Is Agnosticism a Cop-Out? (Buddha, myths, pagan, believe)

[Ceece]

Originally Posted by Rafius

I'd say there is no such thing as an agnostic.

Theist = with a belief in gods.
A-theist = without a belief in gods.

So if one were to say 'I don't know whether or not gods exist' one actually HAS a belief that gods may exist and is therefore theist.

As has been perviously stated here, one either believes in gods and is therefore theist or one doesn't and is therefore a-theist. Theism/a-theism is simply a belief or lack of belief in gods.

One who say 'might be gods...might not be, there is not enough evidence either way' is actually saying 'Yes, it's possible that gods exist'. That makes him theist....with belief in gods.

Does that make sense?? I'll get my coat just in case!

I don't belive in God/gods as defined by any man or religion. I am open to the possibility of a power greater than us in the universe, mostly because it's fun to think about and I don't think we humans are all that. I consider myself agnostic.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!" -Rush

Yes, but what choice? Why do they choose not to choose? Is that they don't know the arguments for one view or the other? Or they can't evaluate them properly? Or they are just not interested?

I can't help thinking that anyone who knows they are agnostic knows enough to make the choice. I further think they don't make the choice to go onto atheism because they feel (this is understandable) that the atheist has to have a fairly strong conviction about the non - existence of any god. One which they can't share because, sure, they don't know and nobody does know.

I think that they may reconsider that view and make the only possible logical choice if they understand that the atheist sees that there is no more of a case for a Personal God - a god that has anything to do with us - than there is for fairies or for dragons. And no-one thinks it odd if people disbelieve in those.

[kitsunegames]

I go with these definitions: Atheist, Gnostic, Theist, Agnostic

I call myself an agnostic-atheist, or according to that link an atheist agnostic. That is to say I do not believe in any deities and do not think we can currently know whether any exist or not.

I doubt there are many pure agnostics or people who stay that way, I see pure agnosticism as a stage, most agnostics either lean theist or atheist.

[Dusty Rhodes]

OK, I am an atheist, have been an atheist for about 40 years. I have had a wide variety of people try to sway me from this position, none have been successful. There are rules to formal debate. The first rule is, "He who asserts must prove" He who denies the assertions of others does not bear this burden. I am not the one who has ever asserted that there is a god, I do not assert that there is no god, I merely state that I do not believe in the existence of any of the hundreds, maybe thousands of mythological dieties out there, I doubt their assertions of existence. I have never seen, heard, nor read anything thus far that would sway me from this positiøn. I do not preach atheism, it is really none of my business what anyone else believes, I also do not take being preached at with any degree of civility. I have learned that if you are polite and listen to their drivel, it only gets worse, they become more insistent. To the best of my memory, I have never had an agnostic preach at me. I have lost count of the christers I have cussed at, rather soundly, because they would quit preaching at me, even after I politely asked them to change the subject. As a rule, I will only ask politely one time. I learned from one of the best, I had a drill instructor, at Parris Island, S.C, who elevated rudeness to an art form. I have had christers get positively offended at my remarks, this tells me that I can, indeed, get my point across. I have never had to use this tactic on agnostics.

[catman]

kitsunegames: Exactly!

Dusty: Re agnostics, I have never had to get nasty with deists either. As long as there is no dogma (I prefer catma!) thrown at me, it doesn't bother me. My fundie cousin and I have had to reach an understanding that the subject of relgion is not to be brought up, because it always degenerates into a contentious episode of talking past one another. It's okay until the preaching and Bible-quoting start, then it's "Katy bar the door"!

[Predos]

Originally Posted by Dusty Rhodes

OK, I am an atheist, have been an atheist for about 40 years. I have had a wide variety of people try to sway me from this position, none have been successful. There are rules to formal debate. The first rule is, "He who asserts must prove" He who denies the assertions of others does not bear this burden. I am not the one who has ever asserted that there is a god, I do not assert that there is no god, I merely state that I do not believe in the existence of any of the hundreds, maybe thousands of mythological dieties out there, I doubt their assertions of existence. I have never seen, heard, nor read anything thus far that would sway me from this positiøn. I do not preach atheism, it is really none of my business what anyone else believes, I also do not take being preached at with any degree of civility. I have learned that if you are polite and listen to their drivel, it only gets worse, they become more insistent. To the best of my memory, I have never had an agnostic preach at me. I have lost count of the christers I have cussed at, rather soundly, because they would quit preaching at me, even after I politely asked them to change the subject. As a rule, I will only ask politely one time. I learned from one of the best, I had a drill instructor, at Parris Island, S.C, who elevated rudeness to an art form. I have had christers get positively offended at my remarks, this tells me that I can, indeed, get my point across. I have never had to use this tactic on agnostics.

Well stated, Dusty. I would rep you but am told that I have to spread it around first. Anyway, well done.

[paulpan]

Amazing how some people can't digest, that someone could be entirely neutral by being equaly open to both:
a) Existence of what is refered as God
b) Nonexistence of what is refered as God

Just agnostic. No combination of agnostic and anything else.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by paulpan

Amazing how some people can't digest, that someone could be entirely neutral by being equaly open to both:
a) Existence of what is refered as God
b) Nonexistence of what is refered as God

Just agnostic. No combination of agnostic and anything else.

Unfortunately the grammar of logic requires that agnosticism - no knowledge of any god -requires atheism - no actual belief in any god, as belief in what one has no knowledge of has to be an illogical stance. One might as well say "Why can't people accept that I'm just a Texan! Does that have to mean that I'm an American as well?" One logically implies the other.

[holygrail]

I am an Atheist but that said, Agnostic belief is the only true thing one can be. It cannot be proven that god does or does not exist, that is a fact. I can no more disprove that god does not exist than someone can prove god does exist. It is not a copout, it is just admitting the truth, one can't now if there is something after this life or that created us, all the evidence points to the fact of evolution, so the biblical teaching is a myth and has been proven, but now with the mounting evidence for evolution most Christians except the hard headed idiots who would not believe if they saw a frozen Neanderthal, feel that god had started the evolutionary process. The bible does not mention the fossil record because the men who created the bible did not know of it, plain and simple, the bible is nothing but bad writings of men who were scared of every earth quake and lightning storm as the wrath of god. Now we have people in Kansas trying to teach it as fact to their children and they do not know how badly they are handicapping them.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by holygrail

I am an Atheist but that said, Agnostic belief is the only true thing one can be. It cannot be proven that god does or does not exist, that is a fact. I can no more disprove that god does not exist than someone can prove god does exist. It is not a copout, it is just admitting the truth, one can't now if there is something after this life or that created us, all the evidence points to the fact of evolution, so the biblical teaching is a myth and has been proven, but now with the mounting evidence for evolution most Christians except the hard headed idiots who would not believe if they saw a frozen Neanderthal, feel that god had started the evolutionary process. The bible does not mention the fossil record because the men who created the bible did not know of it, plain and simple, the bible is nothing but bad writings of men who were scared of every earth quake and lightning storm as the wrath of god. Now we have people in Kansas trying to teach it as fact to their children and they do not know how badly they are handicapping them.

I agree with what you say here. I only say that atheism is not saying a god of some kind is not at all possible, just that what you don't know cannot logically be believed in. That is all that is required to be atheist.