Okay...let's see...where was I...

My goodness, here's the bull dog back.

Just bookmarking, Frank

Long period of silence, Frank! People had started posting again on the "Where is Frank?" thread.
what happened this time?

Good to hear from you again, Frank. What happened, anyway? I've never heard anything concrete. Again, glad to have you back.

Hi everyone.

Glad to be back.

I had initiated a thread asking Blatham and Lola about their opinions on agnosticism/atheism...and one of the blockheads (not Blatham or Lola) called me a liar.

I used my usual tact in responding....and got booted again.

I guess I was just reinstated.

Hope Blatham and Lola get to posting in this thread. I really want to have this discussion. And maybe, just maybe, we can have it without the idiot intruding.

I was wonderin' about you myself. Life has been too easy without you.

Why do Blatham and Lola think agnosticism is inferior to atheism? They, in-person, must have given a reason?

Frank said:


Heh.

For myself, I decided to go with agnosticism because of a) the lack of evidence proving God's existence, b) the lack of evidence disproving God's existence, and c) The openness and curiosity associated with agnosticism makes for a good transitionary state until solid evidence comes along...which could be never, and d) The (technically) unknowable nature of the universe makes the statement "I don't know" seem to be the only thing I can know.

I understand how some people could be led to the position that atheism is the only "real" position that contrasts with theism, but agnosticism is, to me, a position all its own, not just an expression of confusion, so I think it serves as an intelligent position.

Others' views?

Have had my fill of arguments related to religion for a while. Will just follow along and see where this thread goes

Frank,
Good to see you back.

Some days I believe in god, other days I don't. Flipflopticism at its finest.

Hi Frank........unfortunately we can't respond this week. We're not at home. Back next week.

If that is Blatham and Lola's position, I agree with them and I am eagerly waiting to witness the fireworks.

I believe the correct spelling is Flipflopism. And, yes it is a religion of many adherents. As noted by Voltaire: "Imagine every possible contradiction and inconsistency, and you will find them all in the government, law courts, churches, and entertainments of this nation."

Fliflosophy, or fliflopsody - kind of catchy.

Frank, since they won't bite, do you mind if I suggest at least some ways that agnosticism could be called inferior to atheism?

Agnostics clearly have defendable ground philosophically. It is a fortress on a hill. It also allows the rest of the town to be pillaged and burnt while you rest securely inside your castle.

Atheism has the ability to say "I think you theists are wrong, and I do actually have HEAPS of evidence to back up that claim"

Agnostics have to accept that most (if not all) theist claims may in fact be true, therefore cannot effectively argue against actions theists may want to take with which you would otherwise object.

For example: A theist may declare that every baby born in the village will be baptised because a god expects it to be done. An agnostic would find this harder to counter than an atheist, for he is forced to concede that the theist may, in fact, be right if the agnostic has no proof that it isn't true.

Also, atheism allows for the potential establishment of a "default" system of belief: ie "There are no gods until someone proves otherwise" which allows systems of government , law, etc. to function on that basis. An agnostic system would have to allow for every individual system of belief which would be impractical because of the contradictions (which could be why the USA struggles with separation of church and state?)

In summary I propose that: Agnosticism is fine for the individual while atheism has more to contribute to society !?

Lots of good stuff here.

Gotta go hit the ball around.

I'll respond when I get back.

check in.

Blessing of the fleet, Thursday, Joe!

An agnostic would respond that secularism, not atheism, is necessary for the proper functioning of government. The USA struggles with church/state separation because in a democracy most issues become a struggle. U.S. democracy tries to balance majority rule with protection of minority rights.

the major difference, as far as I can see, is the company one keeps. Agnostics can be sooo boring as simply to pass-out in any public place (or sidewalk( whereas atheists are like party animals.
High Frank!