Quote:
Originally posted by Gutterboy
Its actually necessary. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, not a statement of belief. It is not the third option to atheism or theism that people imagine it to be. You can hold that the existence of god not knowable with empirical certainty, but you still have to decide whether to believe or disbelieve. The option most people tend to take is weak atheism, which is the position that there is not enough evidence to support the existence of god. This has the *enourmous* advantage of placing the entire burden of proof upon the believer in any argument. There is also strong atheism which asserts "There is no god", which is obviously a much harder proposition to defend.
It can go the other way though. Many christians, like the one in your article, are agnostic theists. They believe that their god is not knowable with certainty via empirical means, but insist there are still good 'beyond reasonable doubt' reasons to believe. The reasons given are usually prophecy, answered prayer, revelation, the Holy Spirit communicating with them, and so on...
Ok, I've used up all my alotted bullshitting time this morning. Time to go to work!
|
I see that you put quiet alot of thought into your responses. I fell asleep around 5:00 AM and awoke about 8:45 AM so I have not yet finished my pot of wake up coffee.
I quickly read your response to the arguments that were proposed, but I will have to clear my mind and re-read in depth.
I need more convincing before I accept your proposition that agnosticism is not a belief.
Why isn't it as simple as saying; I believe "that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and is probably unknowable".
Is not that an expressed belief, just as being an atheist is an expressed belief?
You became more creative in your position and I can see the validity of it, but to say "it is actually necessary", I think is not true.
Educate me further, if you care too.