Originally Posted by Malorn
No, it is not. Athiesm is a rejection of belief in deities. Agnosticism claims that truth about deities is unknowable. To an agnostic an athiest is just as incorrect as a believer. While a believer believes without hard evidence an athiest disbelieves without hard evidence. They are two ends of a spectrum. An agnostic believes that the truth is unknowable, so he cannot side with one or another.
|
This isn't the way the assertions work, though. The person who makes an extraordinary claim is the one required to provide the evidence for it. If I were to tell you that I am an alien from outer space, would you be obliged to be on the fence about my claim because you have no evidence either way? Of course not. You'd ask me to prove it, and if I couldn't you'd tell me I'm full of shit.
The proposition that there is a god is the same way. Do you believe in the tenets of Islam? Can you prove, with hard evidence, that Muhammad did not in fact receive the information contained within the Qur'an from the archangel Gabriel? Are you therefore obliged to be on the fence about whether Islam is true?
And on and on. Everyday in your life you're presented with the opinions and assertions of people in politics, at the workplace, wherever. The stuff you feel has evidence to back it you probably accept. The stuff you feel doesn't have evidence to back it, you reject. There's no reason to treat religious beliefs or belief in a god or gods any differently.
And, incidentally, while the definition of "atheist" is rather vague, atheists like Richard Dawkins define themselves as I've mentioned. Dawkins is indeed an agnostic atheist in that he does not claim to be certain there is not a god, but simply has not found evidence to indicate there is one.