though it might be. It is simply about what qualifies as 100%, incontrovertible truth. Near enough a proof, stupid enough an argument, unlikely enough a proposition don't constitute proofs or disproofs of anything. Yet I'm comfortable to accept a position on some things, without needing absolute proof or disproof.

When theists give their gods some specific qualifications, then I can go some way towards proof of the inconsistency or incoherency or illogicality or plain untruth of what they say. For example, if a theist says that "God" answers prayers, the evidence is, that that is false. So a god that answers prayers is shown to be false.

From my point of view, the problem is that theists, (if they are shown to be wrong), simply manufacture some pathetic way around this. Often they tweak their conception of "God", without any shred of evidence. Their point of view is that "God" IS. For them, all arguments or problems with that fundamental assumption, (it seems to me as an observer), must therefore be wrong - whatever the consequence for logic, evidence or proof.

My point of view is that I have no good reason to believe that ANY god exists, and I am perfectly comfortable with that. I just can't prove that my atheism is the truth. So I am atheist without proof of my position - as far as that goes I'm an agnostic atheist. I can't prove an unqualified or plastic universal negative - ( that there is no god ) - or any other locally unqualified universal negative. The ability to prove or disprove changes if the proposal about the nature of a god, or any other proposition is made specific enough.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service