Eorl
Your arguments are so wrong...I almost don't know where to begin.
I'll take it piece by piece.
Quote: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"
No, Eorl. Atheism, at best, can say to people who "believe" there is a God....that they (the atheists) "believe" there are no gods.
And I've never seen anything that even remotely resembles evidence that there are no gods other than..."you people cannot produce your gods."
Quote: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.
Well...the fact of the matter is that theistic claims MAY indeed be true. Their guesses about REALITY may be correct. And of course, atheistic claims MAY indeed be true. Your guesses about REALITY may be correct.
Are you suggesting that you know their claims ARE NOT TRUE?
And if so, please produce your proof of this assertion.
Quote: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.
If a majority of the people want something to happen...and there are no safeguards in place to protect the rights of the minority...then whatever the majority wants happens.
That is a discussion better suited for the political forum.
Here, we are discussing the question: What is the true nature of REALITY?
I do not know the true nature of REALITY....so I cannot exclude the possibility that there is a God...or the possibility that there are no gods.
If you can...produce the evidence upon which you base it so we can all see it and evaluate it.
Quote: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?)
Atheism allows for only one thing: It allows theists to continue with their reasoning that the true nature of REALITY can be known...or surmised. It does not contradict that assertion. It merely suggests that the theists are wrong in what they claim to know, believe, or surmise.
Essentially, atheism is simply guessing in the opposite direction of what theism guesses.
Atheism, in short, abets theism.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, challenges the foundations of theism...something atheism cannot do.
Quote:In summary I propose that: Agnosticism is fine for the individual while atheism has more to contribute to society !?
The only thing atheism has to contribute to society is the perpetuation of the myth that the ultimate nature of REALITY can be known or surmised.
That is a net negative for society.
Atheism has nowhere near as much to contribute to society than does agnosticism.
