The Vegan Thread

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Atheism, pah!

Atheists generally are not atheists through any kind of certainty of the non-existnece of gods (although there are 'hard' / 'strong' / 'positive' atheists), they are atheist through reasoning that gods are unlikely.

Of course if we want to apply a technical application of agnosticism, we would have to conclude that we are all agnostic about whether the sun will rise in the morning ? Whether the sky appears blue ? Whether the Eiffel tower is in Paris ? If I drop this ball will gravity carry it to the ground ? Are these my hands ? No one can be inerrantly certain about anything, rather we all hold reasoned views.

So for most reasoned views we do not feel the need to describe ourselves as uncertain, if asked are your eyes above your feet when stood up, most people don't struggle to take a strong position on the question, although technically they can never be 100% sure.

So for all practical purposes atheistic is how I would describe someone who thinks the idea of Shiva or Yahweh is vanishingly unlikely to the point of being unreasonable and nonsensical - in the same way that most people operate with reasoned certainty that they have hands and the sun will rise - although technically they could always find out they are wrong.

Atheism is not about certainty (that is found right at the other end of the spectrum - by definition - in religious belief) it's an expression of a reasoned opinion on a single proposition, it's only given the 'certain' label when contrasted with agnosticism, the three (atheist, agnostic and theist) are pitched as if they are the equidistant points on a liner graph of certainty, with agnosticism sat in the centre, but they are not.

Agnosticism is, for me at least, much more problematic, what after all would you be agnostic about ? Most people would conceded they are agnostic about the abrahamic gods, which in itself is a (at least partial) tacit admission to the idea of abrahamic gods actually being a cogent idea.

Even putting aside the Abraham gods, with agnosticism if a kid walked up to you in a supermarket and told you there was a blue dog living in his hand that controlled the world's banking system as well as being the creator of the universe - and when anyone tries to look for the dog it disappears - you would technically have to remain agnostic about this dog, you cannot after all demonstrate it's non-exitance . . . but you can reason the whole story is bullshit and so call yourself atheist (or a-dogist) in this context as you do not believe the dog exists, you do not have to know for certain to reject the idea as a load of stinking shit.

It gets worse for the Agnostic, even if the kid tells you 30 seconds later that he was only joking, you would technically have to remain agnostic as you can never know with inerrancy that he is telling the truth.

I think the only really tenable position is theological noncognitivism, even further down the food chain of certainty than agnosticism, but without the tacit tip-of-the-hat to (usually) the Abrahmic religions or other god hypotheses, but, although a theological noncognitivist, for practical concerns I would call myself an atheist - and certainly never agnostic.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, stuff, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, chocolate, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, crisps, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, eggs, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I could go on.