Is agnostocism preferable to atheism?

Question

My only problem with being an agnostic is that in their intellectual smugness they sometimes miss certain obvious things are lies.

Example was one agnostic who said I don't know if the flying spaghetti monster is true, there is no evidence against this, so I am open to it. Newsflash: FSM was a creation in the last few years as an attempt to illustrate keeping religion out of science class rooms.

So, is it possible to be an agnostic, and not be lumped in with the "smug" agnostic psuedo-intellectuals

Answer 1

Consider the following sentence:

I do believe that god does exist.

That sentence can be negated in two ways:

1. I DO NOT believe that god does exist.

2. I believe that god DOES NOT exist.

The first sentence expresses the WEAK atheist position, also known as the agnostic-atheist position. The second sentence represents the STRONG atheist position.

The weak atheist position is characterized by an ABSENSE of belief, brought about by the lack of evidence that would be necessary to bring about or sustain 'belief'. In this sense, the absence of belief in god is equivalent to an absence of belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and Thor. The weak atheist (agnostic) position bears no burden of proof, since it is not asserting anything to be 'true'.

The STRONG atheist position is arrived at by a CERTAINTY that god DOES NOT exist, and implies that compelling evidence exists to support such a certainty. That being the case, it would seem that the strong atheist position DOES bear a burden of proof, since it is asserting that 'no god' is a 'true' proposition.

Intuitively, it would seem to be reasonable to acknowledge that there could be some variations or nuances between those two positions, but I don't know how to characterize them... and I don't know where the 'smug agnostic' would fit in.

I am more of a 'snotty' atheist... but I think that has more to do with my utter contempt for people who create their world view from the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant bunch of peripatetic Bronze Age goat herders, with no credible evidence, than it has to do with my lack of 'belief'.

I think that 'belief' itself is the culprit, since it effectively cuts off the mind from consideration of alternative possibilities.

Answer 2

Agnostic is a word that can have a few definitions which differ subtly from each other, but all basically mean this - I don't know. There's not enough evidence either way.

So, if you fall into that category, there you go. Forget all the people that try to tell you what you are. You are the only one that lives in your skin, and you don't have to conform to the specifics of others that share your worldview label.

I am getting tired of this too. Think I'll go and make my own term now.

Answer 3

I think that their point was this:
Although only newly created as a farce, a great cosmic joke would be if it were in fact accurate. It isn't smugness. The entire reason people chose the agnostic path is that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power. I would say that I would agree with this persons perspective. It was a joke. By the way, I am a practicing Pastafarian, and yes I have been "touched by his noodley appendage" and I think it tickles.
Enjoy your grog,
RAmen.

Answer 4

True agnostics are abstract thinkers. They tend to migrate in the search of the single universal theory. As such Agostics tend to focus on the illogic of other beliefs including atheists, and discard them on that premise. As an agostic and a thinker in the abstract, I find the our biggest challege is disassociating with the herd mentality of others who have all the answers. Whether you call it smug or call it independent thinking, it isn't any more smug than, Christianity, Atheism, or Islam. Be proud that you have the courage to challenge the assumptions of other more common beliefs and live life for what it is.

Answer 5

I can understand why people would be agnostic. I just seems like a better idea to "keep an open mind". However, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins, it is good to keep one's mind open, but not so much so that your brains fall out.

Jesus and God and such COULD exist, but so could Count Chocula. There's no proof that he doesn't exist, therefore to be a true agnostic you would have to believe in the possibility of Count Chocula.

I choose not to believe in Count Chocula and I also choose not to believe in a magical man in the clouds (of which we now know the contents) who watches everything we do and will send us to a fire pit if we're naughty and, for some reason, takes an interest in what goes on in our sex lives or with what we eat on certain days.

Answer 6

Before 1492, there were three groups of people:

1) Those who said 'The world is flat because elders in my society tell me that it is.'
2) Those who said 'I have no idea whether or not the world is flat.'
3) Those who said 'I have a belief that the world is not flat and I'm going to attempt to prove it.'

I have no problem with agnosticism; I've said many times before that I consider myself agnostic. But Hegel said that development only comes when thesis meets antithesis. Everybody needs to thank those people who were brave enough to 'go against the grain' and say 'I do not believe that what other people tell me is true'. Removing yourself from the debate entirely is a fine philosophical position but it doesn't advance the cause of human understanding.

Answer 7

Agnosticism is only a cognitive state.

Atheism is more pragmatic, at least weak atheism is.

You can't prove Zeus doesn't exist. Is it worth it to entertain the question?

“I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.” – Isaac Asimov – (Free Inquiry, Spring 1982)

Answer 8

Oh no!!! This will never do. I cannot agree with you on this? Of course, I don't use the term "smug" to describe an Agnostic.

Answer 9

Yes it is possible. You can be open to the possibility of God without being a total moron. It's not all "well, if there's no evidence against this then it could be true..." it's more of a "well, there's no evidence against it but I'm going to use my common sense and set of beliefs to decide whether to believe or not..."

Answer 10

This question is absurd.... Saying that agnostics are smug psuedo-intellectuals is so discrimating and idiotic.