What Type Of/Which Agnostic/Atheist Do You Dislike The Most.

Hero Of College

Is it the sort who looks at the world and all the **** in it and concludes that God is non-existent or that God is bad?

Is it the sort who studies it for years and can't make up their mind, but remains "sure" that God doesn't exist?

Is it the Liberal political sort who expresses a very convenient belief in God but espouses a way of life or life-choices which could be described as being anathema to God??

You can answer this question by naming your preferred agnostic, or describing your preferred agnostic way of life.

pH

To help me answer the question would you mind very much clarifying what type of Agnostic/Atheist are you?

CerebralCortex

Hey hey hey. What's with all the dislike?

Hero Of College

pH wrote: »

To help me answer the question would you mind very much clarifying what type of Agnostic/Atheist are you?

I am what I call a "limited Christian"....I believe only in Jesus, and his accomplishments as a MAN.

I don't seek to rubbish the Holy Ghost, Immaculate Conceptions, Heaven, Hell, Or God the Father, or any of that, I just don't neccessarily care for any of it. If it is true, so be it. If its all bollox, well and good.

I don't even concern myself with his resurrection, which is something I find myself laughing at from time to time.

I feel some of my opinions are heretical enough to make me agnostic in a certain way.

I dislike elitist academical atheists like Cristopher Hitchens and quasi-Religious fakes like Ivana Bacick.

I hope thats open enough for you to consider a fuller reply.

pH

Hero Of College wrote: »

I hope thats open enough for you to consider a fuller reply.

Thank you for that, I can now say with certainty that the ones I dislike the most are "limited Christians".

Whispered

I dislike anybody who feels the need to always be right, who has no interest in learning, who thinks their way of thinking is the only correct way and who believe that by not believing (or dis-beliving) what they do you are deserving of extreme contempt. These are common traits amongst people in general, athiest, theist, agnostic, and any other group of people really.

robindch

helena.ryan wrote: »

These are common traits amongst people in general, athiest, theist, agnostic, and any other group of people really.

Yes, that's right. And that's why manufactured divisions like religion are so dangerous in encouraging out-group hatred.

If religion didn't exist, you simply wouldn't have the kind of religious bigotry that abounds in the world today.

Whispered

Yes this was brought up in a thread before, about religion being used as an excuse for hatred and faith being used and turned to hatred. It went around and around in circles and got nowhere really I think any group of fanatics are dangerous. Whether they are religious, non-religious, political etc

Hero Of College

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Hey hey hey. What's with all the dislike?

It doesn't have to be dislike. You can state a preference too. My favourite atheist is Dawkins. I don't agree with everything he says, but his comment to the effect that "is it not enough to like the garden without believing that there are fairies at the end of it" is roughly congruous with my own "limited" Christian beliefs- i.e. is it not enough to love Jesus without believing too all the other baloney too.

Hero Of College

helena.ryan wrote: »

Yes this was brought up in a thread before, about religion being used as an excuse for hatred and faith being used and turned to hatred. It went around and around in circles and got nowhere really I think any group of fanatics are dangerous. Whether they are religious, non-religious, political etc

Which is why I have, if you listen to the Church, "turned my back on God"....I just go with Jesus of Nazareth. He lived and he died, and these are facts. I'll concern myself with the facts only, thats my take on it all. Like I said, my beliefs would be, strictu sensu, heretical by definition.

Dades

Hero, you sound like an agnostic who appreciates some of the more 'user-friendly' Christian values of the NT.

A bit like an awful lot of 'Christians' in fact!

Beruthiel

Hero Of College wrote: »

Is it the sort who looks at the world and all the **** in it and concludes that God is non-existent or that God is bad?

Someone who thinks 'god is bad' is not an atheist...

Is it the sort who studies it for years and can't make up their mind, but remains "sure" that God doesn't exist?

What does that mean? If he cannot make up his mind, then he cannot be "sure"

Is it the Liberal political sort who expresses a very convenient belief in God but espouses a way of life or life-choices which could be described as being anathema to God??

How can he be an atheist if he expresses a belief in god?

Wreck

Hero Of College wrote: »

It doesn't have to be dislike. You can state a preference too. My favourite atheist is Dawkins. I don't agree with everything he says, but his comment to the effect that "is it not enough to like the garden without believing that there are fairies at the end of it" is roughly congruous with my own "limited" Christian beliefs- i.e. is it not enough to love Jesus without believing too all the other baloney too.

I kinda think you missed his point.

Zombrex

Hero Of College wrote: »

I am what I call a "limited Christian"....I believe only in Jesus, and his accomplishments as a MAN.

What did Jesus accomplish as a MAN?

robindch

helena.ryan wrote: »

It went around and around in circles and got nowhere really

Sadly, yes, as a number of religious people appear to think that religious hatred can exist without the religion it needs to stay alive. An argument that I've never quite found very convincing, I must say!

helena.ryan wrote: »

I think any group of fanatics are dangerous.

Agreed Things seem to be most dangerous when people believe that they have access to absolute knowledge, and are prepared to do act upon it. At the risk of godwinning myself, here's the excellent Jacob Bronowski in 1973 on its perils:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXsVKbHY_T0

Hero Of College

Beruthiel wrote: »

Someone who thinks 'god is bad' is not an atheist...



What does that mean? If he cannot make up his mind, then he cannot be "sure"



How can he be an atheist if he expresses a belief in god?

Well, okay then, from top......

In Islam, they say "Allah Akbar" {God is Great}. In Christianity, they say "Hallelujhlah" or some such utterance. All the "Great" Religions involve an utterance or utterances to the effect that God is good, forgiving, great. Anybody, IMO, who stands up and says "God is a bloody great c*nt" does not fall comfortably into the category of atheist, but they are as good as Agnostic and most certainly fall outside the traditional category of "Believer"....to mention nothing of the fact that "believing" carries with it an implied condition of not just blind faith but blind faith that GOD IS GOOD

A person who is unsure of Gods existence cannot be said to have faith. Faith is the cornerstone of belief. When there is no belief, there is potentially disbelief, thus a movement towards agnosticism is observed, with atheism a possibility should that "disbelief" or "lack of faith" solidify at some point in the future.

As for the "convenient believer"...I mean that in the sense of the Politician who goes to mass and all that good nonsense, but who really only does it out of a desire to maintain good press with their electorate. Barack Obama might be a decent example.

Hero Of College

Wicknight wrote: »

What did Jesus accomplish as a MAN?

For me, Jesus of Nazareth had a tremendous understanding of human nature and a tremendous will and desire. Having endured horrific tortures and mental punishment, he refused to castigate his tormentors, instead forgiving them and offering solace to others around him {the thief on the cross}. He never broke, never recanted and always tried to help people. How many people could approach a mob and with a few simple words dissuade them from stoning a prostitute?? For me, whether he died and went to heaven or died and rotted in the ground is irrelevant. He was a man born of woman who tried his best and never gave up. We would all do well to display the same sort of impetus, temerity and compassion. How many of us could get nailed to a cross and not utter at least a few "Go f**k yourselves, Romans" before we expired?? Christ made believers of his tormentors. That was his lasting legacy.

Hero Of College

Dades wrote: »

Hero, you sound like an agnostic who appreciates some of the more 'user-friendly' Christian values of the NT.

A bit like an awful lot of 'Christians' in fact!

No.

I am decidedly indifferent as to whether Jesus went to heaven or not. I am indifferent as to whether he performed miracles, I am indifferent as to whether he walked on water, whether his mother was a virgin, whether he reigns and lives forever, whether the Holy Spirit is another part of him etc etc etc.

"user friendliness" doesn't come into it. How "user friendly" is the whole episode at Gethsemone and Calgary? Not very.

Sapien

robindch wrote: »

At the risk of godwinning myself, here's the excellent Jacob Bronowski in 1973 on its perils:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXsVKbHY_T0

Holy Hell.

That was a little bit of a religious experience, I think.

Dades

Hero Of College wrote: »

No.

I am decidedly indifferent as to whether Jesus went to heaven or not. I am indifferent as to whether he performed miracles, I am indifferent as to whether he walked on water, whether his mother was a virgin, whether he reigns and lives forever, whether the Holy Spirit is another part of him etc etc etc.

Sorry - I probably wasn't clear - I wasn't comparing you to Christians if that's what you think. My point was that a lot of people call themselves Christian, when in actual fact they just subscribe to the world view and could care less like you.

Hero Of College wrote: »

"user friendliness" doesn't come into it. How "user friendly" is the whole episode at Gethsemone and Calgary? Not very.

User friendly as in "Love thy neighbour", rather than some of the more obscure teachings of the bible that haven't aged quite as well.

adamd164

Hero Of College wrote: »

For me, Jesus of Nazareth had a tremendous understanding of human nature and a tremendous will and desire. Having endured horrific tortures and mental punishment, he refused to castigate his tormentors, instead forgiving them and offering solace to others around him {the thief on the cross}. He never broke, never recanted and always tried to help people. How many people could approach a mob and with a few simple words dissuade them from stoning a prostitute?? For me, whether he died and went to heaven or died and rotted in the ground is irrelevant. He was a man born of woman who tried his best and never gave up. We would all do well to display the same sort of impetus, temerity and compassion. How many of us could get nailed to a cross and not utter at least a few "Go f**k yourselves, Romans" before we expired?? Christ made believers of his tormentors. That was his lasting legacy.

You seem to be mixing up atheist and antitheist. Many atheists think that religion has a genuine role to play in society and that the teachings of many churches are honest and worthwhile -- they just do not believe that a god /gods actually exist.

On the other hand, antitheists (like myself) go further than disbelief, and think that the idea of having a celestial dictatorship in operation around the clock is a horrendous one, and so are suitably delighted that there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that this is the case. Many of us find much of religious doctrine to be vile and depraved on a social level.

I should add that, regardless of one's opinions about what religions have or have not done for society generally, it's totally irrelevant when it comes to the probability of the existence of a supernatural entity.

(I see also that you list no category of atheist who simply looks at the available evidence and to whom it is immediately obvious that belief in god goes against all rationale)

stereoroid

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Hey hey hey. What's with all the dislike?

Dang - beat me to it.

I'm not going to like or dislike someone based on their beliefs alone. When they do things that affect me, that's another story - but in my experience it's the agnostics and atheists who are far less likely to do such things.

A slight correction: that remark about the fairies at the bottom of the garden is actually by the late Douglas Adams, quoted by Dawkins - but they were good friends, so you're forgiven.

Pompey Magnus

Hero Of College wrote: »

How many people could approach a mob and with a few simple words dissuade them from stoning a prostitute??

Just to point out that this didn't actually happen. Firstly it is found only in the Gospel of John which is the least reliable of the four Gospels. Secondly if you look in a Bible you will find the passage (John 8:1 - 8:11) is in brackets. This is because it is a late addition to the story and is not found in any of the oldest Gospels of John. Jesus never stoped the execution and never said "Let the One Without Sin Cast the First Stone".

eoin5

Hero Of College wrote: »

Is it the sort who looks at the world and all the **** in it and concludes that God is non-existent or that God is bad?

Is it the sort who studies it for years and can't make up their mind, but remains "sure" that God doesn't exist?

Is it the Liberal political sort who expresses a very convenient belief in God but espouses a way of life or life-choices which could be described as being anathema to God??

You can answer this question by naming your preferred agnostic, or describing your preferred agnostic way of life.

Personally I dislike the Agnostics/Atheists who happen to be bad people, murderers, rapists and such. Of course their take on religion is an almost insignificant factor, but I think its worth saying to ground the topic.

My favourite agnostic: Robert Anton Wilson
My prefered agnostic way of life: Agnostic Theism

Zillah

helena.ryan wrote: »

I dislike anybody who feels the need to always be right

Are you happy being wrong? What exactly does the phrase "need to always be right" mean?

who has no interest in learning

Why do you equate those things? I like being right as often as I can, and the only way I can do that is by learning learning learning. I will always admit when I'm wrong if proven so, and hence thereafter am right once again.

Cactus Col

I think most atheists have a bit of a bad reputation. Pretty much all the ones I know will go about their lives not believing in God / Religion happily enough in a live and let live manner. They may discuss religion or their beliefs ... but wouldn't ram it down other people's throats.

If there is a type of atheist that I do dislike, well, it's the parrots and self congratulatory wannabe intellectuals.

The parrots are those that pretty much seem to repeat what they've heard or read in an attempt to seem witty and smart. The people who will always make a comment about fairies at the bottom of the garden, invisible supermen in space, or being a pastafarian. Like a first year student trying to impress girls with by quoting Bill Hicks and getting an eagle tattoo .... so basically douchebags.

The self congratulatary (arrogant, smug) intellectuals are those that will harp on about atheism being the only intellectual way of thinking, and to think any other way means that person is of little intelligence. Often you will see them with an ironicly religious name. Are also very prone to mocking religion in the hope other smug folk will high 5 them.

Cactus Col

Actually ... rereading that it might seem like I expect atheists to just shut up and put up.

I don't.

I think debate is important. However, in discussions it seems those two types (which are usually the same people) that seem to dominate. I find it annoying, which is why I'd rarely post here.

Whispered

Zillah wrote: »

Are you happy being wrong? What exactly does the phrase "need to always be right" mean?



Why do you equate those things? I like being right as often as I can, and the only way I can do that is by learning learning learning. I will always admit when I'm wrong if proven so, and hence thereafter am right once again.

Can you please not take my quote out of context so that you can find a way to get insulted by it. Of course I am not happy being wrong, I don't feel the need to always be right though. The learning thing was about the sort of person who shouts and roars about what they do and don't believe and will not even consider what other people are saying. The theists know you will go to hell, the athiests know you are a fool. Then you have the people who are happy to discuss things, without taking everything personally. Even if you don't agree with each other, you can learn things from each other.

My comment was expressly about theists and athiests alike as I very clearly say

who thinks their way of thinking is the only correct way and who believe that by not believing (or dis-beliving) what they do you are deserving of extreme contempt. These are common traits amongst people in general, athiest, theist, agnostic, and any other group of people really.

If you feel the need to question that further please be more specific as I believe I explained exactly what I mean in that post?

If there is a type of atheist that I do dislike, well, it's the parrots and self congratulatory wannabe intellectuals.

The parrots are those that pretty much seem to repeat what they've heard or read in an attempt to seem witty and smart. The people who will always make a comment about fairies at the bottom of the garden, invisible supermen in space, or being a pastafarian. Like a first year student trying to impress girls with by quoting Bill Hicks and getting an eagle tattoo .... so basically douchebags.

The self congratulatary (arrogant, smug) intellectuals are those that will harp on about atheism being the only intellectual way of thinking, and to think any other way means that person is of little intelligence.

:cool: I dislike these types too

Cactus Col

helena.ryan wrote: »

:cool: I dislike these types too

And that was the first time I've been thanked ... huzzah!

eoin5

Cactus Col wrote: »

...The people who will always make a comment about fairies at the bottom of the garden, invisible supermen in space, or being a pastafarian.

Theres a very valid point to those things. Its holding up a mirror to religions to show how silly they seem.

adamd164

I can see Cactus Cal's point, those arguments are very frequently trotted out, but I feel it says more about the people who are being lectured to than those doing the lecturing.

nesf

I dislike atheists who masquerade as agnostics just to avoid the stigma in some circles. Don't even start me on people who try to claim agnosticism is another form of atheism.

Cactus Col wrote: »

However, in discussions it seems those two types (which are usually the same people) that seem to dominate. I find it annoying, which is why I'd rarely post here.

Ditto.

Soul Winner

I like intelligent atheists, agnostics and theists. I don't like stupid people who can never know that they are in fact stupid and that includes stupid atheists, agnostics and theists.

What attracts you to Jesus?

indigoangel

Hero Of College wrote: »

For me, Jesus of Nazareth had a tremendous understanding of human nature and a tremendous will and desire. Having endured horrific tortures and mental punishment, he refused to castigate his tormentors, instead forgiving them and offering solace to others around him {the thief on the cross}. He never broke, never recanted and always tried to help people. How many people could approach a mob and with a few simple words dissuade them from stoning a prostitute?? For me, whether he died and went to heaven or died and rotted in the ground is irrelevant. He was a man born of woman who tried his best and never gave up. We would all do well to display the same sort of impetus, temerity and compassion. How many of us could get nailed to a cross and not utter at least a few "Go f**k yourselves, Romans" before we expired?? Christ made believers of his tormentors. That was his lasting legacy.

hmmmmm for someone who claims to admire jesus so much you don't really seem to demonstrate many of his qualites....if he lived these days i doubt very much that you would find him stirring up arguments like you have been across these forums, asking who we hate more.

adamd164

Soul Winner wrote: »

I like intelligent atheists, agnostics and theists. I don't like stupid people who can never know that they are in fact stupid and that includes stupid atheists, agnostics and theists.

I feel the same. Atheism is a necessary condition for clarity of mind, but it doesn't somehow render a person intellectually supreme. That said, I do feel that one can tell a great deal about someone based on their religious views, or lack thereof. So, whilst not the sole indicator of character by a long way, it is a decent one.

Dudess

Well I believe it's likely there's a higher power - it doesn't make sense to me for there not to be one. That said, I wouldn't argue that there definitely is one - it's what I reckon though. But I certainly don't think this higher power is benevolent, merciful, compassionate etc - so in short, I think the god of christianity is a load of arse. I believe in fate, destiny etc - stuff that's out of our hands. E.g. I think our lives are planned for us.
I also don't believe in a higher power just because I want one to be there "looking after us" (this "want", I firmly believe, is one of the main reasons why religion exists). Considering all the horror that goes on, I hardly think we're being "looked after".

I don't practise any religion and I find organised religion rather repulsive really, even more so the way people follow it blindly. I find it mindblowing that christians are expected to give thanks to god if something good happens but it's frowned upon to blame god if something bad happens. The way I see it: sh1t happens outside of our control and it may or may not be controlled by a higher power. Sometimes it's good, sometimes (most of the time probably) it's bad and no praying or giving thanks or whatever is gonna make a difference.

I do believe Jesus existed though, and was a good and obviously highly charismatic man. The values he preached - be compassionate, tolerant, forgiving etc, that to me is what christianity should be about, nothing more. And yet, this man whom devout christians claim to love and follow, has been defied repeatedly for 2,000 years.

Theology, the sociology of religion etc absolutely fascinate me. I would buy into the idea of mental/neurological disorders being the reasons for apparitions, visions etc.

So I don't really know what I am. I don't feel it necessary to stick a label on myself either though.

Tigger

ones that got married in churches

oh and limited christians

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

Atheism is a necessary condition for clarity of mind, but it doesn't somehow render a person intellectually supreme.

What exactly do you mean by clarity of mind?

adamd164

nesf wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by clarity of mind?

I mean that it is the only logical conclusion to which the enquiring mind can come. When one accepts that the notion of a supreme being has been demonstrably fabricated my humans in times of ignorance, one takes a significant step towards understanding and appreciation of the Universe in which we find ourselves.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

I mean that it is the only logical conclusion to which the enquiring mind can come.

I would argue that agnosticism is that conclusion and that the leap to either atheism or theism is a matter of belief and not of logic. Then, I'm the kind of person who takes the problem of induction seriously.

adamd164

nesf wrote: »

I would argue that agnosticism is that conclusion and that the leap to either atheism or theism is a matter of belief and not of logic. Then, I'm the kind of person who takes the problem of induction seriously.

You raise an extremely interesting point; because I think there is much ambiguity surrounding the term "atheist". The dictionary will define it as the belief that god does not exist, however, I suspect that most self-proclaimed atheists would in fact say that they regard god's existence as extremely improbable. I think the reason for this is as follows.

There seems to be a tendency to associate agnosticism with "probability = 0.5" - i.e. the agnostic deems both god's existence and non-existence to be of exactly equal probability. Now clearly we cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural entity (in fact, BY DEFINITION we cannot); however, that is not at all to say that we should deem it to be a 50/50 matter. I hate to be the parrot of tiresome cliché, but flying teapots and all that.

So, to answer your point; if we are to go by the dictionary definitions, I am an agnostic. So too are most here (all?). In colloquial terms, I'm an ardent atheist.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

There seems to be a tendency to associate agnosticism with "probability = 0.5" - i.e. the agnostic deems both god's existence and non-existence to be of exactly equal probability.

No, agnosticism is (broadly speaking) an etymological position concerning statements of truth not of belief. Being an agnostic does not necessarily imply 0.5 probability. Generally, if someone identifies themselves primarily as an agnostic they are stating that they believe that it is impossible to know for sure either way and that they don't believe in either proposition (the existence or non-existence of a God).

I'd be one of these agnostics, but I'd hold the same position about Russell's teapot etc. It's a position that's more concerned with objective truth and whether you can deny that which is unknowable than a specifically religious position. For instance, I believe in evolotion because there is ample empirical evidence to support the belief (but I don't view it as a definite fact necessarily) but on the topic of immaterial "ghosts" I'm agnostic. Does that make sense?

Agnostic theism on the other hand is someone who claims that you cannot know for sure but who chooses to believe (and recognises this belief as being unsupported) in a God/gods/teapots. The difference between an agnostic theist and a theist is the latter believes that God exists and that this is more than mere belief, the former doesn't. It's a similar distinction with agnostic atheists and atheists. If you believe that there is definitely not a God, I don't think you can hold that you are an agnostic strictly speaking.

adamd164

Oh don't get me wrong, I know that agnosticism shouldn't be taken as a statement perceived equal probability. I say only that, in fact, it generally is taken this way. In my own experience, anyway. I would never claim to have absolute knowledge about the issue of god's existence, or about any matter.

If you like, I assume that god does not exist, and live my life as such, but I do not, and cannot, know this. Why then should I consider myself different from a religious person? This comes back to my original point; that it is the conclusion to which one will inevitably come on contemplating the available information.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

Oh don't get me wrong, I know that agnosticism shouldn't be taken as a statement perceived equal probability. I say only that, in fact, it generally is taken this way. In my own experience, anyway. I would never claim to have absolute knowledge about the issue of god's existence, or about any matter.

If you like, I assume that god does not exist, and live my life as such, but I do not, and cannot, know this. Why then should I consider myself different from a religious person? This comes back to my original point; that it is the conclusion to which one will inevitably come on contemplating the available information.

Agnostic theism is as logical a conclusion as agnostic atheism though. They're logically equivalent really. This all works depending on whether or not you believe that all objective truth is empirical etc.

adamd164

Can we call them logically equivalent though? Why should we consider there to be even the possibility of matters not related to the physical universe as we know it? The agnostic atheist does not invoke anything superfluous and which cannot be demonstrated. His position is ergo more logically sound than that of one who does precisely these things.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

Can we call them logically equivalent though? Why should we consider there to be even the possibility of matters not related to the physical universe as we know it? The agnostic atheist does not invoke anything superfluous and which cannot be demonstrated. His position is ergo more logically sound than that of one who does precisely these things.

Like I said it depends on a separate position on whether you believe all objective truth can be empirically observed. It might seem initially logical to take the position, however; for an agnostic, this does not necessarily follow. If you are agnostic about Gods and celestial teapots, why not about unobservable forms of matter? Logical inquiry into this does not necessarily lead to atheism.

adamd164

It's true to say that the worldviews of some are irrevocably in opposition.

For the most part, when I find myself getting irritated at religion or religious people, it's because I find that they are not content to hold their views to themselves, and wish to impart them upon everyone else, and more specifically upon everyone else's children in schools. But that's for another day...

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

For the most part, when I find myself getting irritated at religion or religious people, it's because I find that they are not content to hold their views to themselves, and wish to impart them upon everyone else, and more specifically upon everyone else's children in schools. But that's for another day...

Yeah, generally I've no problem with someone's beliefs so long as they keep them to themselves. I've no real issue with Catholic stuff at Primary level because bluntly most of it is simple morality stuff which is pretty common sense. You can always de-program them at a later age if you care enough. Personally I'm happy to let my son be exposed to it and for him to make up his own mind once he's old enough (essentially what was done with me). I'll have no problem with my son being an atheist, agnostic or a theist so long as he's following his own judgement on it and thinks it through.

Akrasia

Hero Of College wrote: »

I am what I call a "limited Christian"....I believe only in Jesus, and his accomplishments as a MAN.

You believe he raised himself from the dead 'as a man'?

what exactly were his achievements? Managing to piss off the jews and romans enough to crusify him?

Zillah

helena.ryan wrote: »

Of course I am not happy being wrong, I don't feel the need to always be right though.

But what does that mean? Define what it means to "be right" please. If "right" isn't the opposite of "wrong" then I don't know what strange new language we're dealing with here.

adamd164

nesf wrote: »

Like I said it depends on a separate position on whether you believe all objective truth can be empirically observed. It might seem initially logical to take the position, however; for an agnostic, this does not necessarily follow. If you are agnostic about Gods and celestial teapots, why not about unobservable forms of matter? Logical inquiry into this does not necessarily lead to atheism.

nesf, I've given this a bit of thought, and I think that my original statement stands. The agnostic atheist's position is the more logically sound for the following reason. Human beings all agree (or at least the vast majority do) that the evidence used by science in its methodologies is just that -- real, unquestionable evidence.

If someone is on trial for murder, the court of law will seek hard, tangible evidence for a convection. It's no good for the prosecution to claim that they have "faith" in the guilt of the accused. It would make them the laughing stock, and their case would be immediately thrown out.

The same evidence - ruling out chance and based only on the physical, natural world - which is sought by scientists looking to justify a theory is what is deemed appropriate in legal terms.