XPost: alt.atheism, alt.religion, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.philosophy   
   From: calee@optonline.net   
      
   On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:29:18 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason   
    wrote:   
      
   >[snips]   
   >   
   >On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:49:28 -0700, James B. wrote:   
   >   
   >> Weak atheism and agnosticism are virtually the same concept.   
   >   
   >They are absolutely nothing alike whatsoever.  Agnosticism is a   
   >principle, applicable to any number of fields.  Atheism ain't.   
      
   And weak atheists don't have any gods to be agnostic about. They're   
   merely somebody else's religious belief.   
      
   >> Agnosticism   
   >> carries the subtext that you can't possibly know one way or another if   
   >> gods exist and that the question is irrelevant, while weak atheism goes   
   >> one small step further and takes the logically sound default negative   
   >> position to a given proposition.   
      
   "Either way" carries 50:50 implications. Which again atheists don't   
   have.   
      
   >Agnosticism applies equally well to theism; the so-called "weak theist",   
   >the one adopting the stance "I don't know if gods exits, but I choose to   
   >believe they do" is applying the agnostic principle of not claiming the   
   >truth of the proposition, but is choosing to believe.   
      
   The honest theists.   
      
   >> Saying that agnostics aren't atheists is splitting a pretty fine hair,   
   >> in my opinion.   
      
   No. Atheists don't have anything to be agnostic about.   
      
   >There is no such thing as "an agnostic" as a third option to theism and   
   >atheism.  Since both theists _and_ atheists can apply the agnostic   
   >principle, conflating agnosticism and atheism is not merely wrong, it's   
   >absurd.   
      
   Exactly.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)