[Michael]

As I see it, the difference is that atheists believe there are not any divine beings, whereas agnostics do not believe there divine beings. (Compare to: ‘all children do not like brocolli,’ versus ‘not all children do like brocolli.’) This does not mean that atheists and agnostics cannot have silly notions (just look at the Objectivists’ misuse of logic in their attempts to discount quantum mechanics and relativity); rather, they are statements to be taken at face value. Personally, I claim to be an agnostic because I believe it to be logically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of divinity; however, this dedication to strict logic holds an implicit rejection of the use of Occham’s razor in deciding personal beliefs, which opens the door to many implausible ideas which cannot logically be shown to be impossible. That, say, the movie The Labyrinth is a factual rendition of actual history is such an idea, so that I have no choice but to be open to such a possibility. However, this is not how I approach social interactions; there, I make use of observation, and employ Occham’s razor liberally. Otherwise, my code of ethics (which is similar to the Wiccan crede: If it harms none, do as you will) would cripple me, because anything I might do would cause harm to something. For example, I am, because of ethics, an ovolactovegetarian (but only free range eggs), as I cannot empathize with any possible pain a tree might feel; but if I refused to eat plant products out of fear of hurting plants, how would I sustain myself? As it stands, I’m already at risk of nutrient deficiency.

User Detail :  

Name : Michael, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Agnostic, Age : 22, City : Baton Rouge, State : LA, Country : United States, Occupation : student, Education level : Over 4 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Author]

Posts