Are agnostics fence sitters?

[Leinad]

First of all, I emphatically agree with basically everything Tony said. But I'd like to add two things:

-The existence of some form of deity or supernatural thing is very, very possible. Frankly, the entire nature of existence makes no sense whatsoever. We're all just...here? Now, adding a god of sorts, I suppose, doesn't solve all the problems, but the point is that being open to some form of deity is not the same thing as being open to the existence of fairy tales.

-I reject the idea that Agnosticism is a "get out of jail free card." I mean, on the off chance the Bible is true, I'm going to the same hell an Atheist is, and if it's not, we're all going to the same...nothing, I suppose.

[afleitch]

Frankly, the entire nature of existence makes no sense whatsoever. We're all just...here? Now, adding a god of sorts, I suppose, doesn't solve all the problems, but the point is that being open to some form of deity is not the same thing as being open to the existence of fairy tales.

It may make no sense to us, but it's not there for us to make 'sense' of it (at least in a non materialistic way) If there is something 'other' about the universe, something greater, why should it accord to what we think such a thing might be?

[Gunnar Larsson]

Given the hypothetical nature of a "God" if one exists (a consciousness of sorts that created space and time), it seems agnosticism is the natural position for those who don't belief, rather than atheism.

That is the intellectual of most people regarded as atheists (including myself). I don't remember the details (so hopefully someone can fill me in/correct me if I am wrong), but as far as I remember Dawkins has a ranking in one of his books between 0 being a devout theist and 7 being a "devout" atheist. He place himself at 6. His position basically being that you cannot know if there is a god/many gods, but that he considers the existence of a god very unlikely.

[DemPGH]

No. Agnosticism simply says you cannot know/posit supernatural activity. You cannot posit anything beyond what is physically demonstrable. That is reasonable.

Now, because religion has imposed so much on human beings over the centuries (God has done this, God has done that over there, God wishes any number of things, God has created everything), and has assumed as fact infinitely more than it should, it has created a backlash in rational times. "Angry atheists" or whatever. Agnosticism, though, is sufficiently skeptical as to qualify as NOT "sitting on the fence."

[ingemann]

Discussing the differences between agnosticism and atheistism are like discussing the difference between Marxism-Leninism and Leninism, it's intellectural wankery to prove how one is somehow a unique flower and no body else really gives a f**k.

[Figueira]

Discussing the differences between agnosticism and atheistism are like discussing the difference between Marxism-Leninism and Leninism, it's intellectural wankery to prove how one is somehow a unique flower and no body else really gives a f**k.

I disagree. It's an interesting philosophical coversation, and there are agnostic theists as well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Lapel clutching about labels is pretty much the opposite of interesting philosophical discussion...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Lapel clutching about labels is pretty much the opposite of interesting philosophical discussion...

I can't decide if this counts as approbation of or an implicit slam against Wittgenstein (who I actually kind-of understand now, unlike the last time I brought him up on the forum several years ago).