Why agnosticism is superior to atheism.

psyadam · 08-25-2010, 06:30 AM

It is very simple actually. Agnostics are ethically superior to atheists. Whereas an atheist has no reason (other than perhaps altruism, but seriously, altruism I think is very rare in a human being) to really try to be a good human being, an agnostic acknowledges the possibility that there may be a heaven and a hell, and will shy away at least from doing anything really awful where the atheist has no logical reason not to do anything that is not entirely selfish since there are, after all, no consequences outside of the ones of this world. If you can get away with it in this life, and it benefits you, the logical thing to do is to do whatever it is (if you're an atheist), no matter how vile that thing might be.

Professor Chaos · 08-25-2010, 06:41 AM

Quote:

psyadam wrote

Whereas an atheist has no reason (other than perhaps altruism, but seriously, altruism I think is very rare in a human being) to really try to be a good human being, an agnostic acknowledges the possibility that there may be a heaven and a hell, and will shy away at least from doing anything really awful where the atheist has no logical reason not to do anything that is not entirely selfish since there are, after all, no consequences outside of the ones of this world.

Worst. Sentence. Ever.

Or...

There is no reason to not believe that that was not the worst sentence not not created.

Smellyoldgit · 08-25-2010, 06:53 AM

Captain Relativity · 08-25-2010, 08:33 AM

The atheist who behaves well, knowing full well that no reward is forthcoming as a result of that good behavior, is clearly morally superior to the agnostic who's only motivation is reward; quid pro quo in other words.

Come on psyadam, Shirley you must agree that 'doing the right thing' simply because it's the right thing to do is ethically superior doing the right thing only because you're getting paid, so to speak, to do it?

Oh I get it, you're trolling. Never mind.

psychodiva · 08-25-2010, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Professor Chaos wrote

Worst. Sentence. Ever.

Or...

There is no reason to not believe that that was not the worst sentence not not created.

it was a sentence?

nkb · 08-25-2010, 01:35 PM

By that logic, theism is superior to agnosticism, genius!

You're right on one point, though.

Quote:

psyadam wrote

It is very simple actually.

(I'm assuming you're talking about your brain).

Sternwallow · 08-25-2010, 05:26 PM

"...an agnostic acknowledges the possibility that there may be a heaven and a hell" or Nirvana or the death morality of Kali or the placid and boring afterlife of ancient Egypt ... will behave just as he wishes and will cite the logical possibility of one of the 10,000 brands of morals/reward to justify the act.

Victus · 08-25-2010, 05:30 PM

Quote:

psyadam wrote

but seriously, altruism I think is very rare in a human being

You think altruisim is rare in the most successful social species in the history of the planet?

Really?

Captain Relativity · 08-25-2010, 06:20 PM

'Whose motivation' is actually what I was going for there, of course.

Radicalstripper · 08-25-2010, 08:04 PM

I don't have the time to address something this stupid. If there was a god, who would not have filled the planet with morons.

clambake · 08-26-2010, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Radicalstripper wrote

I don't have the time to address something this stupid.

Quite.

And quit besmirching FreeBSD with your avatar

.

psyadam · 08-26-2010, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Victus wrote

You think altruisim is rare in the most successful social species in the history of the planet?

Really?

Given the percentage of people out there that I think are jerks, yes.

psyadam · 08-26-2010, 06:34 PM

I'll give you the point that, theoretically, if an atheist was a good person simply because he cared about people and was unselfish as opposed to a theist who hopes for a reward, the atheist is morally superior. My counter is that I don't think many atheists are like that.

Quote:

Captain Relativity wrote

The atheist who behaves well, knowing full well that no reward is forthcoming as a result of that good behavior, is clearly morally superior to the agnostic who's only motivation is reward; quid pro quo in other words.

Come on psyadam, Shirley you must agree that 'doing the right thing' simply because it's the right thing to do is ethically superior doing the right thing only because you're getting paid, so to speak, to do it?

Oh I get it, you're trolling. Never mind.

Victus · 08-26-2010, 06:52 PM

Quote:

psyadam wrote

Given the percentage of people out there that I think are jerks, yes.

Jerks relative to what, though? Think about it. Humans, a social species, are sufficiently altruistic to develop into a population of 7 billion, and utterly dominate the planet in the process.

That's not altruistic enough for you? Really?

ghoulslime · 08-26-2010, 07:32 PM

Quote:

psyadam wrote

It is very simple actually. Agnostics are ethically superior to atheists. Whereas an atheist has no reason (other than perhaps altruism, but seriously, altruism I think is very rare in a human being) to really try to be a good human being, an agnostic acknowledges the possibility that there may be a heaven and a hell, and will shy away at least from doing anything really awful where the atheist has no logical reason not to do anything that is not entirely selfish since there are, after all, no consequences outside of the ones of this world. If you can get away with it in this life, and it benefits you, the logical thing to do is to do whatever it is (if you're an atheist), no matter how vile that thing might be.

Psyadam, you are really a dumb dumb. An atheist simply rejects all evidence for any gods thus far presented for consideration. That is all that an atheist is. There are good atheists and there are bad atheists. There are also smart people and stupid people. You are one of the stupid people. You should find something more fitting for your aptitude than existential discussion. Shouldn't you be practicing for the Special Olympics or something?