I wonder how your god differs from no god at all. Go check out Occam’s Razor for details.
Please check out point 7 in the FAQ section.
In summary, I am an agnostic-atheist. In my opinion one requires the other. In the FAQ I wrote the following as an explanation of the comic you just made reference to.
Basically, agnosticism is not a ‘third rail’ between theism and atheism. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, not belief. A person can’t simply be ‘agnostic’ by definition…you either hold a belief in God or you do not, making you either a theist or an atheist.
Lastly I would equate the likelihood of god(s) existing with fairies, unicorns or leprechauns. I don’t absolutely know if these do or do not exist, just like the existence of god(s). And because of this I don’t believe in any of them either. Their existence is so unlikely that labeling myself an “afairienostic” or “aunicornostic” would be a ridiculous waste of time.
It seems to me that you are just a straight out atheist that is too preoccupied with the possibility that “magic” (or a “magical thing”) might exist. I agree with you conceptually but not in practice. It is clear that the likelihood of “magic” actually existing is so low that no one should waste their time considering it, much less form their world view around it. This logical position does not preclude future belief if evidence (aka knowledge) is found in support of it (or god, or anything else for that matter). That to me is a simple solution to such a preoccupation. The same one everybody takes in regards to possibility of other magical creatures existing as elves, unicorns or fairies. I just don’t see why one should make an exception for the imaginary magical creature that most people call god.
Take care. Thanks for writing.
Do you believe in a god? Any god? If the answer is no then you are an atheist. Check out point #7 in the FAQ.
Thanks for writing.
Precisely one of my points. Thanks for making it so clear.
Thanks for sharing.
I think sometimes the fear you talk about is more about what others will think instead of being about the actual facts of the matter. The majority of people have a misconception that labeling oneself as an atheist must mean that:
1) One knows for sure that a god does not exist,
2) hence believers must be dumb since
3) science is actually the atheist “god”
4) so atheists must have a sense of smug superiority over everyone else who do not think as they.
That is just plain false.
Some, trying to avoid being labeled and treated as such misconstrued atheists, revert to the title of agnostic to be more agreeable to the theistic masses.
Just to be clear, I am not saying all people that call themselves agnostic think this way. I am just saying that I have met quite a few like that. And those people I will openly criticize.
1) The whole atheism vs agnostic argument is a semantic/definitional one. What I’m just saying is that agnosticism is a distinction that makes no real difference. Either you believe in a god or you don’t. Not knowing if you believe (whatever that means) is still not believing. Is that too hard a concept to grasp?
2) To those that have not read the FAQ, I consider myself an agnostic atheist (since I don’t know, I don’t believe).
3) Like I said before: I never said there is anything wrong with labeling oneself as an agnostic. I’m all for less religion and more uncertainty. That being said, I will openly comment on the agnosticism that tries to place atheism as an equal counterpart to theism or theist fundamentalism. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Why is it “ironic”?
I make no qualms in accepting that I am an evangelist for reason, science and truth. That is one of the reasons I have this blog. I don’t see anything wrong with that. On the contrary, I wish more non-believers would do the same.
Bottom line: In the same way I clearly speak about the problems with religion I will also speak about the inconsistencies of agnosticism (or any other philosophy no matter where it comes from). Just because agnosticism it is similar to atheism does not mean I will cut it any slack.
If you believe, don’t believe or even say you don’t know if you believe or not; I will still keep asking why. No exceptions.
Thanks for writing. Take care.
I think most agnostics are just atheists in practice that don’t want to be grouped with the likes of Dawkins or Harris (for example) who some (mistakenly I believe) consider to be rude.
How is not taking the time to determine if one believes if a god exists or not (whatever that means) is any different from not believing at all? With all due respect, your concept of agnosticism seems to be grounded more in intellectual laziness than anything else. How come there is not enough time to ponder if one believes in a god but there is enough time to explain, argument and even write in defense of what agnosticism supposedly is? Can you see the disconnect? I think it is pretty clear that belief in gods is an active concept. Ignoring it is the same as denying it.
To finish, I never said there is anything wrong with labeling oneself as an agnostic. I’m all for less religion and more uncertainty. What I’m just saying is that agnosticism is a distinction that makes no real difference. That is all.