Off Topic > Beyond Belief

Tyson, Dawkins, and religion

<< < (35/35)

Valis:

--- Quote from: ka9q on January 21, 2013, 11:22:22 PM ---(Most of) those of us who call ourselves atheists are actually agnostics, in that we know we cannot conclusively prove the absence of any and all deities.

--- End quote ---
Well yeah, it's more a definition issue for the terms. Why I don't like to use the word "agnostic" is that it's usually defined with a component that states that the whole thing is unknowable. I don't see how, say, the Christian God is unknowable, as there's nothing in Christian dogma or teachings that'd prevent it from making itself known to all mankind. On the other side, would you say that you are agnostic about invisible unicorns?

As theism involves an active and present god, I prefer the term atheism in the sense that I see no evidence for such an active and present god, so for me, such a god doesn't exist for all intents and purposes.

Echnaton:

--- Quote from: Valis on January 22, 2013, 02:43:45 AM ---As theism involves an active and present god, I prefer the term atheism in the sense that I see no evidence for such an active and present god, so for me, such a god doesn't exist for all intents and purposes.

--- End quote ---

That is pretty much how I use it too.  My friends that have identified as "agnostic." have stated it as s state of uncertainty.  For a situation where not only is there an absence of evidence, but an absence of plausibility, I chose "atheist" as the best description.  Nevertheless, I stay away from atheist groups because, in my experience, there is a notable lack of self-skepticism applied inside the revival tent.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page