2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • Steve Zara

    On the whole, I agree with Dan. There are at least a couple of reasons why I don’t feel comfortable with calling myself an agnostic. One is that the concept of God is ill-defined in my opinion, and so it’s hard to say what I’m agnostic about, and agnosticism has to have some sort of target. Another is that from the attributes I see assigned to gods I don’t have any problem with saying that they are impossible: whatever powerful beings we might just possibly encounter, they can’t actually be gods with, for example, the ability to be the source of morality, or to truly forgive sins and so on.

  • Rationalist1

    I call myself an atheist but if believers question me about it I will admit I am technically an agnostic in the same way that technically I am an agnostic about astrology, homeopathy or Big Foot. If they persist in derided my stance, I reply that I do not believe in God but will change if given evidence of his existence. I then ask what evidence would cause them to change their beliefs. If you ask that question, be prepared for a lot of wishy-washy answers.

  • Jody Vaughn Lawrence

    Great article. I’ve had the same problem with calling myself atheist for many of the same reasons. But I have deplored the use of agnostic too, because then my atheist peers who unfortunately do not understand the difference between knowing something and being certain of something, may look upon me as ‘someone who is not sure whether God/a god exists or not’.

    My personal solution came in the form of the less known term, “ignostic” with an ‘i’.

    You tell someone you’re ignostic (being sure to make sure they didn’t mishear you) and they’re sure to ask you what that is. Then, you have their attention, and can sneak in a lot of good paradigms that many of them otherwise would never have been made aware of.

  • Pingback: ()

  • Pingback: ()