I wasn't very happy reading that article either... The author doesn't really make any valid points,, Especially the flying spaghetti monster part of it...I think FSM is a great analogy for the Judeo-Christian God Agnosticism is a cop out IMO. You're either a gnostic theist, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, or gnostic atheist. Agnosticism is just qualifying with the argument at hand imo...
Nihilism is the biggest cop out, that's why I favor it so much. Hard to refute something that doesn't make a point.
I mean, I can understand people who don't want to say that they know for sure whether there is a god or not, and decide to call themselves agnostic. But as you said, most of them are either agnostic theists or agnostic atheists. Gnosticism/agnosticism deals only with what you think we can know, not with what you actually believe. For some agnostic to act like atheists are just people who "don't think there can possibly be anything greater than ourselves" is almost insulting. I'm not an atheist because I believe there is nothing better than myself. That's ridiculous and has nothing to do with my beliefs. I'm an atheist because I think the concept of god is ridiculous. TO ME. Whether there is some form of life "greater" than myself out there? I don't know. There are billions of planets in the universe, maybe there is some form of life out there far greater than ourselves. But I'd wager that any form of that sort is not a "god", and I don't feel like I'm being arrogant to say so. If I'm being arrogant by saying I believe there is no god, then all those people who believe a god does exist are just as fuckin' arrogant as I am.
WATCH THE VIDEO I LINKED ATHEISTS! i am an atheist, and i swear to nongod that Sam Harris will make you think about shit you haven't thought about. shit you haven't thought about that's important to the movement that we're trying to be a part of. if you can't invest an hour of your time in a video that endorses and enhances your own beliefs then you shouldn't be in this thread!
Well, I sort of define certainty in a way which makes it analytically impossible to ever really have. So to be unbiased in a binary debate, one would have to take an agnostic stance. Maybe it's all in my head but it just seems like to be biased you'd have to be around one of the extremes.
i swear to atheism that if you people in this thread don't watch that goddamn video i linked.. ESPECIALLY if you dont' know who Sam Harris is.. then i am going to regard you as an atheist who probably doesn't fully understand their position yet. i'm telling you.. i learned things in that video that spiritually enhanced my atheism. so to speak.
Some people might actually hold the position that intellectual honesty requires agnosticism. Unless we're calling statistical probabilities proof now, I think the diety question is still unanswered.
I know, and I tried to make it pretty clear that I have no problem with people who want to call themselves an agnostic. I do think that most "agnostics" are either agnostic atheists or agnostic theists. You can believe we can't know for sure as much as you want, but most people do have some sort of belief one way or another. But my problem was not with the author of the article being agnostic. My problem was with the fact that he assumed in his article that atheists believe what they do because they do not believe anything out there could possibly be greater than themselves. Which is ridiculous to me as an atheist. I am not an atheist because I don't believe anything out there could be "greater" than myself, that's absurd. It shows that the author of the article simply does not understand atheism at all.
if you would watch the video i've been repeatedly bumping you might gain a better understanding of what atheism entails it amazes me how easily people who claim to be atheists ignore a video titled The Problem With Atheism even though the speaker is one of the brightest, most insightful "atheist" authors/speakers that i've run into thus far. he's speaking at a conference hosted in the name of Richard Dawkins.. but i've read almost all of Dawkin's books, and now i've read most of Sam's books.. and i can honestly say that i jive more with Sam's perspective than i do with Dawkins'. Dawkins is more profound as a zoologist and biologist.. but Sam is much more transcendent as the neuroscientist and CEO of Project Reason that he is. as far as i'm concerned as an avid reader of both authors.. Sam is far more dedicated to finding some sort of median between science and spirituality. and it's a very scientific spirituality that he's seeking to reach. one that i suspect is hard to reach without listening to his views.
I'll watch the vid eventually. I've actually met Dawkins when he was visiting a philosophy department I once worked in. Daniel Dennett is a good one too who would come and speak fairly often. You just gotta see the smile those guys give when you ask them questions that their fans don't ask. They're just selling books ya know.
A smart Atheists doesn't believe in God because you can't prove he exist but he contradicts himself not being able to disprove God. Thats just my thought so why not believe in something you know? Dont mean to offend anyone just sharing my opinion. Peace and Happy 420
See, and that is totally fine with me. I do really think that a lot of people who claim agnosticism could form an opinion one way or another if they researched enough about it, but if your opinion is no opinion then that is fine with me. What gets me is the agnostic folks who try to act like they're "better" than everyone else just because they think they've chosen to pick neither side. It basically comes down to this sometimes.