artboyz wrote:

Because I don't think it's necessary. Their existence is a red herring. I don't feel obliged to make factual claims about someone else's fantasy. While I agree that there is not the slightest basis for believing in any gods, it is intellectually dishonest to say you know they don't exist.

I see it as exactly the opposite. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that one cannot say gods do not exist. Why give gods any more consideration than faeries?

Besides, doing so opens the door for the believer to ask for proof of their non-existence. I say that's besides the point.

They can ask all they want. The burden of proof is on them no matter what anyone else says. The person making the positive claim cannot shift the burden of proof to those that do not believe the claim being made.

The reasons religion came to be still exist. Human conceit demands we know everything. The next step in our philosophical evolution is to allow the gaps in our knowledge to be just that. It is not necessary to describe the world in terms of what it is not.

Admitting that there are no gods is not describing the world in terms of what it is not. The description of the whole does not rely upon the existence of gods or not. There are billions of other descriptors.

One reason we have to admit that gods do not exist is that too many that believe gods do exist are trying to ruin our society, trying to retard the progress of humanity, with their god beliefs. Once humanity has admitted that gods are an expensive waste of resources, we can start to progress again.

"One reason we have to admit that gods do not exist is that too many that believe gods do exist are trying to ruin our society, trying to retard the progress of humanity, with their god beliefs. Once humanity has admitted that gods are an expensive waste of resources, we can start to progress again."

I don't think we can ever influence believers by moderating our position, either pro or con. They are not interested in our perspective, so it seems silly to address them while trying to define ourselves. If believers did not exist we would not suggest that their beliefs are not real.

I know this is a tedious amount of hair splitting. I feel very kindred to your views. I'm just trying to get some perspective on the whole agnostic thing. I can't help but feel that absolutism from atheists, trying to create a rational world view, turns off some who feel that it is too antagonistic to believers. I feel that in time if we focus on the known without taking a position on the unknown we can woo the low hanging fruit.

While I agree that religion is far more harmful than helpful, to say it is ruining society is a stretch. Society is ruining itself. Its just using religion as one of the tools of descruction. Selfishness and ignorance will find a way to perpetuate itself until there is nothing to be gained by it.

artboyz wrote:

I don't think we can ever influence believers by moderating our position, either pro or con. They are not interested in our perspective, so it seems silly to address them while trying to define ourselves. If believers did not exist we would not suggest that their beliefs are not real.

I have no desire to moderate my views in order to placate believers. If they wish to waste their lives in a mythology; that's their business. As long as they stay out of my life, I'll stay out of theirs.

I know this is a tedious amount of hair splitting. I feel very kindred to your views. I'm just trying to get some perspective on the whole agnostic thing. I can't help but feel that absolutism from atheists, trying to create a rational world view, turns off some who feel that it is too antagonistic to believers. I feel that in time if we focus on the known without taking a position on the unknown we can woo the low hanging fruit.

Why "woo" them anyway? They have a right to their beliefs. They just need to learn to keep them out of our schools, our government, and my life. I do not need to support my beliefs by getting others to believe as I do.

The whole "agnostic thing" has several factions. One is that the person just doesn't like the harshness or the absolutism associated with Atheists. That's always based on a strawman definition of Atheist. Others believe the term covers some middle of the road position. It does not. Other just like it because it's trendy.

While I agree that religion is far more harmful than helpful, to say it is ruining society is a stretch.

I don't think so. Look what the religious believers have done in this country; they supported an invasion of another country based on lies. Over a million people died and he got re-elected.

Society is ruining itself. Its just using religion as one of the tools of descruction. Selfishness and ignorance will find a way to perpetuate itself until there is nothing to be gained by it.

Religion is more than a tool, it is the arm swinging the axe.

[QUOTE=mountain_man;677615]I see it as exactly the opposite. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that one cannot say gods do not exist. Why give gods any more consideration than faeries?.[/QUOTE]

You know, Mountain_man, every time someone says "I do not believe in fairies", somewhere there's a fairy who drops dead! I hope you're clapping!

[QUOTE=artboyz;677151]Not so easy. Can we talk about viability of the premise that agnosticism is in fact a rhetorical compromise geared toward sowing peace in the family? Or am I the only one in the world who sees it that way?[/QUOTE]

I've seen agnosticism as an attempt to be as precise as possible (given the whole unknowability and not being able to prove a negative thing that you mentioned) but if it can also sow peace with believers, so much the better. 

The problem is that most believers I've known don't make a distinction between agnosticism and atheism, viewing both as essentionally atheistic even after the difference is explained to them.  And from their point of view, they're right -- to them anything that isn't "yay god" is "nay god" and the latter means atheist.