Mental Couch Potatoes

(If you can't decide, then you are not thinking at all)

By Farzad Roohi

Without exception, you should fall in one of the three categories: theists, atheists or agnostics.

If you are a theist, then you believe in a supreme being called God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. In this case, you are a creationist and believe strongly that God created the universe and everything in it, including you and me. In other words, everything in the universe is due to the act of divine.

If you are an atheist, then you believe in evolution that is a process of natural selection and survival the fittest. Thus, you are an evolutionist and believe that the universe and everything in it came about by coincidence. In other words, everything in the universe is due to the act of the blind watchmaker.

And finally, if you are an agnostic, then you don't know what the hell is going on in this universe. In other words, you are a fence sitter who doesn't want to bother in thinking about the ancient dilemma of our origins.

The fundamental tool for evolutionists in assessing our origins is science, where for creationists it is religion and faith, a blind act (it's still an act). Agnostics do not need any tool, as they are mental couch potatoes who do not want to be burden with the responsibility of proof. Both science and religion, as two tools, seek ultimate truth about the origin of the universe. However, agnostics, by not having any tool, do not seek anything. Evolutionists rely on what they deem as scientific proof or evidence. Creationists rely on what they deem as divine revelations and intuitive discoveries. But agnostics don't have to rely on anything, because they prove nothing. That is why it is easiest to be an agnostic.

Here is one of the most ancient questions: Is there a God? The true answer to the question could be either "yes" or "no". There is not a third answer, like "I don't know," as agnostics tend to reply. This is because "I don't know" is not a true answer to our question.

The best analogy in this case is that of tossing a coin. If you are asked whether it is going to be "head" or "tails," then your answer should be "heads" or "tails," not "I don't know". This latter phrase can be a conveniently neutral and meaningless answer to virtually any question.

When you reply "yes, there is a God." Or "no, there isn't." your answer could be either right or wrong, which is how an answer is supposed to be. The phrase "I don't know" is neither right nor wrong, and that's why it cannot be considered as an answer to the question of whether or not God exists.

In fact, "I don't know" is the best excuse for the lazy brains of the agnostics to avoid any thinking and spending any energy regarding the issues of their origins, much less God's existence.

The agnostics' argument is based on the assumption that nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God, so why even bother with the problem at all? In response, one could ask the agnostics why no one can prove or disprove God's existence.

This is where the problem now arises with agnostics. The answers "yes, God exists" and "no God doesn't exists" are two hypotheses which need either religious or scientific proof and thus easy thinking (as in theism) or hard thinking (as in atheism) to be proven undeniably sometime in the future. But the answer "I don't know" is not considered a hypothesis by the agnostics, so consequently requires no effort at all to be proven or disproven.

That is how agnostics escape the whole argument lazily, without any real trouble. And that's why being an agnostic simply means not wanting at all to think. As agnostics avoid any thinking on this topic, I am just wondering if any agnostic will bother to think and develop a counter argument for what I have accused them of, being mental couch potatoes.

Oooh. This one will cause a stir. Great. I don't agree with it, but I will publish it, with a note to that effect.

Martin

That's what your website needs, a good stir, once a while. Do not forget that I was an agnostic for quite a few years before I became an atheist. I hope this article will push some of those agnostics to think once if not twice seriously for the first time in their lives. After all, your website is very controversial to begin with.

LPH,

Farzad

agnostic n. & adj.

n.

1 a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.

2 a person who is uncertain or non-committal about a certain thing. adj. of or relating to agnostics or agnosticism.

agnosticism n. [a-1 + gnostic]

gnostic adj. & n. adj.

1 relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge.

2 (Gnostic) concerning the Gnostics; occult; mystic. n. (Gnostic) (usu. in pl.) a Christian heretic of the 1st-3rd c. claiming gnosis.

Gnosticism n.

gnosticize v.tr. & intr. (also -ise).

[ecclesiastical Latin gnosticus from Greek gnostikos (as gnosis)]

The first definition of agnostic is a noble belief. It is a firm belief. “I do not know because it cannot be known.” I am content to state that myself.

The second definition is the couch potato position: “I can't be arsed to tell you what I believe.”

Or “I haven't bothered working it out, now push off, I want to watch Columbo.”

The analogy of the coin toss is good. I believe that it is extremely unlikely that the coin will not show either head or tails. I would not be in the least surprised by either outcome, ever. That is what I believe. If you ask me to choose heads or tails I will not be comfortable with doing so. I do not believe it will be tails, if that means I am saying I believe it will not be heads. I believe it will almost certainly be one or the other, either suits me. For the purpose of a game I would choose, but that would not represent my belief, just my call.

My call is atheism, my belief is agnostic and I would be more than a little surprised to find myself losing that bet. I don't KNOW there is not a god, I am agnostic. I believe there is not a god, so I am atheist, weak atheist. It is not a matter of hedging my bets, it is saying what I believe. I don't believe there is a god, I don't believe it is possible to know there is no god.

I think a coin not landing heads or tails is much more likely than there being a god, but I am too much of a sceptic to deny the possibility of anything. (That last phrase comes from T.H. Huxley, originator of the word agnostic.)

“I am too much of a sceptic to deny the possibility of anything.” Letter to Herbert Spencer, 22 March 1886, in Leonard Huxley Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley (1900) vol. 2, ch. 8

www.infidels.org: agnostic.html

“Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there [the Metaphysical Society], and expressed itself with entire openness; most of my colleagues were -ists of one sort or another; and, however kind and friendly they might be, I, the man without a rag of a label to cover himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic'.”

www.infidels.org: sn-huxley.html

One more word of caution from Darwin's Bulldog:

“If a little knowledge is dangerous,
where is the man who has so much as to be out of danger?”

Martin J Willett

www.mwillett.org

Hello Martin,

Great comments and links. Excellent ones. I go with the title, Agnostic. Great! Thanks! Talk to you later, LPH,

Farzad

Debate this and any other page on mwillett.org on the Debate Unlimited Forum