T.H. Huxley coined the phrase 'agnostic' to reflect an epistemic position which was antithetical to those whom declared knowledge of God; to denote not that God was simply unknowable, but that knowledge of God was absent and to deny even the possibility of such knowledge. Though nowadays the term reflects a position of essential uncertainty, doubtfulness, non-committal, or even general ambivalence on the question of the existence of God or gods, being agnostic renders one a default atheist - for all those who are not counted as theists are necessarily a-theists; no-theists, not-theists.rEvolutionist wrote:The two aren't mutually exclusive. It doesn't help our side of the argument when you make posts like this. In fact, the vast majority of atheists are agnostics. Seth knows this, but refuses to acknowledge it as it destroys his idiotic biases.Blind groper wrote:All of Seth's very long winded arguments boil down to a suggestion that it is more rational to be an agnostic than and atheist.
The problem for Seth's point of view is that it is a political position (about granting people a right to be left alone to believe anything they want - which is something many, if not most, atheists would agree people are entitled to do even though he chides us for denying it if-and-when we challenge religiosity in the public square) which he merely asserts as a 'rationally and logically' necessary epistemic practice in order to bolster his self-declared authority on this matter.
