'What I hate is agnosticism…'
-
Luke_Lars — 17 years ago(November 10, 2008 02:20 AM)
I would say most agnostics are fools because they are inconsistent in their beliefs. They deny the existence of some supernatural entities like the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, but when another equally improbable and absurd supernatural being is mentioned, they suddenly start waxing philosophical about the limits of science and the human senses. It's funny how selective they are.
-
KnifeMcBarrett — 16 years ago(August 03, 2009 10:07 PM)
It was probably just the general observation of a man who doesn't substitute single letters for words and doesn't use more question marks than necessary.
Much like I can observe that the father north I go, the colder the climate becomes. Not true all of the time, but sometimes, and I don't think anyone would ask me to cite sources after making such a comment. -
biggusx — 16 years ago(August 07, 2009 06:08 PM)
Some agnostics may deny the existence of the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clab68us; I, and many others like me, do not. I neither deny nor affirm the exitence of anything whatsoever, since to do so seems an act of faith to me, and faith seems an intellectual limitation. Where do you get the "most agnostics" from? Have there been any surveys of this sort of thing?
Also, I disagree that God is necessarily equally improbable and absurd as the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. If you're talking about the childish caricatures believed in by some biblical literalists (for example), I would agree, but many people have more sophisticated, and in my opinion less improbable conceptions of the divine than that. -
talkinhorse — 13 years ago(August 22, 2012 06:59 PM)
I would say most agnostics are fools because they are inconsistent in their beliefs. They deny the existence of some supernatural entities like the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, but when another equally improbable and absurd supernatural being is mentioned, they suddenly start waxing philosophical about the limits of science and the human senses. It's funny how selective they are.
Your classification seems to include anyone who isn't an atheist. And the foundation you deride is sensible enough. It was my technical education that convinced me materialism was inadequate to
entirely
explain the human experience. If we're not entirely natural, then we must have a touch of the supernatural. That's what I get from science. If you buy that (yeah, some don't), the key question becomes: What
is
this supernatural component? Would it be the God of the Bible, or the Tooth Fairy, or a giant flying spaghetti monster? I answer that question with another question: If we know what science
doesn't
tell us, then we understand what's needed to make the model complete, and we look to fill that void. I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy because a Tooth Fairy doesn't fill the missing piece of the puzzle, but it does conflict with Newtonian physics.
As far as agnostics go, I understand people that scratch their heads in confub68sion. The ones I don't understand are indifferent people. Seems a pretty important question to me. -
crujones-1 — 17 years ago(November 13, 2008 11:02 PM)
Being an agnostic is incredibly simple compared to being a true beleiver or an atheist. Saying your agnostic is saying, "I just don't know". There is not enough proof on either side of the argument. Your comment "How can agnostics be stupid for being unsure about something that can't be seen, heard and touched?" For a Christian or Atheist, "How can you be stupid of being SURE about something that can't be seen, heard and touched?"
-
lukaslukas — 17 years ago(November 15, 2008 05:46 PM)
Atheists say they don't believe in things there is no evidence for. They are not saying they are sure of something. And if they do, it's just a practical conclusion.
Are you also agnostic about unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
My vote history
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21237198