re: #25 Nyet

Believing that God is unknowable is also just another unsupported belief, i.e. faith. Agnostics are not some objective, neutral observers they often think they are.

So what are saying? That the existence/nonexistence of god is knowable? I ask because if you’re not saying that, then you’re just playing with the definitions of words to reach the conclusions you prefer.

Come to think of it, could we all please stop arguing over the definitions of atheism, agnosticism, belief, and faith? Because that’s all we’re arguing over, definitions. It would be cool if it stopped at “this is how I prefer to define such & such,” but it never stops at that. It always devolves into “no, no, no, this is the only way to define so & so because I don’t like the conclusions implied by the other definition(s). And you’re being a closed-minded, dummy, jerk, poo-poo-head for not seeing it the way I do.”

If you define belief and faith narrowly in the religious sense, and atheism narrowly as the lack of religious faith, and agnosticism as saying the existence of an unfalsifiable being is unknowable, then atheism and agnosticism aren’t beliefs. But if you define these terms more broadly, then atheism and agnosticism are beliefs on matters of faith. If you define faith even broader, then all of science, or even all concrete knowledge and human experience, is faith. Because how do you know the world around you is real, and that you’re not just plugged into the friggin’ matrix or something?

Do you see what I mean, everybody? If you wax the carrot philosophical enough, you can reach the… Um, conclusions that make you feel good. But it still boils down to banter over diction. Enough of that folks, please.