@billyjooe, I gotta hold out for the faeries! (and yes Virginia, I won’t give up on Santa).
I think we need some refinement of what it means to be agnostic (as the cartoon illustrates so humorously). Belief that human knowledge is moving quickly and we really, still, don’t have a clue, could lead to speculation of the origin of the big bang (or “creator” theories). This could put one in the agnostic camp but doesn’t mean he thinks the “creator” had or has any knowledge or intent regarding the little spec of cosmic dust we inhabit.
Without evidence there is no reason to believe. This applies to everything. It applies to faeries, and it applies to gods.
The universe looks just like it would if there were no gods and therefore there is no reason to believe in gods.
This is atheism.
(There is a strong form of atheism that states that there is evidence amounting to proof that gods do not exist. For example, the evidence from anthropology is that Man created gods and then narrowed it down to the ine true God. Not that God created man. Probably the only type of god not yet disproven is the deist god whose sole role was to trigger off the Big Bang. Yet we have a good naturalistic theory of how to get from nothing to something and no theory as to how the deist god came about.)
Agnostics just haven’t considered the fact that all the evidence points against the existence of gods and God. It is simply not true that there is “no knowledge” (about the existence of gods or God) as the term “agnostic” implies.
Great cartoon. Gets a big smile from me. And points up the problem of generally accepted, but potentially misunderstood, definitions.
Atheist: there is no convincing evidence for god, therefore I do not hold a belief in god (ditto faeries)
Agnostic: there is no convincing evidence for god and no convincing evidence against god therefore I withold my judgement (what about faeries?).
@billyjooe, I gotta hold out for the faeries! (and yes Virginia, I won’t give up on Santa).
I think we need some refinement of what it means to be agnostic (as the cartoon illustrates so humorously). Belief that human knowledge is moving quickly and we really, still, don’t have a clue, could lead to speculation of the origin of the big bang (or “creator” theories). This could put one in the agnostic camp but doesn’t mean he thinks the “creator” had or has any knowledge or intent regarding the little spec of cosmic dust we inhabit.
http://wigglewordofgod.com/post/15840522614/atheists-and-agnostics-mano-singham
brian,
Without evidence there is no reason to believe. This applies to everything. It applies to faeries, and it applies to gods.
The universe looks just like it would if there were no gods and therefore there is no reason to believe in gods.
This is atheism.
(There is a strong form of atheism that states that there is evidence amounting to proof that gods do not exist. For example, the evidence from anthropology is that Man created gods and then narrowed it down to the ine true God. Not that God created man. Probably the only type of god not yet disproven is the deist god whose sole role was to trigger off the Big Bang. Yet we have a good naturalistic theory of how to get from nothing to something and no theory as to how the deist god came about.)
Agnostics just haven’t considered the fact that all the evidence points against the existence of gods and God. It is simply not true that there is “no knowledge” (about the existence of gods or God) as the term “agnostic” implies.