3 ms·

I think I get what you’re saying. Atheism and agnosticism are different, you’re right, I’m using the concepts wrong. Hadn’t previously considered that positive

I think I get what you’re saying. Atheism and agnosticism are different, you’re right, I’m using the concepts wrong. Hadn’t previously considered that positive atheism and general “not-taking-sides” atheism weren’t the same thing. Atheism just seems like a dumb concept the closer I look. Seems to be more than a dry classification system more than anything. Either you don’t have an opinion, or you’re actively of the opinion that other gods don’t exist and you’ll argue with people about it. It seems like agnostic atheism is really just (what I’d consider) agnosticism. My argument that agnosticism is atheism++ is wrong, but atheism as a concept is worth discarding altogether.

Nursie 4y ago
Thanks for listening, and sorry for the snark levels - I haven't delved into this for some years and I got a bit riled up just like I used to on usenet and fark ... (edit - I believe it's quite common to think of them as a sort of spectrum from theism, through agnosticism and out to atheism on the other side, and I'm not sure that's wrong for everyone, but there is definitely philosophical space for agnostic atheism, and it may even be the dominant strain. May not of course!) > Either you don’t have an opinion, or you’re actively of the opinion that other gods don’t exist and you’ll argue with people about it. I have opinions, as do many agnostic atheists - that there is no evidence for gods, that belief in them is therefore unsupportable and ridiculous, that religions largely are harmful to society and adherents both in conception (because of the requirement for faith and the discarding of reason), and in execution (just look at what organised religion tends to do when enough people follow). Not that I'm a particular fan of his, but Richard Dawkins fits into the definition of agnostic atheist, and last I looked he had quite a lot to say on the matter!
- raydiatian 4y ago
  I think my gripe with atheism is that (in my opinion) it’s a shack built up against a building that needs to be torn down. I know that’s not how it is: religions exist regardless of how none of them can provide a proof to base their claims. But atheism doesn’t exist without somebody being theistic. That just seems so, so odd. For instance, nobody can be Aflarglethnackist, because flarglethnacks are extremely undefined, because I just invented the word out of thin air (AFAIK). In a perfect world, the only way humans would bother to answer the question “How did my consciousness get here? What will happen to my consciousness when I die?” is by replying “we really don’t know.” That is agnosticism to me. And so agnosticism seems so perfectly correct in its approach that it seems silly to bother tossing in atheism to make it more specific to contrast against an implicitly misguided concept at its core (theism). If you’re agnostic, whether the ‘reality’ is that it’s gods or flarglethnacks or an endless sea of paperclips waiting for you on the other side, it hardly makes a difference whether you’re “atheist”. But I get that I’m wishing, and that’s not how things are, agnosticism applied in the context of a world where religions matter, and thus the words have different meaning than I intend.

Nursie 4y ago

Thanks for listening, and sorry for the snark levels - I haven't delved into this for some years and I got a bit riled up just like I used to on usenet and fark ... (edit - I believe it's quite common to think of them as a sort of spectrum from theism, through agnosticism and out to atheism on the other side, and I'm not sure that's wrong for everyone, but there is definitely philosophical space for agnostic atheism, and it may even be the dominant strain. May not of course!) > Either you don’t have an opinion, or you’re actively of the opinion that other gods don’t exist and you’ll argue with people about it. I have opinions, as do many agnostic atheists - that there is no evidence for gods, that belief in them is therefore unsupportable and ridiculous, that religions largely are harmful to society and adherents both in conception (because of the requirement for faith and the discarding of reason), and in execution (just look at what organised religion tends to do when enough people follow). Not that I'm a particular fan of his, but Richard Dawkins fits into the definition of agnostic atheist, and last I looked he had quite a lot to say on the matter!

raydiatian 4y ago
I think my gripe with atheism is that (in my opinion) it’s a shack built up against a building that needs to be torn down. I know that’s not how it is: religions exist regardless of how none of them can provide a proof to base their claims. But atheism doesn’t exist without somebody being theistic. That just seems so, so odd. For instance, nobody can be Aflarglethnackist, because flarglethnacks are extremely undefined, because I just invented the word out of thin air (AFAIK). In a perfect world, the only way humans would bother to answer the question “How did my consciousness get here? What will happen to my consciousness when I die?” is by replying “we really don’t know.” That is agnosticism to me. And so agnosticism seems so perfectly correct in its approach that it seems silly to bother tossing in atheism to make it more specific to contrast against an implicitly misguided concept at its core (theism). If you’re agnostic, whether the ‘reality’ is that it’s gods or flarglethnacks or an endless sea of paperclips waiting for you on the other side, it hardly makes a difference whether you’re “atheist”. But I get that I’m wishing, and that’s not how things are, agnosticism applied in the context of a world where religions matter, and thus the words have different meaning than I intend.