Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
I rather resent the implication that Agnosticism is "weasely" -- I personally think it the more scientific and rational belief than Atheism. I understand that this may ruffle feathers, but I am not trying to claim Atheism ignores physical laws, as some have claimed about Agnosticism.
There is absolutely nothing about an Agnostic philosophy thats says that we dont
.
As a matter of fact, this is exactly what I try to do as an Agnostic. I honestly favor the idea that there isn't a God above there being one, but I do not take the poor scientists' approach that Atheism would purpose. No one can dispute that without a supernatural extension of our scientific abilities, there will always be a possibility that God exists. Rather than say "well it cannot be proven with current Science, he must not exist" as Atheism would say, I can be the true skeptic: there is a possibility of his existence! They can abstain from making a conclusion until better concrete evidence is presented. Theism and Atheism both seem a bit fanatical, then, because they seek to reach a concrete conclusion in the absense of finite evidence.
This would be akin to a scientist seeing a new microbe under the microscope. The Theistic scientist could claim that it was a supernatural microbe capable of ruling the universe (irrational, I know).. and the Atheist could claim that it looks like X, it moves like X, it must be X. After expending all their energy doing scientific study and analysis the Atheist could "conclusively" decide and defend that it was X, undoubtedly. However, the Agnostic would be able to say that "given what we know now, it's probably X." In order for Atheists to be correct, it HAS to be X (the non-existance of God) or they are without doubt incorrect.
IN short: everything is relative. For a Theistic person, the relativism does not matter because God exists in spite of natural laws. For an Atheistic person, a God does not exist, because of natural laws. For an Agnostic -- both assumptions can be correct, dependant on the relative viewpoint of the observer.
|
JinnKai,
I think we agree much more than we disagree except for two points.
1. You need a much better dictionary. I am not American and therefore find the religious Bias of your American Heritage dictionary a little Off-base. I strongly suggest you check out the definition of atheism in the Wikipedia from Google. It is a good online starting place
You said:
a·the·ism
n.
1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
a) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. (this statement defines Atheistic thought from the majority prespective of "pro-religion".)
The idea that there could be a god IS a Genus 1 assumption. Just like the Green Dragon in the Garage, assumed by my friend. Further assumtions like the complicated (nonexistent) holographic equipment goes directly against Occams Razor: Make no more assumptions than necessary AND choose the simplest explanation.
Had I actually seen the Dragon I would then begin to look for the Holographic equipment.
A person who never ever considered that a God could exist is "a-theistic" in their thinking. Although I was once religious I am An atheist now.
I am a person who, having seen the newest Genetic evidence (molecular, 2004) sees that a God is not necessary for life to have sprung up. I am A-theistic in my thoughts.
b) Atheism is not a doctrine per se. Although American religious leaders would love you to think so. In fact it is the abscence of a theistic perspective. Which is quite different.
2. You continue to try to tell ME what I beleive. I have no problem with your version of agnosticism. What frosts me is that you continue to tell me what an atheist is.