{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/17/2014 11:36:02 PM
12
Why is Agnosticism Considered "Cowardly"?
I was thinking about this. And I'm not asking for a set, well, set of answers. This is all opinionated, of course, and if you have anything to contribute, regardless of religious or irreligious standpoint, please, feel free to voice it.
Why is Agnosticism considered to be the cowardly choice, though? I feel as if, if anything, it's the embrace of the unknown. In fact, that's one of the main definitions: the acceptance of the unknown. I think, personally, that the dissension from dogma leads to a slew of open-minded, unbiased questions. So many people (not to generalize) view agnostics as "half-assed"
Atheists, and I know many religious people who consider Agnostics as simply on the path to Atheism (again, not generalizing, I'm not saying every religious person believes this).
But isn't it just as far away from Atheism as it is from any religion? Isn't that the point? The willingness to believe that anything could be possible in this infinite universe? There's my two cents, what do you all think?
-
Because people get butthurt over stupid things
-
Because it's a demagogue's answer. I'm talking about the kind of agnostic who thinks that framing the issue as a 50/50 situation and then not taking a stance is somehow insightful.
-
I would prefer there be something after I die. I'm afraid of the concept of not existing anymore once I do die. Yes it sounds cowardly but what's wrong with wanting something to happen after my life is over? I'm just not sure what it is.
-
Because people are idiots and think you have to stick with your first decision on everything, no matter what. For some reason, people don't realize that it's okay to not be sure on something or to change your mind.
-
6 RepliesI would assume people would consider it "cowardly" because you're not taking any steps to find out what you really believe. You're just sticking to what you know to be true, you're not putting faith/belief in anything by saying "anything is possible". Essentially, you're acting like Switzerland by being neutral and not picking a side. Doesn't mean it's right, but I guess that's how some people might feel about it.
-
1 ReplyEdited by Elrond Hubbard: 2/17/2014 11:51:59 PMConjecture, here: Some agnostic people seem to think that they're somehow superior and/or being neutral by choosing the supposed "middle" position. But halfway between a truth and a lie is still a lie. [spoiler]The vast majority of agnostics are not actually like that, though, and there's nothing inherently wrong with agnosticism.[/spoiler]
-
5 RepliesIt's not, but you can't be just "agnostic" by itself. You can say you're agnostic because "We don't really know" but you can't just be that, you either believe God exists or you don't. You can be Agnostic-Atheist or agnostic-theist but not agnostic on its own.
-
I don't think it's cowardly. It's your own opinion that you deserve to have.
-
Because people think it's a position between atheism and theism.
-
1 ReplyI've never once heard anyone call agnosticism cowardly.
-
Because everyone believes the world is black and white.
-
1 Replybecuase your not gving a yes or no answer to a yes or no question
