Why Agnostic?

[Kyuuketsuki]

No because I don't accept I'm incorrect ... I think Dawkins' scale makes more sense than yours and I think the term agnostic atheist is wishy washy. I'm also getting bored of arguing it.

Yet you haven't actually argued why you think it is wishy-washy (or if you have I have missed it, apologies). What definition of agnosticism do you accept then, and why do you accept it?

Because the definition of agnosticism (whichever one it is) makes bugger all sense ... the agnostic is simply a sit-on-the-fence atheist IMO. I've posted before about it and we've disagreed (well there's a surprise). Combining the straight-forward concept of atheism with the crap that is agnosticism (at least as far as the two definitions of which I am aware) is bullshit hence "wishy-washy").

Do you really think that there can be a mid-position between "belief" and "non-belief"? I don't think it can be a three-way choice. It's an either-or situation, and whichever way you spin it, either you do believe or you don't.

I don't think agnosticism is a valid position so as far as I'm concerned it is purely between theism and atheism.

Kyu

---

For what it's worth, I don't like Dawkins' scale, because I do think it is making the whole issue much more difficult than it needs to be. To me the term atheist is good enough as a label.

Now THAT (even though I think his makes more sense than Adrian's) I can agree with.

Kyu