Question for Agnostics

Interesting post PE,I think that the problem is that in trying to define the position of not believing in god(s)..or Willi Wonka for that matter, there will be a range of beliefs. Some will vehemently deny that god(s) exist..most I guess don't believe for lack of evidence and don't give it much thought beyond that. If an atheist claims that he/she cannot prove that god does not exist does that immediately make him/her an agnostic? I myself do not believe in god(s) and hold a similar view as you...there is no evidence for god(s) but pushed to the limit, the same way I cannot prove the world I percieve is real (whatever real means) I cannot prove a negative regarding god(s)..but I also don't particularly see any compelling reason to do so.The last sentence of Russell is rather bizarre...if you say you don't believe in god(s) but your lack of belief is not equivalent across religions what does that mean? Is there a scale of disbelief? If so, I definitely believe less in god(s) than Willi Wonka

quote:

---

I agree. I had this idea of a personal belief continuum where people would rate things accordingly to how much they personally believed in them.

---

Though a pain to get data for, this would probably be more reflective of the average beliefs of people including religious people. One could as you say, then define specific points or zones in the distribution where one is atheist, agnostic all the way to carpet chewing radical fundie....on a side note, though I take no position on the relative McDonalds to Burger King ratio in London...I have never seen so many Starbucks coffee shops as in London..even New York City looks like a minor league player in comparison.

quote:

---

Anyway, to get back on topic, I guess deep down what irks me is the thought that describing oneself as agnostic is akin to some sort of intellectual cowardice - a way of sugaring the pill to make oneself more appealing to theists and the like. I'm not saying I passionately believe this to be true, its just a hunch, an uncomfortable intuition if you like, I'd very much like to get rid of.

---

It will be hard to get rid of. The entire enterprise of trying to specifically define atheism/agnosticism seems to me an effort by the religious right to define atheism as a religious system with a set of universal core beliefs. In addition, they proclaim this "religious" group is somehow trying to force itself onto unsuspecting religious people and "convert" them. Agnosticism would be like a sect of a broader movement. Think about how many times you have heard creationists rant about how Darwinism is the religion of atheists or atheism is a religion and other such nonesense.

Hi greylineI am not really aware of agnostics being accused of intellectual cowardice. Since not believing in god(s) is not a system of belief I do not know if one could assign it to a specific philosophy...I think faced with the question "can you prove god(s) does not exist" most atheists would say they cannot prove a negative, don't have positive evidence for god(s) and don't believe. But I cannot speak for all atheists....maybe it would be worth doing a poll of the kind PE illustrated after all

quote:

---

I am that one person in the world who finds coffee abhorrent in all of its forms. My friends (plural) tell me I'm crazy, that one day I'll grow out of it, but the few times I have tried it I almost gagged. Don't like the smell either. Never been to Starbuck's. And I don't care.

---

..you find coffee abhorrent but you mentioned McDonald's AND Burger King in the same sentence? ...I also found coffee to be an acquired taste...and after continuous long nights in lab during my Ph.D...a necessity...and now I am just plain addicted.

quote:

---

Part of me feels like I'm starting to sound like Syamsu with my emphasis on definition rather than substance, although I'd like to think that I have been reading and responding to your comments rather than just rewording my OP. The dictinction between atheism and agnosticism, if any exists, is completely arbitrary as you suggest. However I'm of the opinion - call me a carpet chewing angry atheist if you like - that thinks the world would benefit from less dogma and more thought. A potential obstacle to this is when people refer to themselves as agnostic rather than atheist, when they mean atheist. I'd like to think that no-one does this. I'm pretty sure that no-one I know does this consciously. But I do suspect that some agnostics refer to themselves as such to avoid being labelled atheists and the stigma that goes along with it, so in that sense its important. To me anyway.

---

No, if you sounded like Syamsu you would have posted the same post multiple times by now, called everyone that disagreed with you a nazi, and asked everyone to go away I agree we need less dogma and more thought in general. However, if I tell you I am an atheist, that does not really give you much to go on regarding my worldview does it? Contrast that with Christian...while even that term does not tell you exactly what the person believes, you probably would make some assumptions about some core beliefs that person has. Similarly, fundamentalist Christian as a label gives you a pretty good idea of what the person believes. However, I have no idea how your lack of belief in god(s) influences your life and worldview. It forces one to deal with each person as an individual rather than as a group. When arguing about different groups of people atheists will get lumped together even if they are radically different from one another in their worldviews.It is interesting that you bring up the stigma associated with the word atheist. It is perhaps the selective force driving up the frequency of the label agnostic?cheers,
M

Hi PE,
I have to say I completely agree with Mark24's position....maybe I should just start lurking and posting "yeah..what he said" after each of his posts I think it ends up becoming quibbling about terms rather than a true philosophical distinction. I will also happily go with whatever label comes up as at the end of the day I still do not believe in god(s). I had never thought about the possibility that atheism as an active belief could be considered a logical fallacy akin to creationism. However, I don't think most atheists are active in the sense that they say they "know" that god(s) do not exist.....the same way I don't know for certain that an alien produced invisible genetic hybrid of Elvis and Liberace does not steal the one sock that is always missing after I do laundry, I cannot absolutely prove there is no god(s)..but I also have no compelling reason to even entertain the possiblity.

quote:

---

And after that, I take France.

---

Oh come on..pick a bigger challenge..the Germans do this regularly
And my man Lance just did it a few weeks ago...go 6-peat!