Comment

I’m willing to accept Atheism, ‘I do not believe in God’, as somewhat dogmatic, but as others have said, it’s the null hypothesis and they have Occam’s razor going for them. Pragmatically it is a useful stance in light of the societal harm religion does.

I am however unwilling to conflate Agnosticism with ‘I can not believe’, always been “I’m waiting for evidence one way or the other” to me, so perhaps the more scientific point of view.

source

Sort:hotnew top

cynar@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
It’s not 3 points, but 4.

Atheist==>Theist Agnostic==>gnostic

There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.

source
lime@feddit.nu ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
to me, those last two statements are pretty close in the grand scheme of things. it was allegorical anyway, since we weren’t really talking about god.

if there is no proof one way or the other, the pragmatic stance is to be neutral. if one side is more theoretically sound, the pragmatic stance is to assume that’s the correct side while still being open to the other. only when there’s proof of one side can you dismuss the other. none of those steps require “belief”, i.e. unfounded assumptions.

as an aside, personally i feel like religion is one of those issues where there is proof.

source