The New Atheism; Why I call myself an agnostic

I'm not entirely sure this conveys the message I wanted. However, it will have to do for now.

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• 20100731;
• New
• Atheism;
• Richard
• Dawkins

[maikeli7]

I agree that the "new" atheists take it too far. It is symptomatic of the ape in us that we villify and denigrate anything deemed "different" or "other." It is the classic in-group v. outgroup syndrome. As for being agnostic, for me it comes from the inescapable fact that the existence or nonexistence of a motivating force cannot be proved. But even this is logically flawed. The great pumpkin falls under the same criteria. Cartesian doubt is awesome! :-D

May his noodly appendage bless you.

[Hempage]

@maikeli7 Lol! Love the FSM reference. I'll agree, one can't prove the existence or non-existence of God. However, if one can't prove the existence of God, then why is one justified in believing in said God?

Yet here is where I disagree with the new atheists. I personally won't believe in something if I think it's unjustified. However, as long as something's existence isn't DISPROVEN, I'm okay with other people believing it. However, I won't give religion a free pass to do real harm.

[cokecan500]

lol that is kind of difficult to describe what you mean there at the end...

Well said though, I think I would describe myself as agnostic as well if I were asked for a quick explanation.

Hopefully I can throw together a video here in the next week before classes start back, I have several good topics I wanted to cover...

[Hempage]

@cokecan500 Yeah, I hadn't seen you for a while. Good to know you're still with the community! Lol...

[420FlyByNight]

I love the scenery here. What a beautiful place! Non-believer here too brother. peace

[Hempage]

@Hempage However, I myself have beliefs which are "unjustified." I believe pi is an irrational number, even though I don't understand the proof. There are those who do understand the proof, and they tell me it is so, and as a result I'm willing to take their word for it. Therefore, my belief is unjustified. Fortunately, there's not nearly as much debate over whether pi is irrational or not, and it's much easier to come to a definite conclusion.

[Hempage]

@DumbDuck44 You are correct that "technically" it is a misconception. However, the term "atheism" has become so closely tied to the "new atheist" movement that in general conversation, one can treat them the same. Technicalities do matter, but the message is more important than the vocabulary used. I want people to know that I'm not going to belittle them for their beliefs, even if I think they're unjustified.

[Hempage]

@DumbDuck44 you say "atheism/agnosticism deals with evidence, with proof." I, however, disagree... SKEPTICISM deals with evidence and proof. Atheism/agnosticism just describe a certain position, but not whether that position is justified or not. Thus, while many atheists and agnostics are skeptical, from my point of view, they are atheists or agnostics BECAUSE they are skeptical, so it's really the skepticism which is dealing with the demands for evidence.

[DumbDuck44]

and all intelligence does for someone is not provide answers, but gives more flexibility in rationalizing unreasonable preconceptions.

and if you don't want to be a douche, the tactful way of putting it is that religion deals in belief, in faith. faith is defined as something for which there is no proof. atheism/agnosticism deals with evidence, with proof.

[DumbDuck44]

that is a misconception IMO that the "atheist" label is somehow more dogmatic than agnostic. whether atheist or agnostic, it has nothing to do with spirituality or personal beliefs but simply about available evidence. thus IMO agnosticism is not "atheist lite", same great taste with half the calories, but rather a tomAYto vs tomAHto thing.

and I agree, no one should think they are better than others because they have a bigger brain. bigger genitalia on the other hand, fair game. schwing