Here's my take on it.
Agnosticism is illogical and refutes itself. Agnosticism and agnostics characterize God as unknowable, ineffable, incomprehensible to all attempts to understand him. This doctrine is self-refuting. The agnostic is making a knowledge claim about what he/she claims is unknowable. How do agnostics know that God is unknowable if he is unknowable ? How do they even know that God's existence cannot be disproved if God is unknowable, or that God even exists if he is unknowable ? To claim any attribute for God is knowledge and claims to know this unknowable God possesses certain attributes. That's a logical contradiction, and any being containing two incompatible attributes cannot possibly exist. So one need not resort to agnosticism. He/she would be justified in not believing in that God if the concept of it contradicts itself in any way. One is justified in accepting and adopting the atheist position.
In fairness to Madhukar, the nature of dictionairies have made this problem more difficult. That's because most people don't realize that dictionairies don't define words: they just record the way is colloquially used. And since words like atheist are so often misused and missaplied, many dictionairies record definitions like "the denial of the existence of God" or "the convinction that there is no God" as atheism. People then look up these definitions and mistakenly believe (or at least feel justified) that they've found a good definition.
The thing is though, dictionairies are nigh useless when it comes to technical discussions. Dictionairies include figurative, metaphorical and colloquial usages; not just technical ones. So for instance, in any decent dictionairy, one of the definitions of theory will be "a hunch, a speculation" because that is indeed the way the word is used in every-day conversation. But when we engage in a scientific discussion, such dictionairy definitions become meaningless and we only need to bother with the technical definitions... which may or may not have been recorded in a dictionairy: that doesn't even matter.
And in this case, the technical definitions are very close to the ones most of the New Atheists writers popularized.
Matt VDB, you hit the nail where nails are designed to be hit.
I've often heard that dictionaries both describe and prescribe.
You've made the reality clear: dictionaries describe, and people who use or don't use dictionaries prescribe.
Vash, your Atheists and Theists alike indulge the imagination equally describes well the first atheists I met: the Univ. of Florida college atheist club.
I heard them saying they know there is no god and decided they know as little as the believers I had known. I wanted those believers out of my life and chose agnosticism.
Agnosticism is an acceptible position for major cities of the world and campus towns built up around a university. But outside the civilized world...in the hollers of West Virginia in the US.
But understand, agnosticism is a social position that is valuable to put on rather than what you really mean. It is not a theological or psychological position. It is a social shield you can use to avoid awkward situations. You make the mistake of pointing out the intellectual poverty of a concept they have grown fond of, a plank in the structure of their own belief system. The thing is, the supporting structure of each our tents...the philosophical underpinnings even you are faced with...as we all sooner or later are...
Life? For it or against it?
Death? For it or against it?
It's sensible enough.
Ask somebody if he believes in God and see if you get a straight forward answer.
Oh, the say how they have 'faith'. Faith in God? Hell, no!
Faith in God means you not only belief in His existence on both a carnal, human level but also on the spiritual level.
Faith is superstition writ large.
We all know the difference between superstition and faith.
Or are we just being frightened of leaving a signature on the Net?
.....as if the agnostic is a neophyte in the atheist religion.....
No atheist, not even an agnostic would ever use the words ' atheist religion'. The theists frequently use this term to deflect criticism of their beliefs.
I agree, Karim. We were all looking for a place where we could belong comfortably having been at odds with 80% ? of the population that we don't need to continue putting people in little niches.
Things that don't exist are likely to be pretty unknowable. That doesn't stop people from making all sorts of assumptions, presumptions, and just plain made-up shit about whatever their favorite non-existent goodie is. What floors me are those who, despite the utter lack of evidence, want to slide those who believe it enough slack as to say that, "well, MAYBE there's a god; we can't know for certain."
Sure, maybe there is ... and maybe there are fairies, gnomes, and left-handed zindlefingers, too. I'm still not having any. Until there is some hard, objective substantiation to the contrary: There Are NO Gods.
I come down hard on the side of there being no such thing as god/s. There are just too many reasons to think they are delusions instead of reality. I would even go as far as the militants and be anti-theist. It is far too easy for someone to call on the gods when solutions are difficult to understand or find. Science and it's nature still has many mysteries; that is part of the joy and excitement of the discipline; there are questions that need asking and need answers, and we don't know it all yet.
The thing missing for me is not having an established community of atheist to which I can turn. I have to create my own by listening carefully to what people say, asking them the hard questions and paying attention to how they answer. It doesn't take long to find those who are not afraid of asking and seeking and disciplining themselves to find solutions. As for community, anti-theists are as interesting, funny, stimulating, caring, compassionate and loving as any religious person I ever met. And they don't have gods of the gaps.
This is the only atheist community that I reach out to. Glad it's here.
Love the logo. It says a lot.
I consider myself anti-theist in my mind, but in action I'm tolerant and welcoming. There are theists in my life who are warm and loving, ethical and nurturing. Life is too short to be too idealistic.
Still, I want religion to have less and less influence on events, personal, local, national, international. If some people go through not-knowing in their path from religious to nonreligious, I can't judge.
Yes, being tolerant and welcoming with loving, ethical. nurturing theists fits my value system. I am probably quicker to lash out at those who impose themselves on me than you are Daniel. Your gentle nature remains consistent.
We have come a long way in scientific achievement and learning since the time of Huxley, and correspondingly the uncertainty of agnosticism has shrunk and there's less reason to subscribe to it. But even Richard Dawkins is not 100% certain about the non-existence of some kind of god. Evidence may come to light later that suggests the possible existence of God, but for now all evidence points away from the existence of a supernatural reality, and the evidence is such that a man can determine for himself that there is no God. That doesn't stop others from being agnostic on the subject of God. They determine for themselves that the evidence against a god is not conclusive.
I can say though with complete confidence that certain types of gods absolutely do not exist. If there were an omniscient god then it would stand to logic that one thing an omniscient god would be as the creator of logic is supremely logical.
Certain kinds of gods can be safely ruled out, such as a god with mutually incompatible attributes that lead to logical contradictions. Such a god as this can safely be ruled out of even possible existence. So, when it comes to the existence of those gods I am a strong atheist. I can say with confidence that those kinds of gods do not exist. We cannot rule out an evil god, but why call it God if evil ? We cannot rule out a god who is not omnipotent, or a god who is not omniscient, but why call such entities gods then ?
Anthony, I would like to differ with you slightly.
Evidence may come to light later that suggests the possible existence of God......
How and from do you think that such evidence can come? Can science bring such evidence? One of atheist friend here has said that if he were to meet the god after his death(the friends death, not gods!) I would tell him that apart from making a mess of your world, you have done a wonderful job of hiding yourself. A long time of 13.7 billion years was enough of an opportunity for the god to show that he exists. If he has not done this it is certainly not out of shyness. He simply isn't there.
Certain kinds of gods can be safely ruled out, such a......
There really are only two kinds of gods conceived by humanity : one a personal god and the other a creator god. Other kinds of gods are merely extensions of these ideas. In most cases, both aspects were imagined in the same god. There is no need for us to split hair to distinguish one from the other. They do not exist.