Agnostic vs Atheist

I've already had my discussions with you, Frank. Nothing to be gained by reiterating what's already said. Go peddle your papers where the gullible roam.

When I don't know, you will be the first I tell.

edgarblythe wrote:

I log in as an atheist. I don't consider agnosticism viable, any more than religion.

Theism is pretty much a belief (or guess) that there is a God.

Atheism is pretty much a belief (or guess) that there are no gods.

Agnosticism is acknowledgement that we do not know...and further acknowledges that we do not have enough unambiguous evidence about the nature of REALITY specifically to include or exclude the notion of gods.

Atheists and theists are essentially the same thing...except that the guesses made are in different directions.

Frank Apisa wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

I log in as an atheist. I don't consider agnosticism viable, any more than religion.

Theism is pretty much a belief (or guess) that there is a God.

Atheism is pretty much a belief (or guess) that there are no gods.

Agnosticism is acknowledgement that we do not know...and further acknowledges that we do not have enough unambiguous evidence about the nature of REALITY specifically to include or exclude the notion of gods.

Atheists and theists are essentially the same thing...except that the guesses made are in different directions.

You honestly see the multiple assumption based position that there is an all powerful entity,and this entity created the universe somehow, and further this entity took a roll in human development, as being on the level with the assumption this isn't the case?
No attack here, I am honestly curious. I have seen you chant this mantra enough times to realize you probably aren't joking...

For a true dichotomy, it would have to be an assertion of 'something' vs an assertion of 'nothing'. An atheist doesn't have to assert 'nothing' In fact, I have never heard an intelligent (or even unintelligent, for that matter) atheist assert 'the universe came from nothing'
That theists do not assert an ambiguous 'something', but a very specific and defined 'something', makes their proposition even more unlikely than 'nothing', as they are adding un-needed causes as per occams razor

Would you not, in order to be truly 'agnostic', have to lend the more credibility to 'nothing' (an absolute) than any specific variation of 'something' (abrahamic, hindu, norse, etc)?
Meaning, to be agnostic, would you not have to accept all possibilities and variations of deity as equally likely?
I am truly curious.

Frank can't think beyond his agnosticism. He thinks no one else can, too. He is like a beetle in a jar, waving his legs, unable to get anywhere.

It doesn't have to be a matter of black and white absolutes, frank, when shades of grey and probability will do.
Do you ascribe equal weight to the flying spaghetti monster as you do to the abrahamic deity?

If not, why?

This is not a joke or bait, this is an honest question.

You are right, nobody knows the nature of reality, and any position taken on such is essentially a guess.

This does not mean all guesses are equally probable, though.

Ah, Frank, if you but had the guts you so vehemenently espouse, you would quit your quibbling with the imaginary and accept what in your gut you probably know.

I get weary, oh so weary, of this go around the merrygoround.

I post only to mention that I'd like to see BDV's original post clarified a bit.
Reminds me a bit of my own stream of consciousness posting, so I can't be too critical.