(December 22, 2015 at 8:47 am)paulpablo Wrote:(December 21, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Delicate Wrote: I think they are. And the broader world of intellectual inquiry believes they are.
The only people who think you can be an agnostic atheist are the internet atheist community and the New Atheism that gave birth to them. They do this because they derive their ideas of atheism from Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who are polemical and not informed about the philosophical work undergirding an intellectually-driven atheism and agnosticism.
One of the benefits of combining the two is purely tactical: You get to taken on the weaker burden of proof of agnosticism, while still holding on to the label of atheism.
I realize this takes the discussion in a slightly different direction, but I think it's worth discussing. For the perils of the New Atheism and their intellectual bankruptcy, see the article linked in my signature.
Who is the broader world of intellectual inquiry?
The fact is that I reject a belief in god because I see no evidence of God. Definition of atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
I don't know anything about God, I don't know he doesn't exist or that he does exist, I know nothing about him apart from heresay which I don't believe in. Definition of an agnostic = a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-9794-po...#pid211908
Your explanation goes back to my previous dilemma: People can see no evidence of God because they have competently examined the evidence and found it lacking, or they are simply incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence.
Which are you?
