I consider myself an atheist, though I would not complain if someone called me an agnostic, because in terms of practically living your life, there is no difference. The assumption that there is no god and the assumption that we can’t know god both equate to living life without the influence of god. You take issue with the labels, I say forget them. How we live our lives is more important.
“I’m sure you would not be offended, but I would be offended to be associated with someone who thinks that knowledge and beliefs are one and the same. And there is that Atheist twist on Agnostic “we Can’t know”… Its I don’t know! NOT you can’t know, see the relevance?”
What I imagine you actually take more issue with about New Atheists is their tendency to attack religion. Well, first of all, it is perfectly acceptable to question, debate, and even deride a set of ideas; that is how the most correct ideas are found after all. Secondly, as an agnostic, do you really believe in the possibility that Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, et cetera could be correct? These are all man-made, selfish, and hurtful ideologies. As an agnostic, you only need to believe that there could be some sort of deity above the natural laws of the universe. You do not have any obligation to even contemplate the possibility of other man-made drivel being true.
“1. I would ind it a complete wast of time sitting around with a group of people discussing what we all don’t believe in. 2. You ask an agnostic if they believe and I bet you were scratching your head when I said I would be offended if you were called an atheist. Agnostic ism has nothing to do with beliefs or lack there of… NOTHING! 🙂 Now you are going to presume to tell me how to be agnostic… And I need to believe in what you perceive to be reality… I think not lol.”
Assuming you believe what I have just stated as the minimum requirements for an agnostic, why do you have a problem with attacking the ideas of religion? They are an objectively hurtful influence on our world, and since you believe we cannot know god, their claims to know god are fraud. By my estimation, you should be right there with the New Atheists attacking religious ideology, or, at the very least, accepting it as appropriate.
“Of I don’t believe your logical non-sequitor fallacy If X then y must be true… And now you have set minimum requirements for me to know nothing… what lol??? Why do I NOT attack religion? Because I do not have a problem with anyone who chooses to believe in something and take issue with ignorant people who do.”
But perhaps you are an agnostic that believes one of the man-made religions could be true (for some reason clearly not based on evidence). Could you ever really be converted to one of these religions if they somehow “proved” the existence of their god? If so, I am not sure you fall into what would be traditionally called agnostic. An agnostic is someone who believes we CAN’T know if god exists. It is not simply an admission of ignorance to be dispelled with new evidence. It is a denial that humans could ever find evidence of the supernatural, given the nature of the supernatural. I find this position reasonable, as I do not believe anyone could prove or disprove god. But it seems to me that you are waiting to be converted to a religion. If this is incorrect, then it follows that you should support the New Atheists, who are arguing on every level of society that the religious canNOT prove the existence of god, a claim you would believe.
“Here you go again showing your utter lack of knowledge on Agnosticism… I like all agnostics just admit tghe truth… I don’t know… is that so hard for you to understand? Is someone proved god existed I would surely consider God’s validity I would not be like one of those nitwits who continued to deny that the earth is round even after it was proven.. What atheist fool …I mean flat earther would do that? 🙂 If you believe the matter of god can be neither proven nor disproven… the only logical conclusion is to suspend judgement is it not? If I supported the “NEW ATHEISTS” Then we would both be wrong 🙂
If your problem is more to do with the seeming arrogance or otherwise unpleasant demeanor of prominent New Atheists(as many people take fault with), that is a matter of taste and not ideology.
“My problem is the same problem you Atheists, as you have with Theists”
Let me know what you really believe so I can try to understand! Because right now, I don’t see the purpose of this blog. It seems to me that you rail against the label atheist without really disagreeing on how they live their lives. Or, if you do disagree with how they live their lives, I would love to know how their assault on man-made religion conflicts with your beliefs. Please do respond!
“I really don’t believe anything I’m an AGNOSTIC…wtf do you not understand? I can see why you don’t understand anything you don’t understand what your talking about … and your opinion on any of it is moot…” But I do appreciated you dropping by.
Just a note … use less words… you will come off as less stupid and arrogant…
atheism as intellectual laziness
Atheists: The Origin of the Species seems to have been born out of frustration with these and other confusions perpetuated by the so-called “New Atheists” and their allies, who can’t be bothered to familiarize themselves with the traditions they traduce. Several thoughtful writers have already laid bare the slapdash know-nothingism of today’s mod-ish atheism, but Spencer’s not beating a dead horse—he’s beating a live one, in the hope that Nietzsche might rush to embrace it. Several critics have noted that if evangelical atheists (as the philosopher John Gray calls them) are ignorant of religion, as they usually are, then they aren’t truly atheists. “The knowledge of contraries is one and the same,” as Aristotle said. If your idea of God is not one that most theistic traditions would recognize, you’re not talking about God (at most, the New Atheists’ arguments are relevant to the low-hanging god of fundamentalism and deism). But even more damning is that such atheists appear ignorant of atheism as well.
For atheists weren’t always as intellectually lazy as Dawkins and his ilk. (Nor, to be sure, are many atheists today—Coyne accused me of “atheist-bashing” the last time I wrote about religion for Slate, but I really only bashed evangelical atheists like him. My father and sister, most of my friends, and many of the writers I most admire are nonbelievers. They’re also unlikely to mistake the creation myth recounted above for anything more than the dreariest parascientific thinking.)