It seems a lot of the time agnostics misuse the term "agnostic" and use it to mean "non-aggressive atheist". Most agnostics will say they don't believe in god, Which makes them an atheist, Not agnostic.
If we look at what the word agnostic means we see it's definition is; A person who believes the existence of god is unknowable. Now, This isn't to say that they "don't know" if god exists, It is to say that regardless if god exists or not, They are of the belief that it impossible to know.
So given that the existence of god is unknowable either way, What possible rationale could they have to believe god doesn't exist? For Atheists the rationale is simple, There is no evidence. But for someone who believes that even if god does exist it would be impossible to know a lack of evidence can not be a contributing factor to their disbelief, Because their belief is that even if there is a god there is no way to know.
I personally believe that if god did exist we would know about it, Which makes a lack of evidence a reasonable reason for my disbelief. But if you don't believe a god exists and call yourself agnostic you need as much faith as someone who claims god does exist.
Showing posts with label Agnostics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Agnostics. Show all posts
January 17, 2008
November 08, 2007
Are Agnostics Fence Sitting Cowards?
There are a lot of terms used to describe someone who has no belief in a god. These terms include Atheist, Bright, freethinker, Humanist and Agnostic. Today i would like to discuss the term "agnostic", What an agnostic is, what they believe and why i feel they are fence sitters and religious apologists.
The above terms all have one thing in common, None see any evidence of a god and none have any belief in a god. But while all concede that, while entirely unlikely, there is a possibility that a god does exist only the agnostic feels compelled to define themselves based on the possibility of something completely unlikely being true.
If one were to ask an Atheist, A Bright, A freethinker or a humanist if there were a god they would all likely answer "No, I don't believe there is", But should one ask the same question to an agnostic their reply would be "I don't know, possibly".
While it may appear that what they are saying is logical, After all we have no evidence that god doesn't exist, It isn't practical to concede the possibility any more than it is practical to concede the possibility of fairies, Elves, a teapot orbiting the sun or the flying spaghetti monster.
If someone were to say they were agnostic towards fairies, The FSM or elves would they garner the same respect as someone who is agnostic towards a supernatural god? it's unlikely.
I believe this attitude is religiously apologetic and stems from a similar kind of indoctrination that causes the religious to claim there is a god. The agnostic has been partially tricked, While not to the extent of a believer, That the idea of god is somehow protected, That it has some special place and that, While unlikely, Is still possible.
It also seems to be the case that the agnostic is only agnostic towards the judeo/christian god. If they were to concede the possibility of Allah for example they would have to concede that the Jihad, Ritual killings and the decapitation of 12 year olds may also possibly be moral. So it's very dangerous ground on which the agnostic treads. In everything, we have to be careful what we concede the possibility of and we certainly never define ourselves based on what may be possible.
The above terms all have one thing in common, None see any evidence of a god and none have any belief in a god. But while all concede that, while entirely unlikely, there is a possibility that a god does exist only the agnostic feels compelled to define themselves based on the possibility of something completely unlikely being true.
If one were to ask an Atheist, A Bright, A freethinker or a humanist if there were a god they would all likely answer "No, I don't believe there is", But should one ask the same question to an agnostic their reply would be "I don't know, possibly".
While it may appear that what they are saying is logical, After all we have no evidence that god doesn't exist, It isn't practical to concede the possibility any more than it is practical to concede the possibility of fairies, Elves, a teapot orbiting the sun or the flying spaghetti monster.
If someone were to say they were agnostic towards fairies, The FSM or elves would they garner the same respect as someone who is agnostic towards a supernatural god? it's unlikely.
I believe this attitude is religiously apologetic and stems from a similar kind of indoctrination that causes the religious to claim there is a god. The agnostic has been partially tricked, While not to the extent of a believer, That the idea of god is somehow protected, That it has some special place and that, While unlikely, Is still possible.
It also seems to be the case that the agnostic is only agnostic towards the judeo/christian god. If they were to concede the possibility of Allah for example they would have to concede that the Jihad, Ritual killings and the decapitation of 12 year olds may also possibly be moral. So it's very dangerous ground on which the agnostic treads. In everything, we have to be careful what we concede the possibility of and we certainly never define ourselves based on what may be possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)