(May 31, 2013 at 6:14 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Agnosticism is the position that the existence of a god us unknown, and most likely unknowable.
Agnosticism only concerns what can be known or knowable. It does not concern what ones beliefs are.
Atheism and agnosticism are answers to different questions.
So what you are saying is that agnosticism is answering the question of whether the existence of God can be known, whereas atheism is answering the question of whether one believes that God exists, with or without knowledge?
I appreciate your clarification, but I think they are answering the same question: Does God exist?
Atheist: No.
Theist: Yes.
Agnostic: I don't know.
We could get into degrees of atheism/agnosticism/theism, in which case everyone is an agnostic and the stance one takes is a response to a lack of knowing.
Quote:Quote:There are people who go to church every Sunday who are agnostic. If we were all being honest, I think that most people in modern society are agnostics. It is increasingly difficult to be a true believer and live in a secular culture.
It is true that agnostic atheism is a legitimate position to hold, but I don't think it is as prevalent as you believe.
It is purely a matter of opinion, but I think that most people doubt the existence of God. I draw that speculation because faith is something that has to be maintained and since justification is necessary, it means the person doesn't know if it is true. They are doubtful by default.
Quote:What defines someone as atheist, I think, is someone who argues that all religion is detrimental to individuals and society because of its irrational basis. Whatever benefits we get from belief can be obtained without the nasty side-effects.
What defines someone as an atheist is whether or not they hold the proposition that a god or gods exists to be true. Full stop.
I have several friends that are atheists that don't debate at all.
What you are describing is an anti-theist.
[/quote]
I agree with you. With your friends who do not engage in debates, in what context would they have to define themselves as atheists? My point would be that the label only matters when one is considering God's existence in the first place. Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, et al. would all be anti-theist by your definition, but in normal parlance they are just atheists.
