The problem is,I am an Agnostic and I do exist..LOL!!..I can see myself in the mirror and people talk to me..Utility companys send me bills..The police sent me a ticket for running a red light..My kids call me dad..I must be here..Your the only one who dosen`t know I`m here..Maybe your dead and don`t know it..Follow the Light!..LOL!!...OUTLAW
There is no such thing as Agnosticism. Agnostics do not exist!
by nicolaou 92 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
kid-A
"Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, it is the lack of belief that god does exist."
Nic raises a valid point. I believe the label of agnosticism results from a misunderstanding of the atheist position. As has been stated many times before, atheism is not a "de novo" theory or hypothesis, because it only exists as a philosophical position as the result of the pre-existing theory that "there is a god". The onus is NOT on the atheist to prove or disprove the existence of a god, the onus is upon the believer (who is putting forth the hypothesis) to prove its existence either way. The atheist has simply conducted their OWN tests, and given the complete lack of evidence for a god, has accepted the null hypothesis of the god theory: the hypothesis is not correct, ergo, there is no god.
Therefore, simply waving ones hands in the air and saying "I dont know" represents intellectual and empirical laziness. Either there IS a god, or there is NOT a god. There is no "middle ground" in this equation. If there IS a god, you should be able to find evidence, and it is irrelevant what form you chose that evidence to take. Little Toe has his own evidence for his beliefs. Those claiming the atheist position have decided there is no sufficient evidence.
Those claiming agnosticism, IMHO, simply lack the respect for their own belief structures to carefully examine the evidence, for or against and arrive at some coherent position.
-
nicolaou
Brilliant!
The confusion actually arises because of a misunderstanding of the word "atheist." Atheism is such a simple concept . . . It simply means you do not acknowledge a god. It does not mean, as so many insist, that you know for a fact that there is no God.
No one can claim a god absolutely does not exist unless he can claim infinite knowledge of the universe. I have never heard any atheist make this assertion.
Yes yes!
People who glom onto the complicated label "agnostic" do so for the uncomplicated reason that it seems to imply reason and open-mindedness, whereas the label "atheist" seems to imply stubborn close-mindedness. Both assumptions are wrong. The word "agnostic" means literally "without knowledge" or, more simply, "I don't know." But it is really just a cop-out word for atheist. It is a word that society has not yet blackened with foul adjectives.
Summing up. .
So, fellow atheists, I encourage you to drop any pretense of knowing there is no God. You have no way of knowing. Nor do I. I have no theistic belief - therefore I am an a-theist. A so-called agnostic has no theistic belief - and is therefore an a-theist.
"As much as we'd like that soft, squishy middle position (of agnosticism), there isn't one."
Thanks for this article startingover, it's a keeper.
Nic'
-
Caedes
I would describe myself as being an atheist (militant wing) and I agree with the various posters who have pointed out that atheism in fact means a lack of belief in god/s and as such agnosticism essentially means the same thing. However words do change their meaning and unfortunately it's a completely democratic process, the average person in the street would say that agnosticism means not knowing if god exists and atheism is a 'belief' that god does not exist. Eventually I think that is what the dictionaries will say and at that point someone will no doubt come up with yet another word to describe what most atheists believe i.e that the existance of god is impossible to prove or disprove but is as likely as there being fairies in the garden, I think I shall call it atheignosticism (tm). I know it's really atheism but if joe schmo on the street thinks it means something else then it's time for a new word.
Anyway my point is words change, there is little point in pretending otherwise.
-
Hellrider
Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, it is the lack of belief that god does exist. Think about that. There is no such thing as agnosticism, it's not a middle ground because there is no middle ground to occupy.
If you are unsure as to whether or not god/s exists then you do not have the belief that he/she/it does exist. You lack the positive belief of the theist which thus defines you as atheist.
Who came up with this definition/argument? Is it your own?
What about life on other planets? If I say that "I have no clue whether there is life on other planets or not", does that mean that I deny the possibility of life on other planets? Does the fact that I refuse to say either "there is life on other planets" or "there is no life on other planets" make me a cop-out? Or does it make me a smart person, because I acknowledge that there are limitations to my knowledge? Why should it be any different with God/s?
Wasn`t it Socrates that said that all he knew was that he knew nothing (and that this made him wiser than those who claimed that they knew)?
-
LittleToe
Kid-A:
Those claiming agnosticism, IMHO, simply lack the respect for their own belief structures to carefully examine the evidence, for or against and arrive at some coherent position.
What about those who believe that it's about personal subjective experience and are awaiting such an event to confirm such an existance, but meanwhile cannot stand on either end of the spectrum conclusively? Isn't the position more akin to hoping that a cure may come out of the wild jungles of the Amazon (a la "Medicine Man" with Sean Connery) while not wasting a life in anguish?
Alternatively I guess you can continue alienating those who are happy to call themselves agnostics. What did they ever do to you, to call them lazy? To my way of thinking it's a perfectly reasonable stance to take, given that they may feel that either position is inconclusive.
On that count the militant atheist is no better than the militant believer. Just as you might bridle against the notion of being told you must believe in God, why shouldn't they bridle in being told they must either believe or not believe? So often the "real world" needs no such definitive answers, as we do what we evolved to do - survive in a world full of uncertainty. In fact, I'm starting to wonder whether the militant atheist attitude isn't just as bad as that of the black-and-white thinking JW and/or Fundamentalist religionist...
-
ackack
LittleToe, amen. Militant beliefs are a huge turn off. Tolerance and mercy are groovy.
Incidentally, everyone is ignoring Ignosticism. Way more fun than agnosticism.
Ignosticism is the view that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because it has no verifiable (or testable) consequences and should therefore be ignored. (See scientific method.) The term was coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine, founder of the Society for Humanistic Judaism. Ignosticism is often considered synonymous with theological noncognitivism.
ackack
-
LittleToe
Sounds like that is what some are proposing the term "atheism" means
-
kid-A
Ross,
I think we can both agree that there either is a god, or there is not. These possibilities are mutually exclusive. I think we would also both agree that the question is important if one is to form the most adaptive conception of one's respective place in the universe, one's view of human mortality, the afterlife, etc. I simply dont accept the notion that it is a "fence sitters" dichotomy. I stand by my original comment that it is intellectual laziness, but obviously this does not imply laziness in every domain, merely on that particular question, so I'm not sure why you are implying this is a blanket insult to those calling themselves agnostics... it is'nt. It is also not an issue of me wanting the "fence sitters" to join my "camp". I could care either way, indeed, I have no axe to grind with any reasonable person professing faith in god or any other supernatural realm for that matter. Life would be rather dull if we all subscribed to the same belief system.
You bring up the issue of evolution. IMHO, we have evolved to the point where we can apply our brain's cognitive faculties of reasoning to logically weigh the evidence and test the hypothesis. You and I have come up with completely different answers: but at least we have made the attempt and have come up with answers that we individually are satisfied with! LOL....
Imagine a research scientist with a well-funded laboratory, great grad students and equipment, etc etc, suddenly taking the position "well, gee, I dont know....maybe there is a cure for cancer, maybe there is'nt....I know I can perform some reasonable experiments to come up with an answer, but since I really CANT be sure a priori, I'm gonna sit on my ass and wait for the answer to come to me!"....Is the position of the agnostic any different? They know they are perfectly capable of weighing the evidence for or against, and as I said previously, it matters not what they choose to count as evidence, either way, is it really so difficult to analyse the evidence (be it emotional, physical, experiential or empirical) and come up with a reasoned conclusion?
-
LittleToe
Sorry if I personalised it. I was only addressing you directly as it was one particular point that I wished to address.
Sometimes, on examining the evidence you have accumilated, neither the hypothesis or the null-hypothesis can be claimed to be statistically reliable. Another hypothesis is required. This takes time.
Some go back to the drawing board and permit themselves to reconsider the question in an unhurried manner. Is this laziness? They may not even know that this is what they are doing, especially if they've had no scientific or statistical training, but generally this is the process. I guess my only issue is a concern that people are being lambasted for having a different set of priorities to the militant [fill in the blank]. Life often has a habit of getting in the way of philosophy...