I am without theistic belief. But I define myself as agnostic because I feel that the existence of some "supreme being" (however defined and however improbable) is not entirely precluded. I have to agree that the author erases an important distinction between so-called weak and strong atheism. As I said before, I wish that the label atheist were used more compatibly with its etymological sense (a-theist); it is usually understood socially in ways that the term anti-theist would be better suited for. "Agnostic" is better understood and less open to misunderstanding than the mouthful that is "weak atheist".
There is no such thing as an agnostic
by startingover 15 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
agonus
I don't know if there are really agnostics or not... There might be, but I can't honestly say for sure...
;)
-
VampireDCLXV
agonus: don't know if there are really agnostics or not... There might be, but I can't honestly say for sure...
Good one! LOL
V665
-
cyberjesus
I agree with leo, I think theres is an immediate association unsubstantiated with the word atheist. I share the same views but when I realized that an atheist really is someone with no god/s I decided to stick with the ethnological side. although now I am more an anti-theist since I think religion is bad goiter humanity
-
AK - Jeff
I exist - therefore I am agnostic.
Jeff
-
dogon
That article was a nonsequitur. I am an atheist but have always said that the only group that is based in fact is the Agnostics. I don't "know" that god does not exist and can not prove that god does not exist, but the evidence supporst that there is no god much more than the idea that there is a god that is real. There is not the smallest bit of evidence that a supreme being of any kind exists. I like Sagan's example that I can not prove that there is not a tea pot orbiting the sun but I highly doubt it.