| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mekkala" |
| Date: |
15 Oct 2003 11:02:03 AM |
| Object: |
Agnosticism -- why? |
Forgive me for bringing up the agnosticism debate yet again, but I
wanted to give some of my thoughts.
I'm addressing here the agnostic who says that it's foolish to say God
doesn't exist, and that one should refuse to make a statement either
way.
The question I'd like to ask is -- what's the point? That statement
just appears to be a patronizing statement directed at theists, because
to remain rational in your analysis of the universe, you *still* have to
treat the God-concept as if it were false, pending further evidence.
Whether you insist on keeping your options open or not, you treat the
God-concept in the same manner (as if it were false). Why not be honest
and openly take the position that it's false? Do you make a deliberate
effort to inform the world that you don't necessarily believe Santa
doesn't exist? I mean, I'm sure that if you were shown solid, objective
evidence that Santa exists, you would change your position on the
matter... so why not shout from the rooftops that "Santa MIGHT exist!",
in much the same way that you shout from the rooftops that "God MIGHT
exist!"?
I think what it boils down to is a desire to placate the theists, to
tell them that they *could* be right, and make them happy, and shut them
up. And unless you take action and form your worldview based on the
possibility of God's existence (rather than behaving as if he/she/it
doesn't exist, since you don't know), what other purpose could this
desperation to tout your awesome open-mindedness have?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
| User: "Kilmir" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism -- why? |
15 Oct 2003 05:37:52 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns941571E5E8444Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
Forgive me for bringing up the agnosticism debate yet again, but I
wanted to give some of my thoughts.
I'm addressing here the agnostic who says that it's foolish to say God
doesn't exist, and that one should refuse to make a statement either
way.
The question I'd like to ask is -- what's the point? That statement
just appears to be a patronizing statement directed at theists, because
to remain rational in your analysis of the universe, you *still* have to
treat the God-concept as if it were false, pending further evidence.
<snip>
I'm pretty sure the definition of an agnostic is one who thinks the
existance or non-existance of god can not be proven. This is independant if
they actually belief in a supposed god or not.
So you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. One who believes
there is a god but it can't be proven by material / mortal means (most
deists for instance) and one who does not believe in a god but it can't be
proven that there is one.
The agnostic atheist is a bit of a weird position though, I must agree with
that. It's pretty obvious you can't prove a negative like that, so basically
you can never "proof" there is no god, jsut as you can't prove there is no
easter bunny.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Aylward" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism -- why? |
16 Oct 2003 03:25:07 AM |
|
|
Kilmir wrote:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns941571E5E8444Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
Forgive me for bringing up the agnosticism debate yet again, but I
wanted to give some of my thoughts.
I'm addressing here the agnostic who says that it's foolish to say
God doesn't exist, and that one should refuse to make a statement
either way.
The question I'd like to ask is -- what's the point? That statement
just appears to be a patronizing statement directed at theists,
because to remain rational in your analysis of the universe, you
*still* have to treat the God-concept as if it were false, pending
further evidence. <snip>
I'm pretty sure the definition of an agnostic is one who thinks the
existance or non-existance of god can not be proven. This is
independant if they actually belief in a supposed god or not.
In fact, according to Huxley himself, apparently the inventor of the
term, the concept is not restricted to religion.
From http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Huxley:
"This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is
essential to Agnosticism. that it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective
truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically
justifies that certainty."
The dicionaris appear to restict the usage to god, e.g.
Cambridge Dictionary
Definition
agnostic [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know,
whether a god exists:
or
The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
agˇnosˇtic
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess
true atheism.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism -- why? |
15 Oct 2003 03:57:49 PM |
|
|
Whether you insist on keeping your options open or not, you treat the
God-concept in the same manner (as if it were false). Why not be honest
and openly take the position that it's false? Do you make a deliberate
effort to inform the world that you don't necessarily believe Santa
doesn't exist? I mean, I'm sure that if you were shown solid, objective
evidence that Santa exists, you would change your position on the
matter... so why not shout from the rooftops that "Santa MIGHT exist!",
in much the same way that you shout from the rooftops that "God MIGHT
exist!"?
I think what it boils down to is a desire to placate the theists, to
tell them that they *could* be right, and make them happy, and shut them
up. And unless you take action and form your worldview based on the
possibility of God's existence (rather than behaving as if he/she/it
doesn't exist, since you don't know), what other purpose could this
desperation to tout your awesome open-mindedness have?
I think it was Issac Asimov who said that an agnostic is just an atheist
that lacks the strength of his convictions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism -- why? |
16 Oct 2003 01:11:20 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:57:49 GMT in alt.atheism, Nakas ("Nakas"
<nakas@comcast.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
Whether you insist on keeping your options open or not, you treat the
God-concept in the same manner (as if it were false). Why not be honest
and openly take the position that it's false? Do you make a deliberate
effort to inform the world that you don't necessarily believe Santa
doesn't exist? I mean, I'm sure that if you were shown solid, objective
evidence that Santa exists, you would change your position on the
matter... so why not shout from the rooftops that "Santa MIGHT exist!",
in much the same way that you shout from the rooftops that "God MIGHT
exist!"?
I think what it boils down to is a desire to placate the theists, to
tell them that they *could* be right, and make them happy, and shut them
up. And unless you take action and form your worldview based on the
possibility of God's existence (rather than behaving as if he/she/it
doesn't exist, since you don't know), what other purpose could this
desperation to tout your awesome open-mindedness have?
I think it was Issac Asimov who said that an agnostic is just an atheist
that lacks the strength of his convictions.
while bearing in mind that "deism is shame faced atheism". Huxley?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "spakka" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism -- why? |
15 Oct 2003 03:51:34 PM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote:
Forgive me for bringing up the agnosticism debate yet again, but I
wanted to give some of my thoughts.
I'm addressing here the agnostic who says that it's foolish to say God
doesn't exist, and that one should refuse to make a statement either
way.
<snip>
In my experience, the impetus to classify atheists as agnostics comes
from christians, not agnostics. Most people who call themselves
agnostic tend to agree they are atheist if held to the 'disbelief in
god(s)' definition. It's just that they have swallowed the plausible
christian lie that atheism entails a positive belief in the unprovable
proposition that there are no gods.
So why does it matter to christians that atheists get misclassified as
agnostics? It's a more subtle, statistical form of the familiar
christian 'counting believers' pissing contest which athesists find so
puzzling. My take on this latter is that if you're going to waste your
life pursuing a preposterous delusion (which deep down even you yourself
must know to be false), it's comforting and rewarding to see lots of
others doing the same.
To atheists, christians are simply delusional - you either believe their
nonsense or you don't. Christians prefer to believe instead that there
is a *continuum of degrees of faith* in their god, with Stalin at one
end, and Ned Flanders at the other. People slide up and down this scale
in response to various life events. Prayer and reading the bible move
you toward the godly end. Meaningless deaths of relatives send you the
other way. Here we see the root of a number of christian ideas baffling
to atheists - for example the notion that if you only looked for jesus
hard enough, you would find him, and that atheists are atheists because
of some disappointment or injury.
In this model, calling an atheist 'agnostic' moves him halfway along the
scale.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
