The Agnostic Thread - Home of the Unsure

I hate labels, but since there are labels for everything I am what you would consider a strong agnostic. Basically it's saying that humanity doesn't have the capability to know whether or not a deity exists. I really try to stray away from the labels though because things are too complex to narrow down the way we do. It does always trip me out how people just can't accept that though. Neil DeGreatness Tyson breaks it down so beautifully here.

[YT]CzSMC5rWvos[/YT]
 
Tyson seems to be heading for a seat on the patron saint of the internet board. :p He's the go to guy for science, various religious arguments and just being entertaining and funny.
 
There is a considerable difference between an atheist and an anti-theist, even though the latter falls within the definition of the first. Atheism is the rejection of the supernatural, but that might be a strictly personal stance. Anti-theism (sometimes called "militant" atheism) states that all religion is dangerous and must ultimately be eliminated for humanity to advance.

It only means "lack of belief in god(s)".

Buddhism is spiritual, but most branches atheistic.
 
It's not ridiculous. Many atheist act as if God is a laughable concept.

Your description describes an agnostic rather than an atheist.

I really wish you took the time to read the comments prior to your own in the thread :(

It sounds like you really don't know what atheism is and that can easily be cleared up :)
 
The religious claim that God is real without proof.

Atheist claim God is impossible without proof.

Agnostic is the only reasonable position.

Oh please. By that logic we have to entertain every religious idea ever made.

Taking one religious concept more seriously than another, is nothing but cultural bias. It's entirely arbitrary.
 
I really wish you took the time to read the comments prior to your own in the thread :(

It sounds like you really don't know what atheism is and that can easily be cleared up :)

I read the comments and those personal definitions have no more merit than my own.
 
Tyson seems to be heading for a seat on the patron saint of the internet board. :p He's the go to guy for science, various religious arguments and just being entertaining and funny.

One day he shall fight a resurrected Tesla for the internet's favorite scientist.
 
Oh please. By that logic we have to entertain every religious idea ever made.

Taking one religious concept more seriously than another, is nothing but cultural bias. It's entirely arbitrary.

I'm not saying they should all be equally entertained but they shouldn't be equally dismissed unless you have some solid evidence that all spiritual concepts are fictional.
 
Shifting the burden of proof doesn't change the fact that you have none. For any of them. It's Russell's teapot.

To an atheist, all religions are equally implausible.

Though I suppose you could argue that some were thought out better than others...

But if I have to quality every statement about something we have no evidence for with "may or may not exist", then we will all be wasting a lot of ink.
 
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism?q=atheism

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Not just running off the dictionary definition, but simply looking at the common usage of the term atheism, its pretty clear that atheism doesn't necessarily entail any claim to knowledge that god doesn't exist.

Many atheists are agnostic atheists. Very few seem to fall into the category of knowing that gods can't exist (which would be gnostic atheism).

It's important that these terms are understood and used correctly. The atheist HAS no burden of proof; unless they go a step further and claim they know no gods exist or that they have proof no gods exist.

[YT]j2Py1Bz8XOo[/YT]

You can not know that a god exists, and choose to believe that a god doesn't exist because you haven't been convinced. This is perfectly consistent.
 

Based on your own links, atheist who are waiting for evidence of God are referred to as weak atheist or agnostic atheist so there are definitely atheist who are far more close minded than an agnostic based on YOUR OWN LINKS.

Re-educate yourself.
 
"Far more closed minded"

What are you talking about?

Take a step back; reformulate your thoughts.

What exactly is it you're trying to say?
 
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism?q=atheism

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Not just running off the dictionary definition, but simply looking at the common usage of the term atheism, its pretty clear that atheism doesn't necessarily entail any claim to knowledge that god doesn't exist.

Many atheists are agnostic atheists. Very few seem to fall into the category of knowing that gods can't exist (which would be gnostic atheism).

It's important that these terms are understood and used correctly. The atheist HAS no burden of proof; unless they go a step further and claim they know no gods exist or that they have proof no gods exist.

[YT]j2Py1Bz8XOo[/YT]

You can not know that a god exists, and choose to believe that a god doesn't exist because you haven't been convinced. This is perfectly consistent.

I don't know why you are trying to blur the line between agnostic and atheist but every time I see a person proudly labeled an atheist they aren't saying God could exist. They typically dismiss the notion of a God all together.
 
Here's what it seems like you're saying.

Claim: Unicorns exist.

Positions:

Believer in unicorns


'Hard atheist' or 'gnostic atheist' towards unicorns (claims to know no unicorns exist)

'Agnostic atheist' towards the existence of unicorns (Doesn't know for sure no unicorns exist, chooses not to believe in unicorns because they have not been convinced)

Agnostic (doesn't know unicorns exist or don't, when asked if they believe does not take a position of belief or disbelief)

It sounds like you're saying the person that decides not to believe in unicorns, is "more closed minded" than the person that can't say they disbelief in the existence of unicorns.

Do you realize how absurd that is?
 
Are you sure you're not projecting? 'Cause it kinda seems like you're unreceptive to how people ACTUALLY use the words atheism and agnosticism.
 
Here's what it seems like you're saying.

Claim: Unicorns exist.

Positions:

Believer in unicorns


'Hard atheist' or 'gnostic atheist' towards unicorns (claims to know no unicorns exist)

'Agnostic atheist' towards the existence of unicorns (Doesn't know for sure no unicorns exist, chooses not to believe in unicorns because they have not been convinced)

Agnostic (doesn't know unicorns exist or don't, when asked if they believe does not take a position of belief or disbelief)

It sounds like you're saying the person that decides not to believe in unicorns, is "more closed minded" than the person that can't say they disbelief in the existence of unicorns.

Do you realize how absurd that is?

Close minded means intolerant of the beliefs of others.

I'd say that applies alot more to self-labeled atheist than it does the average agnostic.
 
Close minded means intolerant of the beliefs of others.

I'd say that applies alot more to self-labeled atheist than it does the average agnostic.

This contains no information. You've basically got a strawman version of what an atheist is in your mind.
 
Are you sure you're not projecting? 'Cause it kinda seems like you're unreceptive to how people ACTUALLY use the words atheism and agnosticism.

All I'm saying is there's a stark difference between a most proud atheist and the typical agnostic.

Don't believe me? Google "atheist blog".

Do those blogs read like they were written by agnostics?
 
I suppose the word atheism has become pretty synonymous with anti-theist.
 
Based on your own links, atheist who are waiting for evidence of God are referred to as weak atheist or agnostic atheist so there are definitely atheist who are far more close minded than an agnostic based on YOUR OWN LINKS.

And not to drag this out, but this post still doesn't make a lot of sense.
 
All I'm saying is there's a stark difference between a most proud atheist and the typical agnostic.

Don't believe me? Google "atheist blog".

Do those blogs read like they were written by agnostics?

How does the label closed minded apply, though?

They've looked at the issue. They've taken a position of disbelief. How's this make someone any more closed minded than someone that's chosen not to believe in unicorns?

Are we supposed to take a purely 50/50 agnostic position towards ALL extraordinary claims?

"Elvis lives",
"I don't believe you",
"YOU'RE CLOSED MINDED!"

I can't wrap my head around what you're saying. You're making NO sense. I'd say the chances are, an agnostic atheist actually knows what the burden of proof is and how it works, which certainly isn't closed minded. A person that doesn't understand the burden of proof and thinks the "Elvis lives", "unicorns exist" claims should not be met with "I don't believe you", is actually the closed minded one.
 
In all honesty their isn't much difference between atheists and people into any particular religion. The only real difference is the atheist believes 1 more religion is a pile of BS then the religious person does.
 
How many public atheist have a line firmly drawn in the sand? How many openly mock religion and faith?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"