Are you really an agnostic? (Introduction)

by Martin Freedman , Thursday, January 24, 2008, 01:01 (5936 days ago) @ Maria

Really it is very difficult to see this as the work of an agnostic there are so many problems with this Introduction. - 1. "The atrocities committed by atheist societies such as Soviet Russia and Red China are echoed by those of the crusading past and the fundamentalist present" this is an old canard spread by fundamentalists and not usually supported by agnostics at least any I know - and I was one too. These societies were first communist and only secondly atheist. Blame communism for their atrocities as that is the cause it is nothing to do with atheism. they were also not enlightened societies and although there is no necessary connection most of the atheism today is of the enlightened sort. - 2. "...and no faith has a monopoly on truth" For sure true but the implication in the paragraph was over the communist faith there is no such thing as an atheist faith. - 3. " However, in his book The God Delusion, Professor Dawkins launches the fiercest attack on religion since Nero unleashed his lions on the Christians." Complete balderdash! What books have you read? Not many it appears to make such an ignorant statement. - 4. "Agnosticism ...only believes what is known, and admits to ignorance of the rest. By doing so, and thereby acknowledging the possibility of a conscious designer... These include the motives and nature of such a designer, and the existence of a world and of beings beyond the scope of our perception. " OK so you are an theistic agnostic. Still you cannot know any of this and can only accept this on faith as fideist. And it certainly does not necessarily follow from agnosticism as the default would be an atheistic agnostic. If this is the AgnosticWeb why is this already so biased towards theism since you cannot know that god exists? - 5. "direct response to the apotheosis of atheism as represented in The God Delusion" you are entitled to respond the Dawkins book but do not think for a second that this represents a broad coalition of atheists it does not. You are only replying to Dawkins spin on this and many atheists would dissent from this. - 6. "I am unable to embrace atheism mainly because I am not convinced that chance could simultaneously assemble the four factors listed in the section entitled "Evolution"" Well Dawkins is just about the only person I know who is an atheist because of his understanding of evolution. This statement and that on the home page "If you cannot make up your mind whether we are the product of accident or design". Evolution via natural selection is neither! Maybe you should try to understand it first, it is not beyond knwoing before you write such ignorant comments on it! - 7. "I simply do not know what to believe, and that is why I am an agnostic. " Then why is everything you have written so biased towards theism and their mis-representations of evolution etc. Why not a balanced and unbiased approach? - 8. There is no point continuing as as I start to read the next section it reads like something out an ignorant fundamentalist tract. - I think you should be honest and say what you really think. This site is a complete sham it would embarrass any honest agnostic that I know of. I can only tentatively conclude that unless you fix the numerous errors here that you are a fundamentalist in disguise well I can see through your veil but I wish i was wrong