Not all agnostics are atheists and not all atheists are agnostics; nevertheless, the two coincide more often than not. Despite this, quite a few agnostics tend to attack atheists and atheism -- more often than they attack theists and theism. What do they have against atheists, many of whom are agnostics?
Photo: George Marks/Getty
Some criticism of atheists may be justified because some atheists are probably inappropriately critical of agnosticism. For the most part, though, the criticism I've seen has been completely dependent upon false definitions of both atheism and agnosticism. The purpose appears to be nothing more than to create a context in which someone can feel superior to atheists.
I have read or heard the same lame argument against agnosticism many, many times from some rude, obnoxious atheists, and, frankly, I am fed up with such militant, loudmouthed louts. Basically, I consider myself a pure agnostic: I honestly don't think it's possible to determine by empirical means whether or not a deity or deities exist.
I do not consider myself an "agnostic atheist," because I think gnosis, or knowledge, is the primary prerequisite before one can arrive at an opinion as to the existence or nonexistence of deities or other transcendent supernatural powers in the universe. To my mind, the opinion of "yes" or "no" follows from this perceived knowledge. I have never arrived at gnosis, one way or the other. The theist believes he or she knows that there is a deity or there are deities or transcendent powers.
The atheist has concluded through their own logic that they think it's so unlikely that such exist, that the answer might as well be "no." The burden of proof has never been met from their vantage point. What I, as a pure agnostic, adopt as my position would be neither: I deny knowledge or that I can arrive at likely knowledge through proofs. ...
I think it's time for agnostics to form their own social groups, if our position can't be respected. I fully expect many snide, obnoxious responses from that same type to this post, but I could care less. This is intended for other agnostics to read only, and I will only respond to their replies on this subject rather than rehashing the same arguments counter to the crap objections from certain atheists.
What is a "pure" agnostic? Who knows, 'Uncle Silas' doesn't bother to define it. I don't see any point to the term except to denigrate those who aren't as "pure" as they are, which is ironic given how the title of the thread is 'Agnostics are Tired of Rude Atheists.'
Why is knowledge about whether gods exist or not necessary in order to form an opinion about whether gods exist or not? If you know that something is true or not true, why continue calling it an opinion? Uncle Silas doesn't provide any sort of justification for this requirement and I see no reason to take it seriously.
Maybe he doesn't either because he implicitly admits that atheists don't necessarily claim to "know" whether any gods exist or not -- they may simply find the possibility of a god so unlikely that it might as well not exist. Yet he doesn't explain what's wrong with such reasoning. Why? Well, that might require admitting that he is himself an atheist since he doesn't happen to believe in any gods. In that case, he wouldn't be able to complain about and look down on atheists anymore.
Add your thoughts to the comments here or join the ongoing discussion in the forum.