-
Website
http://dmiessler.com/ -
Original page
http://dmiessler.com/blog/shades-of-astray-why-you-shouldnt-be-calling-yourself-agnostic -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Putting aside the labels that you attach to your beliefs, one of the following is true:
(a) you believe that one or more gods do exist.
(b) You believe that there is exactly a 50-50 chance of gods existing or not existing.
(c) You believe that no gods exist.
You could choose to describe (a) as the absence of (c), or to describe (c) as the absence of (a), but in essence you are describing the same idea using different words.
Personally, I strongly believe that gods don't exist.
That's not an arrogant belief because it is consistent with the currently-available evidence and I accept that I might be mistaken.
It would appear this is less about intellectual honesty, than it is drawing battle lines within society and recruiting for the cause. That cause being to call out willful and rewarded ignorance that is washing over public discourse.
I equate the two.
Atheist -- Not believing in a personal god.
Deists are also atheists since they believe in a vague impersonal god and not in a personal specific one.
Anyone that doesn't claim to know there is a personal god and know the specifics of that god are Atheists. Strong Atheists are Gnostic Atheists in that they claim they have knowledge of the lack of a personal god. I fall into this category based on theories put forth by Victor J Stenger and others which argue that the universe looks like you would expect if there was no 'design' and hence no designer.
By your definition, I am an Atheist. I've occasionally called myself that. I also use Agnostic, as I feel it comes closer to saying that I claim no knowledge of the fact of a deity. A lot depends on which aspect I'm trying to reinforce.
My point is that it is pointless to hold completely unlikely things to this standard. You presumably don't do that with the Roman Gods, or with Russell's Teapot, so why do it with the Abrahamic Gods?
The only difference between these is the number of people that believe them, not their actual odds of existing.
"Both of these ranges are ultimately degrees of agnosticism ..."
Thus the use of the term "agnostic."
@jsares:
"Atheist -- Not believing in a personal god."
That's not the dictionary definition. I've just checked on Dictionary.com and NONE of the definitions there match yours. They are ALL some variant of: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
--------
You guys can play with semantics as much as you'd like, I'll stick to using the dictionary versions of words.
If you should technically be agnostic about Abrahamic gods, then you should also technically have the same position about the flying spaghetti monster or magic gnomes at the bottom of the ocean.
If you're giving those equal probabilities of existing, i.e. near zero, then I'd say you're turning your intellect away from the problem on purpose in order to be socially inert. And if you're giving Abrahamic gods a higher chance of being true then you need to justify such a belief using evidence.
Which is it? Or is there another option?
The graphic in your post shows a range from 1 to 7. In that range, I can comfortably assert that I do not fall at either 1 or 7. The intermediate values are not well defined, and as a result, I can't tell you where I fall in that range. However, since all of those intermediate values are labeled agnostic I have no problems using that table and referring to myself as agnostic. For the record, this agrees with the definition of agnostic that I have been using.
You accuse me of using a vaguely defined word when another word works better. I disagree. Both words (as defined in your post) are vague. Both words cover a range of mindsets. If you want to call yourself a weak atheist, fine. And if you're happy calling yourself an atheist, that's fine too (just know that there are people who will not realize that you are using a nuanced meaning for that word).
MY use of the term agnostic is meant to say nothing more than the following three things:
(1) I do not deny there may be some sort of entity that could properly be referred to as a God. (THEREFORE I'M NOT AT LEVEL 1.)
(2) I do not believe in the existence of such an entity. (THEREFORE I'M NOT AT LEVEL 7.)
(3) I do not have sufficient information to make such a judgement one way of the other.
For me it is largely irrelevant. I do not have nagging questions about whether there is or is not a God. Neither the existence nor the non-existence of God is a hypothesis that I need.
I do not share your belief that religion CAUSES more problems than it alleviates, but I respect your right to hold that belief. I believe that people should be judged on their actions and not their beliefs. I do not believe that morality requires religion nor that all religious people are moral. Evil exists both inside and outside of religion. It is the evil that is relevant. Not the religion.
I have the same exact positions as you on 1 and 2. We differ on 3.
When you say you don't have sufficient information one way or the other, and that you're therefore an "agnostic", this only applies to the greater scope of the universe. In other words, we're not going to make strong claims about whether anything LIKE a god could exist ANYWHERE in the universe.
Agreed. Me too. I'm agnostic there as well. I'm also agnostic about the origin of life on earth. Was it seeded from an asteroid or comet? Did it brew right here at home? Is there intelligent life on other planets? I'm agnostic on all these questions.
But let's consider another proposition: that, for example, there is a china teapot orbiting Mars that is too small to see with our telescopes.
Are you not willing dismiss this out of hand? And if you are, what is the probability difference between the teapot and the proposition that the creator of the Universe guided the writing of the Holy Bible?
It is a crime against reason, on behalf of social pleasantness, to group the agnosticism of the former, knowable kind, with the agnosticism around EXTREMELY SPECIFIC, absurd propositions. This is my point.
If you have no problem intellectually denying the existence of Merlin's magic or of leprechauns, then you should give the same level of respect to any other propositions that offer the same chances of being true--namely none.
And the name for offering no respect to this particular *flavor* of absurd proposition, i.e. the truth of Abrahamic religions, is atheism.
Sorry, Daniel, for me this is not logically possible. If I had enough information to make a decision, then I would either be in slot 1 or slot 7.
----
To answer your question about probabilities that you've asked more than once I think. Something with a probability of 0.000001 is infinitely more probable than something with probability 0. The numbers may be nearly the same, but there is an ENORMOUS difference between something being IMPOSSIBLE and something being very unlikely. That (for me) is the difference between an atheism and agnosticism.
You're not going to convince me otherwise.
----
"And the name for offering no respect to this particular *flavor* of absurd proposition, i.e. the truth of Abrahamic religions, is atheism."
That's not what atheism is (once again, I'm choosing to use the dictionary definition) .. and furthermore, I have ENORMOUS respect for religious people. It seems that you do not .. and this is one place that you and I differ.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Atheist: One who believes that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
Dictionaries differ to much and each has seperate outside influence. To speak accurately about atheism, why don't you try:
http://www.atheists.org/
You didn't ADD a belief because you already had one: You BELIEVE that Bob is not a vampire. But, you're right, this is not a NEW belief.
"If this argument of atheism being a belief were true, everyone on the planet would be said to be carrying around an infinite number of discrete non-beliefs at any given moment, such as: “I don’t believe Paris is in England.” “I don’t believe the Pope is Jewish”, “I don’t believe the Sun revolves around the Earth”, etc., and they’d be considered non-crazybelief-ists for each of those."
Not an infinite number. Merely a VERY large finite number. I see nothing strange about this. You have MANY beliefs that you have never put voice to individually. If you believe in logic and believe that no people are vampires, then you believe that Bob is not a vampire (even if you had never thought to actively carry that thought until Bob told you about HIS belief).
"It’s important to remember, first and foremost, that the vast majority of atheists simply lack belief in god(s). If my friend Bob believes he is a vampire, and I don’t believe this, I didn’t somehow acquire a new belief by engaging in the conversation. I simply didn’t add one."
First, you don't simply lack belief in God. You actively deny His existence. This is a very important distinction that plays into your next supposition..
You, in the example above, actively deny your friend is a vampire. That is a positive belief. Lack of belief, again using the example above, would be stated by something like "Bob says he is a vampire - but I've not seen evidence of that - so I don't know."
Active denial of anothers stated belief includes, by definition, a statement of belief.
So, in summary:
Lack Of Belief = I Don't Know If God Exists = Agnostic
Active Denial = God Doesn't Exist = Athiest
As I've said in other posts, athiesm is a tough set of beliefs to have. You have to be 100% sure 100% of the time that God does not exist. Not just the Christian God - but any sort of spiritual manifestation. No Buddha, Gaia, Flying Spaghetti Monster... Nothing....
We're both atheists. You're an atheist for all the other gods that have existed in the world, except ONE. Out of the thousands of gods over time, you've selected only one higher than zero, and that selection is mostly likely the god that your parents had.
When babies come into the world do you think they arrive with a head full of atheism? No, they have instead, a head devoid of beliefs--including (by default and by definition) the belief in your god. They have to be taught about various specific beliefs. That's the ADDITION OF BELIEF, not the removal of atheism.
As far as agnostic meaning without belief, this is of course true, as I point out in my post. But as I said in my reply to Carl, any crazy idea I can come up with you have to technically be agnostic about, but it's intellectually weak to say that you don't "know" that I'm a Viking demigod rather than just saying I'm full of shit.
Just because agnosticism is technically true for all these various claims doesn't mean we can't use a more precise instrument when describing how we feel about them. And that instrument, with respect to human gods, is atheism.
"We're both atheists. You're an atheist for all the other gods that have existed in the world, except ONE. Out of the thousands of gods over time, you've selected only one higher than zero, and that selection is mostly likely the god that your parents had."
I do not believe that the God I worship is necessarily the only god. I, instead, put no other gods before him as I have been instructed. I can make a pretty good argument, I suspect, that atheism is your god... :)
"When babies come into the world do you think they arrive with a head full of atheism? No, they have instead, a head devoid of beliefs--including (by default and by definition) the belief in your god. They have to be taught about various specific beliefs. That's the ADDITION OF BELIEF, not the removal of atheism."
No, I believe that babies come into the world with the Word on their hearts. I believe that as children grow up that, with the guidance they need, they can grow in a relationship with God... Babies are human - not lump of Play-dough...
"As far as agnostic meaning without belief, this is of course true, as I point out in my post. But as I said in my reply to Carl, any crazy idea I can come up with you have to technically be agnostic about, but it's intellectually weak to say that you don't "know" that I'm a Viking demigod rather than just saying I'm full of shit."
Do you believe you are a Viking demigod? What's your evidence? Based on that I may or may not believe *you* are a demi-god. That doesn't touch on whether or not the demi-god does or does not exist.
"Just because agnosticism is technically true for all these various claims doesn't mean we can't use a more precise instrument when describing how we feel about them. And that instrument, with respect to human gods, is atheism."
No, that doesn't carry water. You, I suspect, want to possess a determinative label for your belief but realize that you don't "believe hard enough" to truly justify the label you want.
Athiesm, as I've written before, is a hard row to hoe. It is an absolute qualifier. You are or you are not a atheist much like you are or not unique. There are no shades of gray here.
You either completely deny the existence of God or you do not... If you do not, but do not completely accept His existence either, you are agnostic.
It atheism were passive, then this would be true. However, your disbelief in any religion is not in the same way that a woodchuck or a rock doesn't believe in any religion. With our culture, a choice has to be made, and in terms of religion, it's an outright daily task. It's not passive. It's reactive, and sometimes just plain proactive.
We live in a society immersed in religion. There are rare days where the concepts do not come across in some form or another. Billboards, radio, tv, and media of all types are inundated with religious content.
This is not equivalent to *not collecting stamps*.
Furthermore, it is still argued that preaching atheism is just another form of proselytizing, or converting others to your set of beliefs. Passing through the day without mentioning it, or even thinking about it, would be the equivalent of *not collecting stamps*. However, this isn't what's being done. (In fact, I should state that an equivalence to *not collecting stamps* shouldn't be your goal.)
Your obvious goal is sound. Your methods are going to attract a kind of thinker, or at least result in a set type of discourse. Perhaps you should look at the measures of success to improve on refining your process. Who, in these discussions, agrees with you, (not who dis you already agree with), and what's being brought to the table? I'm curious to see what you've noticed, and what you've chosen to accept.
-=T=-
ps: I have a stamp collection, but I don't collect stamps. It's a little box from when I was in catholic school. ; )
The only difference is I have to state one opinion and not the other because the people around me happen to believe in one of them. If this were ancient Greece then the situation would be reversed.
There are all sorts of unanswered questions; atheism simply does not answer them all.
Again, disbelieving something isn't only having a lack of belief. It means you believe the opposite.
"There is no God." Do you believe this? Do you disbelieve this?
"There is no soul." Do you believe this? Do you disbelieve this?
"There is no afterlife." Do you believe this? Do you disbelieve this?
I could go on and on, but each time one states yes or no, they've made a choice, stating their beliefs.
(The only way this is not the case is if the person answering the question was actively copping out with some answer neither yes or no, or if there was some mechanical impairment that prevented input of the question, output of the answer, or both.)
A lack of belief is ONLY possible in the case of absolute ignorance of the choice. "God", "soul", and "afterlife" are all defined concepts. (That alone determines that they exist, if only as defined concepts.) There is no room for ignorance, until these concepts are unlearned or undefined, which constitutes another action.
-=T=-
To become an atheist, you need to have a scientifically irrational belief that God does not exist, which simply cannot be proven. Therefore, atheists are just as faithful to their non-belief of God as to Christians belief of a God. Dawkins takes this one step further, by being abrasive and attempting to push his belief on others, making him a fundamentalist of his faith. The opposite of believing in God is not believing in no God, it is faith nothing, or accepting that you have no knowledge as to whether there is a God or not.
Based on these arguments, agnosticism is really the most scientifically correct belief, expressing that it is possible that there is a God, but we have no idea who, why or if.
Thanks for succinctly summing up what I spent many more electrons on...
Try this: go into a mental ward and listen to the psychotic ramblings of the insane. Then try to disprove anything they say. Now, do you believe any of their crazy ideas or theories? If not, why not?
The fact of the matter is that anything capable of being claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence just as easily.
Secondly, do you believe that aliens exist?
If not, and you openly recognize that unicorns are fantasy, then describe to me the difference, in terms of believability, between a unicorn and a *specific* version of a creator given to you by a fellow human?
You can't give a difference because there is no difference. I say again, anything capable of being claimed without evidence can also be dismissed without it.
Get a fucking education before showing up to a relatively civil conversation and acting like an asshat.
Which is much similar to my approach in religion. WHY do people need a bible or a koran or a torah... or a god. Is there NO proof, or are there true miracles that have happened in the past that have been exploited by humans to manipulate the masses?
Either way, you have not convinced me there is no god. Just as theists have not convinced me that there is.
I'm not trying to convince you there is no god; I'm trying to convince you that there's no reason to even entertain the notion of one existing, and to make this clear when you describe your beliefs.
You're right, it is magical, we can never say for sure that unicorns do not exist, and I have been convinced on that front... But i haven't been convinced on the god front. And I do entertain the notion that one exists, why would i deny that?
http://www.popfi.com/wp-content/uploads/unicorn...
-=T=-
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Agnosticism is entirely different than the total conviction of there being no god; you could make an equally compelling argument that because I'm not convinced that there is no god, this means that some part of me believes there is a god and I should start praying already.
I am convinced that Atheists are the yang to Theists ying (there is about just as much proof in their being a god as there is proof that no god exists). Until you can PROVE to me either way, I remain unconvinced of either argument and maintain my label of agnostic.
Um, no.
http://dmiessler.com/blog/outrageous-beliefs-ar...
Let's try this: If I tell you that unicorns exist, and you tell me they don't. Do you think we have equal chances of being right? If you believe that, then your understanding of reality is horribly distorted, and nothing can be gained from this argument.
If you recognize that the claim of the unicorn existing, and the claim that it's bullshit are NOT the same, i.e. the person saying it's false is FAR more likely to be correct, then you now understand the nature of my argument.
You're essentially trying to argue that the chances of ANYTHING untestable being true and untrue are equal, and that is completely preposterous. I ask you to reconsider.
I think you have religion and god confused. Those are two entirely different things. I am quite convinced that most religions are utter crap, but that does not necessarily follow that ANY higher being does not exist; this is an essential clause to atheism. The complete conviction that no higher being exists.
No, I am saying that until something is tested to be true it remains a theory; and though one side of the argument might be more convincing, neither one possesses the ultimate answer.
But that's not the question: the question is one of context around the beliefs of others. So when a believer asks if you are a Christian, and you say you're agnostic, that means you're NOT telling them that they are delusional.
The answer is that you are an atheist with respect to that person's beliefs, not agnostic. My argument is that you should be up front about that.
My response to "are you christian?" is a very emphatic "NO".
My response to "do you believe in god" is "maybe, not really convinced. I consider myself agnostic".
If they ask me "do you believe in MY god" my answer would also be "NO".
Agnosticism is about certainty and knowledge not likelihood and probability. Agnosticism doesn't care how unlikely the existence of unicorns are as compared to the likelihood of their existence. Agnosticism simply says that all that can be known with certainty is that their existence cannot be known. Any PERSONAL belief YOU choose on the existence of unicorns has nothing to do with agnosticism. Agnosticism has answered the question: It is unknowable. If that isn't good enough for you and you need to choose either yes or no, then what ever answer you choose is one based on faith.
However, I cannot *know* with certainty they don't exist. I can BELIEVE they don't exist based on everything I have ever seen, perceived, experienced, etc) but I cannot KNOW they don't exist.
All that I KNOW is that their existence is unknowable at this time.
As an agnostic I draw a very strong line between the words 'belief' and 'knowledge'. One is internal and is based on personal views, reasoning, etc. The other is external, empirical and can be quantified or proven through logic.
I cannot prove unicorns don't exist. So the only knowledge I have of them is that the question of their existence is unknowable. That doesn't mean I can't still believe they don't exist. But without proof, without evidence one way or the other, that belief is ultimately grounded in faith. It's still something I can not empirically or logically prove.
Likewise with god. I can choose a side, believe a god exists, or not believe a god exists...but since I cannot show proof either way, my belief is based on faith...not knowledge or certainty.
It seems to me the big difference between agnostics and atheism is that agnostics will say, 'I do or don't believe in a god, however, I also will admit I could be wrong. I simply cannot have certainty....and of that, I AM certain."
While Atheists refuse to allow for the possibility of being wrong in their belief.
What I don't understand is why atheists feel that agnostics are waffling. We just like certainty.
Right, no evidence. That's why you don't believe in them.
> It seems to me the big difference between agnostics and atheism is that agnostics will say, 'I do or don't believe in a god, however, I also will admit I could be wrong. I simply cannot have certainty....and of that, I AM certain."
Dammit, man. I must be really bad at arguing this. You're not seeing that my beliefs are just about identical on this.
I am not absolutely certain there is no godlike being anywhere in the universe either--that's why I'm agnostic on the issue. But I am pretty close to certain that unicorns don't exist, and the Abrahamic gods. The degree that I leave open to possibility is the smallest possible amount in order to NOT be certain. It's about humility in the face of a strange existence.
Atheists like myself and Dawkins aren't saying for CERTAIN there are no Abrahamic gods; we're just saying the odds are low enough to dismiss the possibility to the point of calling ourselves atheists within that context.
It's precision of language. If someone holding a Bible asks me if I'm an atheist I say yes, because that's what they were asking. If someone in a philosophy class asks me if I'm an atheist the answer is going to be a whole lot more involved--e.g. well, for human gods, yes....but in general I'm agnostic.
Ahh crap. Well this has been a whole lot of arguing for nothing. Maybe I'm being so picky because in a philosophy class I would be considered a 'hard agnostic', so I do tend to bristle a bit when someone just says, "hey why not just call yourself an atheist."
Anyway...nice blog and topic...it certainly gave me something to do to kill time during a slow work day.
:)
"but in general I'm agnostic."
----
PS I believe that you're misusing the word atheist. You are an atheist or you are not, but your logic would say that a devout Christian is an atheist about Islam. That's nuts. He simply doesn't believe in the teaching of Islam (at least where they are in conflict with the teachings of Christianity). THIS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY MAKE THE DEVOUT CHRISTIAN AN ATHEIST! That's an ABSURD use of the word.
As for misusing the term atheism, I don't think I am. In fact, I think it is you who have it wrong. I refer you to the wikipedia article on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist,[1] or that rejects theism.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]"
If you read the article it becomes pretty clear that if you DO NOT ACCEPT the established god(s) of the time you can fairly be considered an atheist.
This is a separate question from whether you are agnostic, which we all are here in this conversation.
This is an example of what I meant when I said that you were misusing the term. Person A may not believe in the same God that Person B believes in, but if Person A believes in any God, then it is inappropriate to call him an atheist. This is a semantic point, but those are important in logical arguments. Atheism is not something that one has toward one particular God or another. It's an all-encompassing thing.
... and while I'm writing in this (soon to be discontinued) thread ...
Your follow-up line to the above quote was:
"My argument is that you should be up front about that."
I think that THIS line points to a disagreement that you have with many of the agnostics who have posted here. My response would be "why?" Several of us have posted (in varying ways) the sentiment that proving the existence or nonexistence of God may well be impossible. So, while it may be an interesting subject for discussion, it's not something that we feel motivated to study in any great depth. Nor do we feel motivated to share our doubts with others.
Daniel, suppose you are at the funeral of a friend's mother. You see the grieving family and overhear someone saying, "She's in Heaven now reunited with her husband." What could possibly be gained by interjecting with some diatribe about your opinion of the likelihood of this reunion? They take some comfort in their beliefs. Why would you take this away from them? This question remains equally valid (in my opinion) even away from that funeral setting. You don't know what comfort people are taking from their religious beliefs at any given moment. Is the "benefit" of sharing your doubt in the sanity of their position really so great?
Please note that while I respect people's right to their religious beliefs, I do not believe that this gives them the right to interfere with the rights of others. For example, I believe that they have the right to hold whatever beliefs they wish, but they may not use public schools to proselytize. They certainly do not have the right to use science classes in public schools to teach things that are not science. (They ought not do this in private school science classes either, but they have the RIGHT to do that.)
As for your argument about not attacking the religious view of others because they're harmless, this is something I plan to address in a separate piece altogether so I won't do so here. Suffice it to say, I think you and those who take that line are ignorant to the extent that religion as a whole does hurt society.
Your third point, about not infringing on the rights of others being where you draw the line, that's directly related to what I'll be writing on the topic. In short, that's already happening on a wide scale, and you're either ignorant of it or you are ignoring it.
My very next piece, however, will re-address this issue of atheism vs. agnosticism, as I did a horrible job making the argument this time around.
I'm pretty sure that isn't what I said .. and I've just reread what I wrote.
Daniel, whenever you make an assertion about religion causing harm, replace the word "religion" with the word "handguns" and see if the argument sounds familiar. If it does, and if you don't believe that the logic works with that one-word replacement, then there may be something lacking with the logic.
I don't think that anyone in this discussion has denied that there are religious people whose actions at times harm society. Certainly I have not denied that. But, I also don't deny that there are handgun owners whose actions at times harm society. Does it follow that HANDGUNS harm society? I know that your answer to that question is no. So, why do you believe that it follows that RELIGION harms society?
My position is that you are aiming your attack at the wrong place. You believe that it is the religion that is a root cause of societal harm in exactly the same way that many believe that handguns are a root cause of societal harm, and you are using EXACTLY the same sort of logic to come to that conclusion. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess that your position about handgun abuse is probably that we should go hard after those who misuse handguns (that is, they use handguns in such a way that they interfere with the rights of others). I would ask why your position on religion is any different.
I'm guessing that you'll assert that there is some sort of fundamental difference between the two cases, but I'm not at all convinced that there is.
(By the way, I wouldn't mind a direct response to the three questions I asked in the "friend's mother's funeral" paragraph in a previous post.)
For all your talk of intellect you're entire argument still hinges on nothing more than personal belief. I have two options to choose from here. I can have *certainty* in the belief that the existence of god is simply unknowable, or I can choose to believe there is likely no god. Between the two I'll take the belief that has logical certainty....that I know it cannot be known.
You want me to go from that belief to one based on lesser certainty? Why? Like it or not, atheism is a 'faith' based belief. Atheism rejects the fact that the question is simply unknowable through empirical, quantitative evidence and instead tries to win the argument base solely on one's own personal belief and rationalizations. That is no different to me than faith.
Arguing about non-beliefs or the lack of belief misses the entire point of agnosticism, which is only having beliefs in what CAN be known, and when it comes to the question of god, the only thing that CAN be known is that this/her/it's existence is unknowable.
I could care less what society thinks of my personal beliefs of whether a god exists or does not. Agnostic best describes my belief system. If it can be proven empirically, or logically than I have knowledge of it. If it cannot, then it is a personal belief which I equate equal to faith. If you want me to call myself an atheist, I will but I will also then admit it is belief based on faith and not certainty or knowledge.
You're essentially trying to argue that the chances of ANYTHING untestable being true and the odds of them being untrue are equal, and that any belief OR DISBELIEF in either direction is a matter of faith.
If you go to that extreme then all you're doing is refusing to have the discussion. If you are a scientific-minded, logical person then you accept that unicorns either exist as they're being proposed, or they don't. It's one or the other; it's not some nebulous "maybe"
And the chances of each position being true are absolutely NOT equal. Once you accept that, and you begin to give some degree of common-sense odds to the possibilities, you start to approach the point at which you can safely dismiss the concept altogether.
Once more: that which is claimed without evidence can also be dismissed without it.
And???
Agnostics simply don't care about questions which fit that statement. We only care about the provable. We don't care about what is 'likely' or 'unlikely' or what the odds are..we only care about what is.
God or unicorns cannot be proved. We're not going to waste out time trying to convince others about something that cannot be proved. We simply see it as it is. Unknowable. What an individual choose to believe in these cases also doesn't concern us...what I have been calling a 'faith based belief'. Maybe a better word for it would be a 'conclusion'.
In any case we don't care. The uncertainty principle plays a part here and we recognize that it restricts what we can or cannot know. Given that, we are only concerned about what can be known. That which cannot, we simply accept as not being knowable, and let each individual come to their own conclusion.
Daniel, you are putting words in our mouths. None of the agnostics writing here has said that the probabilities of the existence or non-existence of God are equal. We have merely said that our personal probabilities of the existence of God are neither 0 nor 100%. That is what makes us agnostic.
I can't prove that nothing came to me nor can you prove that it didn't. When I think about nothing I get a "peace that passes all understanding". That's another reason that I know that nothing exists.
I also once had a dream and it was about nothing and so I've taken this as further evidence that nothing exists. Sometimes I'll pray to nothing and sometimes those prayers are answered and other times they are not. I guess nothing works in mysterious ways.
But I do think I will just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
It has helped me prevent myself from playing the fool more than once recently. And I think I have still come up short.
"Remember, all propositions being made about the nature of reality are either true or not."
Ummmm... ever heard of wave particle duality?
This is a matter of scientific agnosticism.
Are firm atheists fanatics? Probably, because they rely on materialism as an absolute argument against spirituality. (See Materialists should read this first)
Whether, on the balance of experiences and learning, you decide that spirituality is relevant or irrelevant is more complex than believing or denying that a teapot might be orbiting the sun. I would classify many agnostics as heretics rather than atheists and heresy can be the beginning of new established religion.
You basically want all agnostics to declare themselves 'weak atheists'. But why? It seems retarded to me to have a 'weak' atheist and a 'strong' atheist term and to get rid of the agnostic term...considering how different weak and strong atheists' beliefs are. It just confuses people.
So I guess that basically I'm just saying that while you may be 'technically' correct..it just seems highly impractical and confusing. It would be much better if the 'weak' atheists would call themselves agnostics...and let the ones who firmly reject the idea of God be called atheists.