Coloradomtnman
Rational and proud of it.
Alright, the title is sensationalistic but it got you to click my thread, right?
However, there is some truth to it. Theists almost always label all unbelievers as atheists, either not understanding that agnostics also don't believe in their God or purposely or unconsciously leaving that designation out because agnosticism is unassailable.
Theists won't debate a self-proclaimed agnostic. I think for the same reason.
Theists typically define atheists as those who believe there is no God. Atheists define themselves as either believing there is no God or not convinced there is a God. I think theists like to define atheists as making the positive claim that there is no God because that is a weaker position than the position that theists' claims are not convincing.
It's very telling. The weaker position relies on an unsubstantiated claim - really a claim that can not be rationally supported at all. A faith-based claim, if you will.
We've all heard that counter from the faithful that atheism requires more faith than theism. That doesn't work with agnosticism.
It seems as though we all recognize wherher consciously or unconsciously that agnosticism is the only rational position: that belief is irrelevant to the big questions of existence. That believing there is no God is just a irrational as believing there is. Well, not AS irrational.
There is no evidence for the existence of God, and, although theists would never admit it, lack of evidence IS evidence that supports that no God exists. It doesn't PROVE it, but it supports it.
Agnosticism is a refrain from belief. It isn't fence sitting. It isn't cowardice. Its an inability to be convinced by irrational arguments, unsubstantiated claims, and insufficient evidence. Its simply not finding convincing arguments for making a decision. Perhaps that requires a leap of faith. But truth doesn't require faith or belief - truth is truth whether one believes it or not. But to convince others of truth requires definitive evidence and to convince others to believe requires a desire to subjugate rationality for a misdirected attempt to substantiate your own beliefs.
This agnostic will wait for the evidence. Until then, I can't believe.
However, there is some truth to it. Theists almost always label all unbelievers as atheists, either not understanding that agnostics also don't believe in their God or purposely or unconsciously leaving that designation out because agnosticism is unassailable.
Theists won't debate a self-proclaimed agnostic. I think for the same reason.
Theists typically define atheists as those who believe there is no God. Atheists define themselves as either believing there is no God or not convinced there is a God. I think theists like to define atheists as making the positive claim that there is no God because that is a weaker position than the position that theists' claims are not convincing.
It's very telling. The weaker position relies on an unsubstantiated claim - really a claim that can not be rationally supported at all. A faith-based claim, if you will.
We've all heard that counter from the faithful that atheism requires more faith than theism. That doesn't work with agnosticism.
It seems as though we all recognize wherher consciously or unconsciously that agnosticism is the only rational position: that belief is irrelevant to the big questions of existence. That believing there is no God is just a irrational as believing there is. Well, not AS irrational.
There is no evidence for the existence of God, and, although theists would never admit it, lack of evidence IS evidence that supports that no God exists. It doesn't PROVE it, but it supports it.
Agnosticism is a refrain from belief. It isn't fence sitting. It isn't cowardice. Its an inability to be convinced by irrational arguments, unsubstantiated claims, and insufficient evidence. Its simply not finding convincing arguments for making a decision. Perhaps that requires a leap of faith. But truth doesn't require faith or belief - truth is truth whether one believes it or not. But to convince others of truth requires definitive evidence and to convince others to believe requires a desire to subjugate rationality for a misdirected attempt to substantiate your own beliefs.
This agnostic will wait for the evidence. Until then, I can't believe.