Are agnostics fence sitters?

[Antonio the Sixth]

No (agnostic)

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's fairer to say you don't care rather than 'don't know'

No, it's not. I for one am very interested in metaphysical ideas and discussions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because most other manifestations of belief can actually be assessed based on factual evidence? There is no such thing as a logically coherent "proof" of God's existence or nonexistence.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's fairer to say you don't care rather than 'don't know'

No, it's not. I for one am very interested in metaphysical ideas and discussions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because most other manifestations of belief can actually be assessed based on factual evidence? There is no such thing as a logically coherent "proof" of God's existence or nonexistence.

There is no such thing as logically coherent 'proof' of tarot, demons, fairy folk etc. But you're not agnostic towards them. You are not agnostic towards them as there aren't several billion people trying to advance them in public discourse. You are agnostic towards one theological concept because it has been elevated to a position of reverence.

The idea that ontology must be structured around the dichotomy of 'god v no god' is evidence of that. Thinking in the West from philosophy to sociology to concepts of the self and of justice consciously reflect this dichotomy. However, for a long time, isolated from the ebb and flow of what was flowing out of the middle east, China for example developed an ontology/metaphysics in which that dichotomy was essentially absent or not elevated to a 'base'. The same has been found even in undeveloped isolated groups/tribes; their stories and legends and song don't revolve around what Nietszche would categorise as 'God v Death of God'.

Part of the reason I am defined as a-theist, but in reality increasingly care less and less about god as a concept is that I'm conscious of that dichotomy and really think there are more interesting (to me) and more far reaching concepts to grapple with.

The concept of God as envisioned in Abrahamic faiths is certainly historically and geographically specific. However, from what I've seen, the idea of deity in its purest form - that is, the belief that there is one or several entities that transcend the material world in some way or another - can be found among all societies. Hell, as a thread on this very board revealed to me, even a bunch of ultra-rationalists on the internet ended up coming up with their own AI tech-God.

The point is not that I believe there's a 50% chance that the Christian God exists exactly as the Bible says, versus a 50% chance that there is nothing. The point is simply that the entire realm of metaphysics is beyond the scope of demonstration based on factual evidence. I simply think it makes no sense to assess a metaphysical belief based on how plausible or "true" it is. I'm interested in judging beliefs in terms of how philosophically interesting and challenging they are, what their moral implications are, how they might shape human thought and culture, etc. Saying "lol dumb fairytales" denotes a fundamental lack of understanding of what makes metaphysics so interesting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Agnosticism is a worthless blight on religious discourse.

How do you figure?

I feel as if "I'm agnostic" is a get out of jail free card in a lot of discussions regarding religion, at least in my experience.

Not all religious discussions have to revolve around the existence or non-existence of God... thank God.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And I readily accept Pascals  Wager.  Even if I end up being catastrophically wrong.

I mean, Pascal's Wager is an utter joke and I'm pretty sure even the most proselyte Christian wouldn't dare bringing it up. It ranks just below the Ontological Argument among the worst possible ways to convince a nonbeliever to believe.

But yeah, I guess I'm mostly "functionally atheist" as well. To paraphrase Drumpf (uggggghhhh), you either have faith or you don't. That said, I think agnosticism allows for a sense of openness in the realm of metaphysics that's very enriching culturally and morally.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't agree with Penn Jilette on a whole lot, but I think he's in the right on this issue:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CTWlQaZ0DWo

Boy, that was tedious. 3 whole minutes to get to the point in a 9-minute video.

A point that's ultimately just a matter of semantics. Sure, by his definition I'm an atheist, why not. I think it's useful to distinguish absence of belief from belief in the absence - especially since the latter almost always comes in association with a whole philosophical framework I find myself disagreeing more and more with.

And sure, most atheists aren't dogmatic, just as most Christians aren't. In both cases however, the dogmatists form a sizable and sadly very vocal minority.