so... i guess i'll start a discussion... Since this group is called "agnostic atheists" i'll open up a question to the group. As an agnostic, i get a lot of flack from atheist friends of mine as to why i haven't "gone the whole way" in considering myself an atheist, or why i'm "wishy-washy" or possibly in "fear" of the atheist title. So i guess my question is... Is Agnosticism merely a "gateway drug" to atheism or is it it's own separate philosophical position?

because, i'm always been way more outspoken in my disdain for organized religion than most if not all of my atheist friends, so the notion of agnostics as "fence-sitters" kinda gets on my nerves, so i'd love to hear a convincing argument for or against this notion of the agnostics merely being "closeted" or "spinelesss" atheists. Lol! anyone pissed yet? Lol!

Views: 25

Replies to This Discussion

no disrespect taken. though, i will say that there are quite a few skeptics that would not consider themselves atheists or agnostics. so i'm not quite sure how that applies, unless you are implying that they are the same (which i'm quite sure you are not.)

also, i definatly agree that blind faith is blind faith, though again, not quite sure how that applies to differentiating between agnostics and atheists, or atheists and theists for that matter. Unless you are stating that atheists (like theists) rely simply on "blind faith" to come to a belief conclusion regarding the potential likelyhood of there being supernatural beings that interact with the natural world. i would hardly chalk all that we know about evolution and natural selection up to "blind faith" and compare it in the same sentence to biblical scrolls handed down over generations which provide no scientific facts regarding the natural world (or dinosaurs, or DNA, or the Solar System). or are you equating the two?
When I was using the term "skeptic", I was relating it to religious beliefs only (in my particular context). Anyone can be skeptical about anything, I was just referring to how some people (like agnostics) "question" the validity of some sort of deity.

The bottom line for me is; you can't prove "nothing" exists. Then again, you can't prove "something" exists either unless you can see it/touch it for yourself. As advanced as science has become, it's still not perfect and is sometimes (not always, mind you--I don't mean to infer that scientists are a bunch of nerds sitting around making up stories) based on theory, which is a conclusion reached by linking known facts together and (if you will...) making the best educated guess you can about the parts that are missing.

Ok, I'm off on a tangent. When I said "blind faith", what I meant is theists believe in their gods based on nothing more than centuries of storytelling and conformity. IMHO, some atheists purport that same kind of (I don't want to say "blind faith" and get beaten for it) conviction to the claim of NO supernatural being/force without having any real "proof" to show for what they believe (don't believe?).

I'm new here and am NOT trying to start anything (ok, well maybe a friendly debate). I joined this particular group because of its title "Agnostic Atheism". There's no way I would believe that our entire existence and way of life is based on one book of stories (of which there are a million different interpretations). BUT, there's also no way I can be arrogant enough to say I know it all. Hence, the agnosticism.
again... i'm quite sure no one is going to get the impression you are attempting to "start" anything. this is a forum for discussion, and as far as i knew, all we are doing is discussing. i like ideas, and different points of view. i respect your opinion, and i appreciate you sharing it. i like to understand things and what people are saying, so i ask for clarification at times. that is all. i hope i'm not giving you the impression i'm saying you are wrong or something. just attempting to get your point of view, and i think i have it.

i agree with you on your point that any individual attempting to say that they "know it all" would indeed be quite arrogant. though, i would have to disagree in the characterization of both theists and atheists equally fitting that characterization. but we can agree to disagree on that fact.

also, in regards to proving an unknown or unknowable item. for example unicorns or santa clause. i tend not to feel that the burden of proof lies with the nonbeliever. but that's just my opinion. for example... if you tell me you have a dancing unicorn that lives in your backyard, and i submit to you that i don't believe you. i don't find that we share equally the burden of proof. I don't feel that my lack of ability to "prove" that you indeed do not happen to have a dancing unicorn in your backyard is on par or equalled to your inability to prove your own belief claim. In such a situation, i would submit, that the burden of evidence in this scenario would fall apon you. out of curiosity, is there any part of that statement in which you would disagree with? just for shits and giggles...
How did you know about my unicorn?

Ok, shits and giggles...in your scenario, you are correct. All you would have to do is walk into my yard to disprove me. In the case of an all powerful, all knowing, fear inducing supreme being however, neither of us could prove anything either way.

It goes either way depending on how you look at it I suppose. You can't prove something doesn't exist--you can simply come to that conclusion using logic. And I've yet to see Jesus standing in line behind me in the grocery store, so no one can convince me he DOES exist either.

It's like a viscous circle, but we non-theists are just a little closer in the loop. :)

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service