WHY I DISLIKE AGNOSTICISM

24/06/11 Andrew Carter well aware that religion and culture often go hand in hand, and are almost always passed down through the generations. Once a human has a given viewpoint on a subject, particularly one they are raised with, it can often be a waste of time and effort trying to persuade them from it. In the case of Theism, many go to great lengths to defend their views, and many more invent illogical and irrational reasons to convince not only others of the validity of their views, but themselves. This same reasoning does not explain the presence of Agnostics in the society of today. Atheism and Agnosticism are both, in their nature, unlike Theism in that they are open minded. Both interpret the evidence available and come to a decision, albeit a different one. Any true Agnostic or Atheist will happily admit that if they found solid evidence which contradicted their ideas, they would immediately, without regret or ill feeling, admit their mistake and adapt to a new, refined and more appropriate position. When looking critically at the beliefs of an Agnostic, I lose the patience that I would generally reserve for a Theist. Agnosticism has no doctrine, no dogma, no history, no brainwashing and no highly cherished holy book. Therefore, I have no regrets in the subconscious and immediate idiot label which I assign to anyone who announces to me that they are Agnostic. At a time when it has been so clearly demonstrated, by science, that the universe can run without a creator or allknowing being to oversee its existence, why would you, once free of religious doctrine, adopt this position and claim it rational. Of course, proving or disproving God is likely to be impossible, but are you agnostic to a concept just as unlikely, irrational and beyond proof such as a tiny, invisible teapot buried deep underneath the surface of Mars which I postulated only just now? Nothing is known or likely to be known of the existence of the Martian teapot. But that doesnt make its existence a concept which requires an agnostic approach. If I was to announce this new Martian teapot theory to the world today, I would probably have three different reactions. The most common reaction would be that my mouth was spewing complete gibberish. A minority of fools may believe in the teapot, for no other reason than because I told them. But the most annoying reaction would be from a group of intellectually degenerate morons who attempt to give off a rational and intelligent image with the obvious response that it is something which couldnt be proven and thus no one knows. My point, an idea can be scientifically beyond proof or disproof yet still be eligible to be accurately and rationally discarded as jargon, especially if you understand how the idea was formed.

agnostic (adherent) of the view that nothing is known, or likely to be known, of the existence of God or anything beyond material phenomena. The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 7 th Ed.

When asking someone the question of their religious beliefs, one can be responded to in a number of manners. One of the most common responses today, is the belief in the Judeo-Christian deity, less well known as Yahweh. Of course, depending on where in the world the person under question has originated from, you may be responded to by a belief in any number of deities and this position of beliefs is known as Theism. Another possible response is that the person believes in no deities, this position is known as Atheism. Less common responses may be given by someone who takes a Deistic or Agnostic approach when looking at the universe. The Agnostic idea is that we will not know whether God exists, therefore God could exist, but equally, he could not, and we are never likely to know. Whilst it may seem a rational, logical, intelligent approach to take, it is, in my opinion, utterly ridiculous. The large number of Theists in the society of this day can be easily explained. We are all