Agnosticism Is *not A Rational Position To Take*

[SkepticOfBible]

Hi all,

I actually dont have a problem with agnostics over theists. Agnostics are obviously more intelligent because they dont fall for all the dribble that christians etc. try to force on people. Although like someone mentioned some agnostics are that way because they have never given any thought to whether there is a god or not. This also makes them more intelligent than christians because they have been able to resist christians trying to convert them.

Like a couple of people said they may not dismiss a higher power but they dont think it is the christian God. I have respect for this because they obviously acknowledge the christian god is too evil and contradictory etc to exist. That is one of the problems I have with christianity, there belief in a psychotic, evil, egotistical being.

A few people thought I was being petty over having a problem with theists calling themselves agnostics. I guess what started that problem was I went on dating sites looking for atheists or at least someone who doesnt have a definate belief in god. Do you know how frustrating it is to come across a whole bunch of theists who call themselves agnostics? I used to do a search on atheists and agnostics but because so many Theist-agnostics pop up I have had to only tick atheists.

As far as Im concerned there are only 3 main beliefs - Theism, atheism and the undecided which is agnosticism. All are very clearly defined even though within these groups peoples beliefs differ slightly. I commend all the agnostics on here for being actual agnostics.

I dont think we should pay on agnostics because there is a good chance they could be convinced to become atheist. Were hardly going to convice anyone if we are attacking them. Sorry to all agnostics if I want you to be atheist. I just want atheism to become more popular because we are such a small group and cop so much shit.

I also want to ask agnostics, do u consider other possibilities too not just two because we could come up with millions of theories on what is really going on. To name one...a little alien kid was mucking around in chemistry class and an explosion happened and the universe was created. Right now the universe is sitting on that alien kid's shelf collecting dust. Ok that was stupid and it implies a creator but you get my point. Why only consider one theory when we could come up with many equally unproovable, contradictory ones.

 

Thanks. That sort of is my position.

 

The "matrix" theory is actually quite feasible, and same goes for the "rael" theory. However because of lack of evidence, I reject both of them. "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" maxim comes in handy when examining the claim.

 

I'll say it honestly, my belief in a God is based more on subjective experiance rather than a objective one. Hence I can't impose that belief on anybody. I may be delusional, but hey it has helped quite a lot through my troubled life. In that respect I am not different from any of the religionist.

 

Well in the words of Peter Griffin - "Whatever grinds your gear"

[Ouroboros]

Well, considering new theories of "creation", just look at the brane theories in cosmology. It assumes that there's not one universe, but at least two, and possible infinte number. And they're separated with membranes of infinte energy. When the universes "touch" each other there would be an explosion of energy from the membranes. A wild idea, but if it's true, then we could have entities and beings that exists outside our universe, because then our universe would not be the only one... do I believe it is so? I don't know, and I'm not sure what to believe about it, so in that case I'm actually agnostic when it comes to the brane theory...

[Asimov]

This is an important topic to me, and the title was just me "being me". Generally most of what I say is either tongue-in-cheek or used to illicit a reaction that will get people to pay attention to what I say...I guess it worked

 

I did expect a reaction to it...but to a more rational extent considering the content of my post.

 

True. And that's the conclusion I came to too. It's an adjective describing the "strength" of faith (or non faith) rather than what faith. It's more like the words "extremist" and "agnostic" are each others opposites rather being part of a sequence of faith definitions like "theist", "deist", "atheist". One describes the belief, the other what kind of adherence to which class of philosophical epistemology.

 

Yea, but I don't even think it's a necessary description. I'm an extremist, but I know that I don't know absolutely whether or not God exists.

 

But unfortunately we do have many that do hold their beliefs to be absolute truths, and will put them (in my mind) into the camp of extremists or fundamentalists. And strong atheists claim just as much absolute truth to that there is no god, what-so-ever, and become extremists as well. The definition of agnostic is nothing more than to say you're moderate. Like a moderate conservative as opposed to strict or strong conservative. But as you said, the word agnostic can't really be used by itself.

 

I know we do have people in that camp, although I would disagree that strong atheism claims an absolute position...however that's just based on what I've read of James Lazarus and Francois Tremblay. I'm generally not a fan of redundant labels, especially going to such extremes at categorization...it's almost as if people want to be different yet belong to some kind of group.

 

Maybe it's better to say "weak deist", "weak atheist" or "not decided yet" instead, and just forget the "agnostic" word all togheter, because it really doesn't have anything to do with what you believe, but only about how you (not) know what you believe.

 

I don't see it as a "weak" position to state that you don't know whether or not God exists. If you recognize that you cannot know if God exists, if you recognize that there is no evidence for God, and if you recognize that generally God is an undefined and incoherent term then I see no reason why one should believe in such an entity, or even be "uncertain" about it.

 

It is no one else's business to "judge" whether or not someone else's chosen spiritual path is or is not stupid. To do this is highly intrusive -- much like a lot of fundies get.... Intrusions only breed anger. Asimov, I can't buy that you didn't think this thread would incite anger and heated replies.

 

It's not a spiritual path....agnosticism is solely regarding epistemology. Intrusions are what get people to think, and if people get mad about that then there is something wrong with what they believe.

 

I would be excited for someone to challenge my belief, because it provides me a chance for personal growth and experience. If I am unable to even defend or justify my own belief system then there is something wrong with it or me.

 

To be challenged is the only way we grow. Since this is a website which is made up of intellectuals, and my post itself was logical to the point and informed, I expected back what I gave.

 

 

I've only read the first part of this and my take on the matter is - Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, ect are allies against the evil Cult and one thing I learned in a quarter-century in the military is that you don't attack your allies! They are the ones who cover your back. - Heimdall

 

We're not in a war...

[Vigile]

First off, it doesn't matter what anyone here decides to call themselves. That's up to the individual and it doesn't hurt anyone. Personally I think agnosticism is a stop on the road towards atheism by those who spend enough time thinking about the issue to really care. The emotion by which we formally embraced the god idea dictates as much. That said, I think Asimov has a point.

 

Let's try it this way:

 

Anyone here who is agnostic about the existance of Santa raise their hands. Is it rational to be agnostic about the existance of Santa? Why not? Why then is it rational to be agnostic about the existance of a being who is even less defined and for whom there is even less proof?

[jrmarlin]

True, however, isn't agnostic, deist, atheist merely titles? Why argue over titles? What's the point? While I respect that Asimov wants to be challenged in order to experience personal growth, what's the point at haggering over a title? Why not get to the real heart of the matter?

 

The real heart of the matter is, no one really KNOWS if God does or does not exist. Faith is not based in Scientific fact. Faith is based on perceptions. How can you argue over someone else's perception? You're not them. You don't have the same identical experiences as the others. And if you did, whose to say your perception of the same experience will be the same? There are as many differrent reactions as there are people to any one given event -- these reactions are a sum total of all prior events and the reactions are usually formed on the past reactions. How can one person assess what is correct or incorrect for another when they do not share the identical minds?

 

To argue over it is like arguing over why some people like lima beans and some people don't is not going to make us grow on any personal level; therefore, it seems fruitless. Why or how someone else believes or disbelieves in god should really not be anyone else's concern. One of the problems I have with xians is they make everyone elses' beliefs their concern -- instead of minding their own business and believing how they see fit, they chose to "sway" and "coerce" others into their way of believing.

 

If someone wants to believe that Zulle is *the* god, then dare do I to disturb their universe....

[Asimov]

If someone wants to believe that Zulle is *the* god, then dare do I to disturb their universe....

 

 

That shit is pretty fucking funny coming from someone who thinks Christians are brain-damaged.

[jrmarlin]

If someone wants to believe that Zulle is *the* god, then dare do I to disturb their universe....

 

 

That shit is pretty fucking funny coming from someone who thinks Christians are brain-damaged.

Obvious to me you didn't read the whole thread, because I said it in a very tongue and cheek way....... If you hade read this you would have understood, it was a joke! If you had bothered to read any other posts you would have seen that I refer to xians in most cases as brainwashed.

 

Well, I am glad I could amuse you. Have a nice day!

[Thackerie]

Some of the comments in this thread have suggested that agnosticism is, or should be, a stop on the way to atheism. They make it sound like atheism is the one true philosophy and that with a little more work, we poor benighted agnostics will finally see the light. Pardon me, but that's bull shit.

 

I can certainly understand that those who are recovering from being indoctrinated by any of the various forms of xianity that place a high premium on proselytising might feel a need to convert others to their new way of thinking. Old habits are hard to break, I guess.

 

However, as I understand it, atheism is the conviction that there is no deity in any form whatsoever while agnosticism simply says "I don't know." As such, agnosticism is not a belief system at all but, I think, it does have a lot of integrity and a lot of thought behind it, and I am proud to be an agnostic. In other words, I don't think asimov should be surprised that many of us proud agnostics found his put down rather offensive.

[queenie]

It's interesting to see how sensitive people are regarding their own belief systems...especially an incoherent one such as agnosticism.

 

Instead of any type of expected rational discussion regarding this I get hissy-fits and people thinking I personally insulted them.

 

Not wanting to get myself in a twist over this whole thread, I've gone to skimming at this comment. My apologies if I'm repeating sentiments already expressed by others.

 

Do you forget who makes up this board? Where these people, myself included, have come from? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you one of the few on here that has never been a Christian to begin with? If so, then you haven't the foggiest notion as to how painful our spiritual questioning has been on our lives. Many of us are raw from the ordeal...totally and completely raw, some still in deep vats of confusion and anxiety.

 

So, yes. We are sensitive and we shouldn't have to apologize for it, or have to answer to people, here of all places, about why we don't appreciate someone who has never walked in our shoes to not only stick labels on us, but to question the labels with which we've embraced for our new journeys. And yes, we do feel personally insulted b/c the truth of the matter is, religion/spirituality is highly, highly personal.

 

What the hell is so difficult about mutual respect? This kind of thinking is just as alienating and hurtful as that of the fundy Christians.

[Amethyst]

My definition of agnosticism is not narrow, and I don’t define God so my definition of God is non-existent.

 

Actually, you do seem to be defining god. When I said I could see a life force as a type of divine entity, you said that you didn't think that could be a god. Yet many people consider it one.

 

Again, having a lack of belief is not making a positive statement. It’s just the gainsaying of the person making an assertion. You, me, anyone who does not believe has no burden of proof upon them in any way. Thus, the lack of belief is in no way we should have to necessarily justify until:

 

1) A definition for God is given.

2) Evidence for God is provided.

3) Logical argumentation is provided.

 

Right, but that still doesn't tell me why I should have to call myself an atheist if I don't want to.

 

Atheism is not the absolute conclusion that God does not exist, so your definition is a little off.

 

Perhaps, but the vast majority of people see it as such. At least, the vast majority of people I've met in the state of MN. Maybe other regions are different.

 

Maybe it's better to say "weak deist", "weak atheist" or "not decided yet" instead, and just forget the "agnostic" word all togheter, because it really doesn't have anything to do with what you believe, but only about how you (not) know what you believe.

 

I would use freethinker except that the general populace doesn't know what it means, and I always have to go into a long explanation if they ask me, which gets old. At least they understand what agnostics are (unless they've had their head in the sand all their lives).

[Asimov]

However, as I understand it, atheism is the conviction that there is no deity in any form whatsoever

 

Well you misunderstand it, so until you get it right your comments are moot.

 

 

We are sensitive and we shouldn't have to apologize for it, or have to answer to people, here of all places, about why we don't appreciate someone who has never walked in our shoes to not only stick labels on us, but to question the labels with which we've embraced for our new journeys. And yes, we do feel personally insulted b/c the truth of the matter is, religion/spirituality is highly, highly personal.

 

Again, agnosticism isn't a question about spirituality because it has to do with knowledge. I've said it before on this thread, I'm agnostic as well...the issue is whether there is a need to label oneself as agnostic (semantical issue) or if agnostic can even be considered a separate label in regards to theology.

 

Of course, by only skimming through the thread, you would have no idea and you just focus on what you want to focus on...great that's fine. You've said your piece, clearly you have no idea what's going on.

 

What the hell is so difficult about mutual respect? This kind of thinking is just as alienating and hurtful as that of the fundy Christians.

 

What kind of thinking? Since you're ignorant of the discussion, you're basically walking into the middle of a conversation and speaking your mind without any idea of what has been discussed.

 

 

Actually, you do seem to be defining god. When I said I could see a life force as a type of divine entity, you said that you didn't think that could be a god. Yet many people consider it one.

 

Where did I say that?

 

Right, but that still doesn't tell me why I should have to call myself an atheist if I don't want to.

 

I'm not saying you do...I'm still unclear as to where I made my prescription that everyone who labels themselves as agnostic should call themselves anything.

[Amethyst]

Where did I say that?

 

This is where:

 

Well now you're just being wishy-washy again. You keep going from generic to a specific deity.

 

It doesn't work that way. Generic god is an undefined concept, therefore it's incoherent, therefore the only rational position is atheism.

 

Christian God is a defined and logically incoherent concept, therefore the only rational position is atheism.

 

My whole point was that not everyone has the same definition of god, yet you seem to be using the Christian one as the only one that people think exist. Just because the Bible is full of balogne doesn't mean there can't be something else out there. Granted, it's probably not any deity currently being worshipped and the chances are probably greater that it doesn't exist, but we can't know that for sure.

 

I'm not saying you do...I'm still unclear as to where I made my prescription that everyone who labels themselves as agnostic should call themselves anything.

 

You said atheism was the only rational position for anyone to take, and by that logic, we should all label ourselves atheists.

 

IMHO labels are only convenient ways for people to put other people into boxes. The problem comes with the assumptions made when one is put into a particular box.

[Ouroboros]

I think I understand what Asimov is getting at. I could write a longer post to put it all in order (according to Hans), but don't have the time right now, so I'll settle with just saying that the idea is as follows:

 

An atheist is by de facto an agnostic. He don't believe there is a God but won't exclude the possibility. He see the existence of God as just highly improbable, but don't deny the fact that he can't know for sure. Most atheists would fall into this category.

 

An atheist that claims that he knows there is no God is fooling himself and very few atheists would be in this camp.

 

So from that, there's no need for me to say I'm an agnostic atheist, because atheist in itself implies agnosticism.

 

Secondly, an agnostic deist or theist would fairly much fall into the same category. A deist know (I think) that they could be wrong and there might be no god after all, and the label "deist" implies agnostic.

 

The we have the agnostic deist or theists, which would be fairly the same.

 

In all the above "labels", the word agnostic is redundant and would in the case of "agnostic atheist" only be a tautology.

 

The last group is those who won't make up their mind what they believe, or won't search for enough information to make a decent decision, those are the ones that are the "true" agnostics. But wouldn't most take a standpoint anyway of what they believe to be the most likely idea and then be in fact be an atheist or deist? So why even use the word agnostic when pretty much everyone are agnostic (maybe even without knowing it)?

[Amethyst]

So why even use the word agnostic when pretty much everyone are agnostic (maybe even without knowing it)?

 

Well, I personally don't want the negative baggage that goes along with calling myself an atheist. There is still a lot of discrimination in America (I think there's even a thread here that said atheists are the most discriminated group in the US). Not to mention, my family would disown me.

 

It all comes down to a risk/benefit analysis. There is a hell of a lot more risk to calling oneself atheist in America than agnostic. People who don't live in this country don't necessarily realize the amount of hostility there is toward non-religious folks. You can be fired from your job and be physically threatened (not legally of course, but they do it anyway).

 

When asked, I usually just say I'm not religious anyway.

[Asimov]

My whole point was that not everyone has the same definition of god, yet you seem to be using the Christian one as the only one that people think exist. Just because the Bible is full of balogne doesn't mean there can't be something else out there. Granted, it's probably not any deity currently being worshipped and the chances are probably greater that it doesn't exist, but we can't know that for sure.

 

I clearly made a distinction between a generic God and the Christian God...as well as dealing with the "life force" idea AND the "universe is God" idea.

 

You said atheism was the only rational position for anyone to take, and by that logic, we should all label ourselves atheists.

IMHO labels are only convenient ways for people to put other people into boxes. The problem comes with the assumptions made when one is put into a particular box.

 

If you think my rationale is wrong then I kindly invite you to please provide reasons why think it is so...which you currently seem to be doing.

 

And because you interpreted what I said as me stating that you should label yourself an atheist only shows that you consider yourself a rational person, am I right? I would hope so. If I didn't make it clear that I am making no prescription before, then I am making it now:

 

I consider the label agnostic to be redundant. As a result of that, I consider it irrational to state that one is agnostic.

 

So why even use the word agnostic when pretty much everyone are agnostic (maybe even without knowing it)?

 

Well, I personally don't want the negative baggage that goes along with calling myself an atheist. There is still a lot of discrimination in America (I think there's even a thread here that said atheists are the most discriminated group in the US). Not to mention, my family would disown me.

 

It all comes down to a risk/benefit analysis. There is a hell of a lot more risk to calling oneself atheist in America than agnostic. People who don't live in this country don't necessarily realize the amount of hostility there is toward non-religious folks.

 

I never saw any risk to labelling myself an atheist...and I'm open about it. I've lived in the US, and have never been received unkindly.

 

It's unfortunate that your family would disown you, and I think that is a rational position to take in that circumstance.

 

As for other people discriminating...if they're gonna be assholes, they're gonna be assholes if you're an agnostic, atheist, or a buddhist.

[Taphophilia]

What do you mean Agnostics are wishy washy?

 

I don't beleive there is a god

 

...yes I do...

 

um...no I don't

 

...wait, yes, I do

 

...no, no, I don't.

 

All right, I do.

 

Damn it, I don't.

 

Hell, I'll just call myself Agnostic and that'll take care of it.

 

Taph, the wishy, washy Agnostic.

 

(Thank you Serene, for getting the joke of my sig.)

[Amethyst]

I never saw any risk to labelling myself an atheist...and I'm open about it. I've lived in the US, and have never been received unkindly

 

It may depend on where in the U.S. you live, but in some regions there is lot of hostility. Sure, they probably aren't going to outright murder you, but there is a ton of prejudice against atheists.

 

And because you interpreted what I said as me stating that you should label yourself an atheist only shows that you consider yourself a rational person, am I right? I would hope so. If I didn't make it clear that I am making no prescription before, then I am making it now:

 

I consider the label agnostic to be redundant. As a result of that, I consider it irrational to state that one is agnostic.

 

Yeah, I see where you are coming from. But I don't necessarily agree.

 

If you think my rationale is wrong then I kindly invite you to please provide reasons why think it is so...which you currently seem to be doing.

 

I just think it's arrogant to assume that any position is the only rational one. You may not have all the information. Of course, most people want to be right, and they also want everyone to agree with them. But wanting to be right doesn't necessarily make you right.

 

Have you seen Minority Report yet? If not, think about this: Imagine you're in a place where you've been brainwashed to believe you were among the only group of survivors of a natural disaster, and that you couldn't leave the building because of radiation or whatever excuse they supplied. So you're stuck there. And you're told that the only hope you get of going out is winning a lottery and going to an island. So naturally, everyone wants to go to the island.

 

But guess what? It's not there. Instead, you get a lethal injection shot when you win the lottery. Yet you believed the island was there because the information that was given to you at the time seemed true. You had no reason to think otherwise until you were taken to the operating room upstairs and killed.

 

Most people from the original brainwashed group would say that it was irrational to believe that the island didn't exist because they didn't have any other information to believe otherwise.

 

I know this is exactly what religions do and it's the opposite of atheism, but I'm trying to illustrate a point.

[Asimov]

It may depend on where in the U.S. you live, but in some regions there is lot of hostility. Sure, they probably aren't going to outright murder you, but there is a ton of prejudice against atheists.

 

There's a ton of prejudice everywhere against everyone, I don't think it should be a limitation to calling a spade a spade.

 

But I don't necessarily agree.

 

Understandable, if you agreed we wouldn't be arguing.

 

I just think it's arrogant to assume that any position is the only rational one. You may not have all the information. Of course, most people want to be right, and they also want everyone to agree with them. But wanting to be right doesn't necessarily make you right.

 

Of course I don't have all the information yet, but to hinge my entire position, my beliefs, and my rationale based on this as of yet unkown information that I may or may not receive is kind of like waiting for Jesus to come back. It has nothing to do with people agreeing with me, it has everything to do with analyzing not only yourself but analyzing myself and my position.

 

You have your reasons for why you're an agnostic, and I find them acceptable.

 

Have you seen Minority Report yet?

 

You're talking about "The Island", just so you know.

 

Most people from the original brainwashed group would say that it was irrational to believe that the island didn't exist because they didn't have any other information to believe otherwise.

 

Well I'd disagree with that because most of those people didn't even try to obtain new information. But then again if they did try to, they were taken away or punished.

 

I know this is exactly what religions do and it's the opposite of atheism, but I'm trying to illustrate a point.

 

Well your point doesn't quite fit because religions don't accept new information, I do.

[Vigile]

Some of the comments in this thread have suggested that agnosticism is, or should be, a stop on the way to atheism. They make it sound like atheism is the one true philosophy and that with a little more work, we poor benighted agnostics will finally see the light. Pardon me, but that's bull shit.

 

 

Fine, are you or are you not agnostic about the existance of Santa? If not, why not?

[Ouroboros]

Vigile, there is a difference in my opinion regarding the question about God vs Santa.

 

If Santa exists, is a question that can be tested and can be known. It is a question that is knowable. The gnostic philosophy is that we can not know about something. So you can't be agnostic about Santa, because it is a testable and presently knowable subject.

 

We can (if we want to) go to the North Pole, and prove that the classical Santa doesn't exist. (Not saying some kind of blasphemous neo-santa cult make him to be a hippie, living in a complex in Bronx.) So Santalogy can be tested.

 

Now, the problem is, can we go to the time of Big Bang, and look into who/what/where was "before" it? Can we go oustside the universe and existence to check if there is an outside? Don't think so. So God theory is not testable and hence not knowable. But it can be believed or not believed.

 

But to counter your question Vigil, are you, or are you not agnostic when it comes to super string theory or brane theory? No one knows as of know if they're true. Some scientists think so, some don't, and we don't know what to think or believe about it when there's no proof for either theory, but some scientists still investigating it. Those theories are as of current time not knowable, but can only be believed or not believed. So they are "agnostible" subjects. (I'm starting to invent my own words now... santalogy and agnostible... damn, I'm a sinking low or what! )

[Checkmate]

Something is becoming painfully apparent to me as I read through this thread. And that is, "Agnostics are AFRAID and ASHAMED to be called Atheists."

 

It's like the closet homosexual who outwardly rides the bandwagon of homophobia when his friends are around ("I hate them faggots!"), but secretly he's sucking dick every chance he gets.

 

While I understand and empathize with the need to stay hidden when around your hostile Christian family and friends, why must agnostics pretend to NOT be atheists when around OTHER atheists?

 

KNOWLEDGE (agnosticism) aside, if you have NO GOD BELIEF then you ARE an atheist. By definition. That's not me giving you a label or a title. That is just the FACTS. The Truth™.

 

Why is this so difficult for some of you to grasp? To deny this Truth™ is the very definition of Intellectual Dishonesty.

 

Would I be forcing MY "label" on someone who has same-sex intercourse by calling them homosexual or lesbian? Or am I just stating the obvious?

 

I'm just doing the same thing with people who have NO GOD BELIEF. You're an atheist. Get over it.

 

What is so offensive or arrogant about this position/reality?

[Saviourmachine]

First, let's define agnosticism:

 

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth or falsity of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God or gods—is unknown, unknowable, or incoherent.

As self-declared agnost I feel free to define the term agnosticism. Agnosticism is the belief that someone does not have or hasn't obtained what is generally considered as esoteric knowledge that originally was connotated with the term "gnosis".

 

I agree that this is not what is sometimes considered as the "true definition" of agnosticism, namely that "it is impossible to prove that there is no God and impossible to prove that there is one" what I consider as strong agnosticism (and an untenable proposition). It is weak agnosticism, these variants are also listed at Wikipedia like already quoted.

 

Weak agnosticism is not incompatible with atheism. I'm an atheist too.

 

I would even like to elaborate on this even though there are no words to describe the following "belief system". I generally expect that there always will be things "unknowable" to us. That reality will always have an unknowable and knowable part. This much more than by agnostic and atheistic point of view is a form of "belief". Gut feelings.

[Vigile]

Something is becoming painfully apparent to me as I read through this thread. And that is, "Agnostics are AFRAID and ASHAMED to be called Atheists."

 

Which is why I argue that agnosticism is a stopping place on the road to a more final destination.

 

Hans, what am I to be agnostic about? That there is some super intelligent being that created everything? No, I'm not agnostic about that any more than I am about Santa. I would argue that Santa is actually a more valid belief since it can be falsified. An ambiguous god however can't be falsified therefor Asimov's point stands in so much as he argues that it is not rational. The problem here likely comes down to the definition of atheism. Do I argue that I know there is no god? No, but I don't entertain the idea that there might be one anymore than I entertain the idea that there might be a Santa. There is a difference.

 

Your question regarding string theory is, I'm sorry to say, lost on me as I don't understand enough about it to have an opinion.

 

I am agnostic when it comes to the question of how we came to be if that answers your question. I think we all must be at this point in history.

[Thackerie]

However, as I understand it, atheism is the conviction that there is no deity in any form whatsoever

 

Well you misunderstand it, so until you get it right your comments are moot.

 

 

Well, I admit that I misunderstand how you are trying to twist the clear and simple meaning of words. Here's how the terms are defined at dictionary.com and how I and most other English-speakers understand them:

 

Agnostic:

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

 

Atheist:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

 

I stand by my comment. I am an agnostic, under definition 1. I am not an atheist. I have arrived at this conclusion after years of thinking about it and studying religious topics, so I believe it is at least as rational as your own viewpoint (unless, of course, you also have your own private definition of "rational"). And, BTW, I have as much right to comment on this board as you do.

[Japedo]

Something is becoming painfully apparent to me as I read through this thread. And that is, "Agnostics are AFRAID and ASHAMED to be called Atheists."

 

It's like the closet homosexual who outwardly rides the bandwagon of homophobia when his friends are around ("I hate them faggots!"), but secretly he's sucking dick every chance he gets.

 

While I understand and empathize with the need to stay hidden when around your hostile Christian family and friends, why must agnostics pretend to NOT be atheists when around OTHER atheists?

 

 

 

 

Mr. Grinch, With all due Respect sir, I will not admit I'm an Atheist because I'm not an atheist! It's not because I'm afraid to admit it, it's because I'm not an atheist. Because one doesn't "Worship" a god, doesn't mean some sort of higher being doesn't exists. I think its more difficult for you to grasp then us. Why it offends you that some of us hope but don't 'know 'theirs a higher power is beyond me. By your definition I'm an Atheist, by the rest of the world minus Asimov, I'm an agnostic..