Nem said:
I didnt say there wasnt. But it really is ridiculous. If you are Agnostic you know there is not reason to believe there is a god. The Atheist just goes a step further and concludes that the absense of proof actually can conclude a probable absense of a God. Because as an agnostic knows, there is no reason to believe he exists. Disproving something that doesn't exist is impossible. So sure, if you want to pretend there is a middle ground go ahead. But its just a position where you refuse to draw a conclusion. The same postition can be said about a teapot orbiting Mars. Is there a teapot orbiting mars? We don't know until we have proof. But you know there isnt one. So, yes my conclusion, wich isnt a simplication, is an observation on the obvious conclusion that the agnostic refuses to take a stand on to try and keep a semblance of some "neutrality". But quite honestly, i find it a bit disonest. |
What you describe as an agnost isn't agnostic at all. If you're agnostic, you're uncommited to a belief system and don't necassarily believe in god, but it also implies you don't don't belive in god/gods/forces of nature.
Agnosticism is a middle way, it's not a step towards atheïsm. I'm agnostic, I used to be Catholic but I wrote myself out of the register. I don't believe in the christian dogma's, but I just as well refuse to take an absolute cold stance on spirituality. it's not dishonest, it's what differentiates us between atheïsts and practitioning believers.
You do what you want with your religious stance, but don't tow agnosts with atheïsts, because THAT is dishonest.
