Comments on: Agnosticism vs. Atheism

By: Piff

Piff — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 19:06:27 +0000

I’m not trying to be hostile, but you are so sensitive any comment I make honestly is going to upset you. You’re complaint about the two definitions is petty and you’re idea that those who won’t cop to atheism when they don’t believe in god is weak. Why should something like agnosticism that is essentially the same as what you believe bother you so much? Why the atheist pride? You’re superiority of thought is diminished by your inferiority of character. Grow up.

By: GF

GF — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:22:42 +0000

By your own logic, a version of Popper’s theory of falsificatability, you could simply take the axiom that God does exist and then ask for proofs for the claims of non-existence. Agnostic skepticism resolves this otherwise insoluble dichotomy through an axiom of metaphysical neutrality. Stop trying to assign probablities to a matter which, while not meaningless, is impossible to resolve through the prism of human experience.

By: cw1925@gmail.com

cw1925@gmail.com — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:46:20 +0000

Why would think it’s parodic? All that I said was factual. Once we believed in spontaneous regeneration, but now we know better. And so on and so forth.

Do not bother with philosophy or pseudoscience. Deal with facts only.

Fact: God does not exist. Zeus does not exist. Fairies do not exist.

No philosophy behind it, just yes they do exist, or no they don’t exist. No grey area.

By: Lance

Lance — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:09:31 +0000

See, now I can’t tell if your comments are sincere or parodic. If the latter, my hat is off to you, as this is some pretty good stuff.

By: cw1925@gmail.com

cw1925@gmail.com — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:52:57 +0000

For thousands of years, humans thought the earth was flat. This was “knowledge”. It was considered “obvious”. After it was shown that the earth was spherical, then the “common knowledge” altered to reflect that position. It cannot be “possibly” one or the other. The earth *is* either flat or spherical. If tomorrow there was substantive evidence for a claim that the earth was flat (again) or even pyramidal, then those we would have no choice but to examine that evidence and accept it as a replacement for knowledge. “Knowledge” changes in science all the time, this is what science does. It changes in science far faster than religion. Religion changes at a dreadfully slow rate, but it does change. Science has empiricism on its side.

If you’re agnostic, you’re either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Agnosticism in its purest form is ultra-rare in society.

Your comment about self-proclaimed petty criminals, as you so elegantly put it, shows ignorance in how the criminal justice system works. We have a 5th Amendment protecting self-incrimination.

By: Lance

Lance — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:42:43 +0000

So if a field of science predicts the existence of synchronistic infundibula in deep space, and then 20 years later experiments reveal the presence of a synchronistic infundibulum in deep space, you’re saying that the synchronistic infundibulum did not exist until it was observed? That for 20 years the scientists were walking around failing at logic? That’s silly.

Also, there’s all kinds of gray area for existence. Altruism exists. Maybe. Free will exists. Maybe. As does the Higgs boson.

Query why anyone would care whether anyone else calls themselves an atheist or an agnostic. Is there some kind of membership threshold above which atheists get a discount at national hotel chains? If 1-0.99999…= the difference between “atheist” and “agnostic”, can’t we just agree that they’re synonyms? Wouldn’t our time be better spent encouraging all those self-proclaimed petty criminals to admit that they are guilty of misdemeanors?

By: cw1925@gmail.com

cw1925@gmail.com — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:51:06 +0000

Belief without evidence is stupid. If you believe there’s a chance for God, then you believe that God exists, plain and simple. I take the axiom that God does not exist (as well as the millions of other things that do not exist) and ask for proof for the claims of existence. Until they can be shown to exist, they do not exist. Agnostics do not understand this, which is why they fail at logic. Something either exists or it doesn’t. There is no gray area for existence.

By: Flourishing_bloom

Flourishing_bloom — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:25:26 +0000

The fact is that all positive claims of knowing that something does not exist need arguments, they can not be assumed just because of the absence of evidences.

This would hold true for all popular examples of the new atheists: there is almost certainly no teapot around Mars because teapots are the product of intelligent human beings and no man has been ever there, a Spaguetti monster could not exist because Spaguettis are a recent human (delecious) invention, they are an inert stuff which could not possibly have the properties we associate we life.
If unicorns existed on the earth, after all the knowledge we have accumulated over the centuries, they should have let evidences like bone remains.

Now, they are many things about which we have no evidence at all that could well exist: unicorns on an other planet somewhere in our vast universe, intelligent beings looking like lizards, a paralell universe with laws radically differing from our owns and I could imagine lots of further examples.

Certainly, everyone claiming we can be pretty sure none of these things exists would look completely silly, at least to my mind.

Defined as an intelligence at the origin of all things, God is not improbable as the three popular icons of atheism: his existence would be compatible with all our knowledge, and many very clever folks like Albert Einstein would be led to believe that there is an intelligence being the universe transcending our universe.

In fact, the three most virulent horsemen of theism, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchen, each recognize that it is very likely there exists a whole reality beyond our understanding conditioned by a biological evolution only caring for useful beliefs.

Nevertheless, they would go on to argue that the primitive, anthropomorphic God given by the Coran and Bible is entirely at odd with the wonderful things we may observe in the cosmos.

By: Jairo Mejia

Jairo Mejia — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:49:29 +0000

Atheists and Gnostics are right in most of their thinking

It has been common among religious believers to look with misgiving to atheists and Gnostics, and to think that they are mistaken; however, in many instances the opposite is the truth; some religious beliefs are not just irrelevant, but baseless. The “God” of main line traditions simply does not exist. I accepted the challenge of finding the One who may be recognized even by Gnostics and atheists: the Existence itself, “All-That-Is.” If something is there, that is God. Look at the book “Christianity Reformed From ist Roots – A life centered in God” (Amazon.com). I am confident that some of your friends will be relieved of the illusion, as I did myself.

Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., Santa Clara University
Retired Episcopal Priest
Carmel Valley, California

By: jack johnson

jack johnson — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 05:37:58 +0000

I have read with interest some of above comments…. Very confusing. I was bought up a Catholic in the 50s and from the first day at school when the nuns tought me about Heaven and Hell I just accepted there was a God without really thinking otherwise. Now, I cannot really accept the notion of an almighty and merciful God who apparently every day condemns thousands of people to an eternity of never ending torture.However, I am terrified that this God does actually exist and some day eternal torture will be my destiny for NOT accepting the existance and therefore loving this God. Am I an agnostic or what? appreciate any comments.