Do labels invalidate the middle?

Post Reply New Topic

Why place Agnostic as being only one side or the other? eg. Agnostic/Atheist or Agnostic/Theist? Isn't that exactly like saying that anything in between or blended is invalid? (No, I don't know what a Deist is.)

So and so says "You are either A, or you are C. B is weak, commit free and invalid." If you take other labels and put them there in the same way, I think you can get what my problem is. I'm not blaming anyone here. I feel human nature, and its love for grouping is the real root of that.

I think agnostic is redundant because no one is gnostic, even if they claim to be. They certainly aren't gnostic through logic and reason.

For me, "agnostic" means I neither believe nor disbelieve in god.
For some other people, it means they believe there's a god, but have no other beliefs about the nature of that god.

I wish there were MORE labels. Whenever someone says they are "agnostic", they still have to explain what their beliefs are. The word is insufficient.

Agnostic I always thought was believing that you don't know about god?

A-gnostic = don't know.

What is the difference between being agnostic and being apathetic? Answer: I don't know and I don't care.

ruveyn

Both are quite wrong.

This graph explains the deal:

The traditional definition of agnosticism is the belief that the existence of god/s is unknowable and unprovable. Agnostic theists believe in god/s, but are aware that they can't be certain of their existence. Agnostic atheists don't believe in god/s and also think that god/s can't be proven or disproven.

All agnostics are either theists or atheists (which is a lot more common). Many people use the agnostic label to avoid the stigma of atheism, but I think that's a cop-out. One either has a theistic belief or not, so agnosticism is no middle way.

Indeed. If you don't believe or disbelieve in any gods, you're an atheist (a "weak" atheist, in fact). Not all atheists actively believe there is no God, which is known as "strong" atheism, though the weak/strong terminology has received flak in the past. I'd prefer to replace "strong" atheism with "antitheism".

"Weak atheist" sounds like a way for atheists to insult agnostics by claiming they are actually atheists that lack courage/intelligence.
I totally reject that label.

Most atheists are "weak atheists". The label wasn't invented by "strong atheists" and has nothing to do with being weak-minded.

That being said, I don't really like the label either. I prefer gnostic / agnostic atheist. Of course one can be both in regard to different god concepts.

Weak atheism versus strong atheism.

Weak assertions versus strong assertions.

If it offends you, you haven't studied enough.

[/quote]If it offends you, you haven't studied enough. [quote]

I disagree. I am not any kind of atheist, strong or weak.
I have no assertions concerning religion.

Label do not invalidate the middle. The obscure the middle.

ruveyn

That's an assertion.

Well, yes, but an assertion about oneself rather than religion.
I consider those who don't take any interest in religion as "apatheists". Though responding to this thread implies you do have some interest in religion/atheism. If you truly didn't care you wouldn't even have read it!