RE: Why Agnosticism?
June 1, 2011 at 7:08 am
(This post was last modified: June 1, 2011 at 7:19 am by diffidus.)
(May 31, 2011 at 8:00 am)leo-rcc Wrote:(May 31, 2011 at 6:49 am)diffidus Wrote: When I say Agnostic, I mean someone who recognises that there is simply not sufficient knowledge to rule out, with 100% certainty, that God exists.
By that definition you make the label complety meaningless. Because with that definition every single person on the planet is agnostic.
Quote:For me, and Atheist view must be dependent upon a scientific view of the world i.e. that it is based upon a combination of empirical evidence combined with scientific understanding.
Why? I don't believe that gods exist. Why would I need a scientific view of the world to hold that disbelief?
Quote:On this basis, for me, the only logical position is one of the type of Agnosticism that I have defined. Atheism must rely, hugely, upon a good dose of faith!
You set up one hell of a strawman here by making up your definition of atheism, then debunking that definition, and then forming a conclusion from that.
Diffidus
I realise that the definition of agnostic that I have given is unorthodox. However, it does not follow from this that everone must be Agnostic. Many people are 100% convinced that God exists and many people are similarly fundamentalist atheists. Even on this forum I have had it explained to me that belief in God is the same as belief in Pink Unicorns.
The Agnostic definition that I have given implies an acceptance of the facts and a denial of any attempt to 'jump the gun' and to enter the mirky world of faith and belief (which, if you accept the definition, is what theism and atheism must ultimately be). It implies that, if you accept that Humankind's knowledge is limited, then that is all, no firm conclusion as to the existence of God can be drawn. It takes a leap of faith to assert that God does not exist!
(May 31, 2011 at 5:29 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:(May 31, 2011 at 6:49 am)diffidus Wrote: When I say Agnostic, I mean someone who recognises that there is simply not sufficient knowledge to rule out, with 100% certainty, that God exists.
I stick with the Absurdist view here. It doesnt matter wether a god exists or not. I am a caring human being living in a universe incapable of reciprocating such concepts. If a creator exists, then said creator is responsible for that absurdity, and should be revolted against.
Belief or non-belief does nothing to change the reality of this situation.
(but between me and you, I tend towards the "gods are bullshit" side.)
(May 31, 2011 at 6:49 am)diffidus Wrote: For me, and Atheist view must be dependent upon a scientific view of the world i.e. that it is based upon a combination of empirical evidence combined with scientific understanding. This gives us an ever deeper understanding of nature and the universe in which we live.
I have seen many people make the same mistake you just did. You need do nothing more than NOT believe in a god to be an atheist. All atheism requires is suspension of belief.
What you are describing is "physicalism" and "Materialism" and "Naturalism".
One can be an atheist and still believe in luck, and Karma, reincarnation, and "souls" and such... just not a god or goddess. ..like some Budhists do.
If you dont believe, then you are an atheist. That makes me an atheist.
Do you believe in a god or not?
Diffidus
Logically the statement ' I do not believe that God exists' is exactly the same as ' I believe that God does not exist'. Trying to pretend that one statement is different to the other is self delusion. To not believe in God implies the belief that God does not exist.
