Comments on: An Agnostic Project

By: GMNightmare

GMNightmare — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:38:47 +0000

“you are dismissing a lot of folks in the “I don’t know what to believe” category, and which perhaps are the compelling majority of so-called “agnostics”.”

Pardon if somebody else already said it…

Atheism is the lack of belief in god. Not knowing while also not believing is a fluffy way of saying you don’t have a belief in god (but may have one later), thus atheist (currently).

By: A Response To Skepdude - The Atheist Blogger

A Response To Skepdude - The Atheist Blogger — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:16:28 +0000

[...] recent few posts of mine have sparked a mini-debate between Skepdude and I, which has moved from the [...]

By: The Agnostic debate « Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptic blogs of the day

The Agnostic debate « Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptic blogs of the day — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 02:46:44 +0000

[...] Recently I commented on a post at the Atheist Blogger. The original entry was titled “An Agnostic Project“. I recommend readers to go over and read this entry and my subsequent comments in order to [...]

By: Skepdude

Skepdude — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:28:38 +0000

Ok then I move to say that everything is proof of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

By: citron

citron — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:28:56 +0000

If there was a creator-god then wouldn’t everything be proof of its existence?

By: Skepdude

Skepdude — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:33:57 +0000

Actually Ben, most agnostics would not define agnosticism as a “lack of knowledge”. The position that they generally take, which is the position the author of this blog takes in the entry is that we CANNOT know. Those are very different. I have an issue with the latter. If you subscribe to the former definition, what I said does not apply to you. Don’t you just love semantics?

Lack of knowledge is otherwise known as ignorance (not to be confused with stupidity). We are all ignorant in many many subjects. However, to say that I don’t know is one thing, and to say that it CANNOT be know is a completely other thing.

By: James

James — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:57:15 +0000

Agnostic Cemetary:

http://www.bizarroartist.org/gallery/albums/bizarro/agnostic-cemetary.jpg

By: Ben Abbott

Ben Abbott — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:23:17 +0000

Skepdude: I consider myself an atheist, among other things, but I don’t use either “know” or “believe”. I rely on the lack of evidence to come to the conclusion that such lack of evidence makes the probability of God’s existence very, very, very tiny, next to zero.

I'm with you here. I have no knowledge of existence or non-existence of any god(s). I have no belief either way. However, as the minimum requisite for atheism is the absence of belief, I think I qualify as an atheist ... just as my dogs and the oak trees in my yard to ;-) However, in the popular manner in which "atheist" is understood, I'm with you.

Skepdude: Pick a side.

I'll point out that if you ignore an individuals words and instead focus on their actions you'll conclude they do not believe in God. The side they choose in evident by their actions. How is someone "on the fence" is he/she goes about their life as if there is/are no god(s)?

Skepdude: We can’t prove that Russell’s teapot does not exist. Does that imply that we should be agnostic about it?

Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. If you admit to a lack of knowledge then you are agnostic on the question. So it is not a matter of what we "should be" but what we are. We are agnostic on the existence of Russell's teapot.

By: Agnosticism: The Argument - The Atheist Blogger

Agnosticism: The Argument - The Atheist Blogger — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:25:44 +0000

[...] recently commented on my article outlining the awareness I think needs to be raised over the true meanings of agnosticism. I feel his points deserved slightly more discussion and dissection than a simple comments thread, [...]

By: Skepdude

Skepdude — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:10:27 +0000

We can’t prove that Russell’s teapot does not exist. Does that imply that we should be agnostic about it? There’s millions of things we can’t disprove. Does that lend them legitimacy, simply because we can dream of them?