RE: Your view on agnosticism.
June 6, 2011 at 4:45 am
(This post was last modified: June 6, 2011 at 4:49 am by Anymouse.)
Agnosticism is a "null set." Ain't no such thing, no matter how many people try to say there is.
Consider: an agnostic defines himself as a person who "does not know," as there is insufficient evidence for any deity or lack.
Theism is defined as a belief in a deity, or deities.
Atheism is defined as no belief in deities.
As a self-described agnostic "does not believe" as there is "insufficient proof" or he "does not know," agnostic becomes merely a subset of atheist. He still does not believe.
There are no agnostics about the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, or Zeus. There are no agnostics about Newton's Laws, or Pythagorus's Theorem. There is no quality to a lack of belief. It is a lack of belief. There need not be a "why." Even with a "why" (insufficient evidence, no knowledge, &c) it is still a lack of belief.
Presumably, if independently-verifiable evidence which could be repeatedly tested with the same result were to somehow surface, both the atheist and the agnostic would become some sort of theist. (That is, unless they are like Issac Asimov and took his position on UFO's: "I wouldn't believe in UFO's if I saw one land on the White House lawn.")
The "agnostic" is an atheist who will not admit it, for the only requirement to be an atheist is that one does not believe.
"Be ye not lost amongst Precept of Order." - Book of Uterus, 1:5, "Principia Discordia, or How I Found Goddess and What I Did to Her When I Found Her."