Agnosticism

A lot of people claim to be agnostic but most are actually just not very religious theists. (cough, hazel , cough, poser, cough, agnostic wannabee) There’s your special mention:)

There are many flavors of agnosticism but generally agnosticism is non-comittance to either atheism or theism. They will not outright say that there is a god they also will not say that there is no god. Some might say that they’re being safe some may say that they’re being indecisive. Either way most agnostics are usually pretty smart people and they have my respect as objective thinkers

Agnosticism is a logically and scientifically sound position. 1.) Lack of evidence for the existence of an entity is not evidence against its existence. Analogously 2.) lack of evidence against the non-existence of an entity is not proof for its existence. 3.) An unsupported assumption shouldn’t be considered true until sufficient evidence pointing towards the probability of its validity is found but one cannot come to the definite conclusion that it cannot be true until conclusive evidence were found supporting that thesis. If you connect the premises above you arrive at agnosticism

Atheism

Atheism is not a religion. It’s the utter lack, or some may say, the utter rejection of one. Science and logic are the language that atheists speak. Supernaturalism is a language that they reject.

A theist would content himself with the easily digestible explanation that an unexplained and unexplainable entity is responsible for everything that he cannot understand Whereas most atheists wouldn’t be content with an answer that wasn’t derived and cannot be derived through scientific means.

An example would be the question of how the universe came into existence. Theists would be content with the easy and simplistic answer that a supernatural entity created everything. And that’s where all inquiries stop. For them, there is no need to ask where this supernatural entity came from or the process by which it created the universe. A common argument you’ll hear from a theist is “That’s like a pot questioning a potter” –funny that they’re comparing their intellectual capacity to a pot.

Atheists on the other hand would require a more scientific answer and if no definitive answer is available or if no answer is ever found, then it will simply remain an unanswered question. Their desire for an answer will not make them go the easy route by saying “because god made it so”

Similarities, differences and a critique of the agnostic’s position

One similarity between agnostics and atheists is that they both ask questions. They do not readily accept doctrine that was passed on to them. I’m not saying that All theists are gullible. It’s just that theists tend to compartmentalize. They may not be very easily persuaded in other areas but when it comes to their religion, they tend to be like sheep, going where their shepherd leads them

One major difference between agnostics and atheists is that the latter is usually more knowledgeable in science while the former is usually more philosophically inclined. The agnostic’s argument is valid to a point but that same argument could be used to support agnosticism towards more fantastic creatures like fairies and bogeymen or towards other gods like zeus, shiva or titan since after all their existence hasn’t been disproven and theoretically cannot be disproven. Truth of the matter is that not a single shred of evidence supports any of these entities and a truly objective thinker should be equally as “atheistic” or agnostic to all of them

Some agnostics are mystified by the complexity of life and the universe itself that’s why they still consider the possibility of creation. Most atheists are aware of how mystifying and “un-common-sensical” science itself can be and how introducing such a simplistic and unsupported answer would be comparable to spitting on the face of intellectual inquiry

I consider myself a strong atheist. I reject the concept of a supernatural, sentient, personal creator of the universe. For me the concept of a supernatural god is not only a redundant, unnecessary variable it also goes against proper reasoning. If proof were to be found supporting the existence of a sentient creator then I will be swayed. But as it is, I reject the concept the same way that most people reject the existence of gods aside from their own. All gods are completely unsupported by scientific evidence and I don’t really need to disprove anything since there is no need to disprove anything that hasn’t been proven in the first place.

For more of my arguments on the issue, check out my “on atheism” category