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.