patrick.net

curious2 says

Dan8267 says

anyone who considers the death of this girl to be a tragedy is tacitly admitting that he does not really believe in the afterlife.

That is even more true in the abortion debate. Anyone who says that (a) life begins at conception, and (b) those who live without sin will go to eternal paradise, should celebrate abortion.

Even more pertinent, it becomes a moral imperative to murder babies in order to guarantee their placement in paradise if the Christian afterlife has any merit. The idiots who invented the lie of the Christian afterlife didn't put much thought into it, which is why the belief in this premise leads to such spectacularly stupid conclusions.

Much of Christian mythological revisioning over the past 2000 years have been motivated by attempts to plug up all the holes inherit in the afterlife concept. However, you cannot duct tape something that's fundamentally broken and expect it to work. The foundation of the idea has to be sound.

Heraclitusstudent says

To believe that consciousness is not created by the brain, is essentially to believe that there are things in the brain that violate the laws of physics and then influence the brain physically.

There is no evidence of anything known that violate the laws of physics.

On the contrary, everything we know about consciousness is perfectly compatible with the laws of physics

This is true. Furthermore, this argument can be trivially expanded to show that any "supernatural" entity cannot in any way, shape, or form interact with any physical entity since such an interaction would, by definition, by a physical one and would require the supernatural entity to obey all natural laws such as the laws of conservation of various properties.

Hence, if anything supernatural exists, it cannot interact with anything physical, not even sending a message. Therefore, no supernatural god could "create" the universe or talk to man or convey a moral code.

Dan8267 says

The Young Turks discuss this issue including the clause about suicide written to discourage people from offing themselves during their productive and taxable years to get to paradise sooner

Interesting thread, but I can't believe that others aren't more upset at this little brat for killing herself before we could extract her wealth in tax dollars in her potentially most productive working years. We all needed her to prop up Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and all these other broken systems and now the kid got away with consuming our finite supply of food without paying the price, I tell you the nerve.......LOL

marcus says

When suicide happens, the reason is in virtually all cases an extreme emotional state, that is a mentally ill state of mind.

Why should anyone accept your assertion that "an extreme emotional state" is, by definition, a form of mental illness. I've been to weddings. The bride is always in an extreme emotional sense, as are the parents of the bride and many others. Are they all mentally ill?

Leave it to Marcus to define "mental illness" to be anything he doesn't like.

marcus says

We know NOTHING about the girl, or her circumstances.

1. We know what she wrote.
2. This is a dodge.
3. Even if this girl hadn't killed herself, the hypothetical question of whether or not a person should kill herself to be with a loved on in heaven alone is enough to discredit the lie of the afterlife and give us plenty of pragmatic reason to stop spreading that lie.

marcus says

But Dan is so bad at losing arguments, that he comes back to tell us that he wants to spend thousands of words defending his position (actually it's not even his position - he's jumping on the band wagon of some pathetic radical atheists who want to make this girls tragic suicide the fault of religion).

Marcus, you are such a sore loser.

First off, I never "lose" an argument because if anyone makes a valid counter-argument that disproves my belief, I immediately change my belief to fit the new knowledge. I'll flip flop on an issue like John Kerry at the International House of Pancakes if the evidence or reasoning shows my current position is wrong. I am not married to any idea or position. Hell, if you could show that the universe was created by a giant Smurf dick ejaculating the stars, I'll wholeheartedly accept that if the evidence supports it. However, I reserve the right to be skeptical about everything.

Because I'm always willing to change my position if someone can give me a rational reason to do so, it is impossible for me to "lose" an argument. The only thing that is possible is that you have failed to convince me of your position, and that's your bad, not mine.

Second, I have rationally addressed every single argument you made. I've even outlined each argument and my responses so that it is clear that every piece of bullshit you brought up has been addressed. In contrast, you have failed to address any of my responses with an adult conversation. Instead, you simply resort to personal attacks that reflect your immaturity.

Third, speaking of personal attacks, the fact that you dismiss atheists as "pathetic" indicates you are arguing at the level of Ad Hominem at best. See the argument pyramid.

As such, why should anyone respect you or accept anything you say, Marcus?

Fourth, D1, D2, and D3 are certainly my position and I have defended them well. Just because you hate me, doesn't make me wrong. In fact, you hate me because I'm right and you cannot think of anyway to discredit my arguments, which is exactly why you resort to personal attacks. And quite frankly, it's pathetic that you feel the need to do so instead of simply addressing the subject matter.

Finally, this thread is and has always been specifically about the afterlife lie, not religion in general; and the fact that religion causes people to do stupid things like killing themselves or flying planes into buildings is not the fault of atheists.

PockyClipsNow says

Is it possible on this site to NEVER SEE any post from either Religion or Politics 'zones'?

Yes, it's quite easy. Simply do not click on those threads. It's like channel surfing on T.V. If you don't want to see man butt sex, don't click on the gay porn channel.

curious2 says

That's it in a nutshell: the point of believing in an afterlife is to relieve temporarily the cognitive dissonance of mortality by denying it, but the professed belief doesn't hold up when the 'believer' is confronted with the undeniable fact of imminent or actual death.
...
This hapless girl was a true believer, and alas followed that belief to its logical conclusion, and the professed believers (e.g. Marcus) are dismayed and dissemble illogically.

Well said. That's D1, D2, and D3 in a nutshell. And none of the pro-afterlife-lie people have even addressed this issue.

curious2 says

By that logic, a truly believing female should have as many abortions as possible. Each "accursed" woman could have hundreds of abortions, sending hundreds of innocent children to eternal paradise, though at the risk of her own soul. If she survives past the age of fertility, she could then repent, and be saved.

Totally agree, except for the last sentence. The woman has nothing to repent for since she did what was morally right even though it took a lot of effort and suffering on her own part. She would be a fine moral example if the afterlife lie weren't a lie. Any just god would consider her the greatest saint ever.

The existence of the afterlife materially affects whether or not specific actions are good or evil. It's not merely a "white lie" that we tell to comfort people. It has real-world implications including moral ones.

marcus says

It is a waste of my time, to respond to Dan here. And obviously he is wasting his time.

It is never a waste of time to ridicule the village idiot. Doing so serves a purpose, the purpose of discouraging future generations from adopting the role.

Every time I make you look like a dumb ass, as easy as that is, some kid reading this thread will realize how idiotic your superstitions and irrationality is and therefore will reject them. This prevents the virus of your bigotry from infecting the next generation.

Stupid ideas that are popular must be refuted no matter how obviously stupid they are. Idiocracy should not be socially acceptable. This truth is illustrated by one of George W. Bush's statements,

God told me to invade Iraq.

Millions of deaths of men, women, and children justify the opposition of the falsehoods of superstitions.

SoftShell says

Energy cannot be destroyed. Your brain runs on energy. Obviously the cells contained in the physical body "die" as humans describe it, but the energy contained within is simply transformed.

Yes, but energy isn't consciousness. The vast majority of the energy in the human brain remains as rest mass. The chemical energy in the brain is transformed as the brain rots and is eaten by micro-organisms. The transfer of this chemical energy to the micro-organisms does not make those micro-organism sentient.

The law of conservation of mass-energy does not mean that consciousness is not destroyed.

SoftShell says

Regarding the laws of physics, they are being violated all the time.

The laws of nature, by definition, are not violated. That is precisely why we call them natural laws.

Human understanding of these laws are constantly being improved, but mankind's knowledge is already so far advance that the old "god of gaps" argument no longer has enough bullshit room to support an afterlife myth. Yes, man is considerably less ignorant of the universe than he was in the Bronze Age.

SoftShell says

Energy cannot be destroyed. Your brain runs on energy. Obviously the cells contained in the physical body "die" as humans describe it, but the energy contained within is simply transformed.

Brain energy is dissipated as heat constantly.
If you are trying to imply that consciousness should continue to exists simply because the energy continues to exist... That would be a very bad misunderstanding.

SoftShell says

Regarding the laws of physics, they are being violated all the time.

You are obviously not conscious of what you are saying. If there was a single reproducible experiment showing something that violates laws of physics, it would make headlines and be a huge opportunity for physicists to refine their understanding of nature. There are no such experiment. And certainly nothing we know about consciousness even comes close to that.

SoftShell says

Almost anything physical that can affect a car can affect the people inside.

A car is a container for people.

Your example below does not hold water.

That's a BS argument. If you believe that consciousness can survive brain decay after death, then, to follow your analogy, the total destruction of the car leaves people inside unaffected.

So you really need to explain to us how a simple chemical like alcohol can affect consciousness if total brain decay doesn't.

Dan8267 says

3. Even if this girl hadn't killed herself, the hypothetical question of whether or not a person should kill herself to be with a loved on in heaven alone is enough to discredit the lie of the afterlife and give us plenty of pragmatic reason to stop spreading that lie.

Except for the fact that as far as we know, millions of people (perhaps billions if we include the past - maybe even billions without considering the past) believe in an after life, and NONE of them have killed themselves for the sole purpose of being with deceased loved ones.

Oh wait, sorry, there is that one time, the reason for this thread, that in a suicidal state, a girl wrote a phrase about missing her father, while in her suicide note. Dan argues that it wasn't her sick suicidal state of mind that caused her to kill herself, it was that she truly thought with certainty:

1) heaven exists
2) she will be forgiven for killing herself and go to heaven
3) she will be with her father in heaven after she dies
4) going ahead and seeing him now is better than living her life first (not that "now" would even have the same meaning in heaven that it does in this world).

All that from one phrase in her suicidal note, explaining to her mother why she shouldn't feel bad.

Of course we don't know. Maybe she thought that she would go to hell for killing herself, and for some reason felt certain her father was in hell, and that they would be reunited there ?

PockyClipsNow says

seriously i hate every thread ever in those areas.

Study Myers Briggs personality types. N people love discussions about big fuzzy topics: politics, religion, afterlife. S people can't stand them. Not everyone is like you. Get over it.

BobDDstryr says

You keep saying that if you believe in an afterlife, that suicide is rational and logical; its still not. If there's an afterlife - you'll be able to see your loved ones again eventually, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what you can with this life - make friends, find love; have children; increase your circle of loved ones that you'd be spending your afterlife with.

marcus says

BobDDstryr says

Maybe she would have committed suicide anyway, but that made a convenient excuse. Maybe she felt that her mom would appreciate that note more than one saying "It hurts too much to continue living, and just being with you isn't good enough anymore." Maybe she thought she'd actually survive it, and it was an elaborate cry for help.

Another good point. What if her Mom was constantly saying that her dad is in heaven but she didn't buy it and was in a sick suicidal state. In that case it seems like a reasonable thng to say to her Mom. In other words "if that's how you cope with dad being gone, hopefully it will work for coping with my being gone too."

Excellent points.

Dan has, through force of hand waving, shaky assumption, logical deduction, and the sheer force of his overweening personality disproven the Afterlife (TM).
Now fuck off and die!

Quigley says

Dan has, through force of hand waving, shaky assumption, logical deduction, and the sheer force of his overweening personality disproven the Afterlife

He used even weaker reasoning to prove that one phrase to her mother (with the antecedent "don't feel bad Mom"), is proof that the girl was of sound mind and made a rational decision to kill herself for the purpose of being with her father in the afterlife, actually knowing that she would be.

He actually believes he has proven this ?

It seems that given enough hand waving, and his personality, Dan can prove anything he sets his mind to proving.

Hey, it is the internet after all. I don't think he even cares if this character "Dan" that he has created is a total douchebag.

For those that follow a religion: Islam/Christianity/Judaism/etc.. - committing suicide is a one way ticket to hell. So this girl was either not given the proper understanding of life and death or was mentally disturbed. To be clear, this was not an act of love but rather of misunderstanding and confusion.

As far as other claims made by atheists that there is nothing after death; they cannot give 100% proof to support their claim. Neither can those individuals who have "nearly" died claim to know what comes next as near death is not the same as death.

Atheists like to pin their arguments on the known and observable universe. So it would be pointless to discuss with them the unknown. This would be akin to debating the size of the unknown universe (e.g., the portion of the universe for which light has not reached us and may never reach us. Therefore we cannot observe it nor can we deny that it exists with absolute certainty).

Puzzling are Atheists in my book. Why you may ask? Simply because they claim that God has nothing to do with creation. They claim that everything happens by chance. By chance the Universe was created from nothing; by chance planets form, by chance humans evolved from a single cell amoeba, by chance septillions of stars (1 trillion times 1 billion) are created-all of them following the exact same laws of planetary motion- and so on...

From this chaos and absolute chance we are able to derive definitive laws for genetics, physics, etc. At the end of the day, the core argument for atheists is that pure chaos and chance begets absolute perfection. Puzzling indeed.

this is basically why they outlawed suicide so early on in the history of religions. People killing themselves to get to the afterlife became an epidemic in early iterations of religious ideas. Yes, humans really are that dumb.

kashif313 says

they cannot give 100% proof to support their claim.

I think this line of reasoning was thoroughly shown to be self-evidently stupid. While atheist can't give 100% proof afterlife doesn't exist, religious people can't give the slightest evidence it does. Therefore, given the grotesque surrealist, physical laws violating, concept, it is 99.999% reasonable to assume it doesn't exist, just like a pink unicorn in NYC bending the laws of physics can safely be assumed to not exist.

humanity says

He actually believes he has proven this ?

It seems that given enough hand waving, and his personality, Dan can prove
anything he sets his mind to proving.

Hey, it is the internet after all. I don't think he even cares if this
character "Dan" that he has created is a total douchebag.

LOL, you and others, don't believe that there's an actual person named Dan, that you and them have read his posts and responded to, yet believe in a god and an afterlife though.

Toooooooo funny.

kashif313 says

Atheists like to pin their arguments on the known and observable universe. So it would be pointless to discuss with them the unknown.

Agnostic people claim they don't know the unknown and that is the 100% correct position.

Religious people claim they know the unknown and have grand delusions about what is in-there.

Atheists stay on the safe side to assume there in nothing magical until it becomes known otherwise. A much safer position than the religious one.

Heraclitusstudent says

kashif313 says

Atheists like to pin their arguments on the known and observable universe. So it would be pointless to discuss with them the unknown.

Agnostic people claim they don't know the unknown and that is the 100% correct position.

Religious people claim they know the unknown and have grand delusions about what is in-there.

Atheists stay on the safe side to assume there in nothing magical until it becomes known otherwise. A much safer position than the religious one.

I agree with the agnostic part, doesn't mean there are no incentives to lead a good life. I also often heard that agnostics are just too scared to admit they are atheists, which I disagree with. You can believe in a creative force (which I do) without having to or being able to exactly outline every inch of it. Part of the creative force is that you cannot comprehend it fully, similar to us not able to experience more than 3 dimensions. Plus atheists cannot answer the question what was there before the big-bang or who created the massive and dense energy that erupted into the big-bang.

kashif313 says

They claim that everything happens by chance. By chance the Universe was created from nothing; by chance planets form, by chance humans evolved from a single cell amoeba, by chance septillions of stars (1 trillion times 1 billion) are created-all of them following the exact same laws of planetary motion- and so on...

What we know about how the universe became what it is from the big bang has nothing to do with chance, and it fact nothing to do with atheism: it's just what is known about it.

Typical of religious people to say they want to talk about the unknown, and start by dismissing what is known.

Heraclitusstudent says

kashif313 says

They claim that everything happens by chance. By chance the Universe was created from nothing; by chance planets form, by chance humans evolved from a single cell amoeba, by chance septillions of stars (1 trillion times 1 billion) are created-all of them following the exact same laws of planetary motion- and so on...

What we know about how the universe became what it is from the big bang has nothing to do with chance, and it fact nothing to do with atheism: it's just what is known about it.

Typical of religious people to say they want to talk about the unknown, and start by dismissing what is known.

Then the garden variety atheist I've been speaking with doesn't know what they are speaking of? Do elucidate the uneducated - define atheism for us. If everything is not by chance AND there is no God...then how does our physical world come into existence? Is there a hybrid approach or are there now various "sects" of atheism?

Also, do we really understand the Big Bang? Can you mathematically explain the singularity found in the big bang and black holes? If you cant explain this, then the phenomena of existence itself cannot be explained. Is this your claim to the "known" - you're citing the big bang theory and hanging your hat on it? Wow - nice argument.

humanity says

He actually believes he has proven this ?

My position, which no one has been able to refute, is that anyone who believes the girl's death is tragic does not truly believe in the afterlife. Bashing me doesn't refute this position.

humanity says

I don't think he even cares if this character "Dan" that he has created is a total douchebag.

Yes, anyone who says a truth you don't like is by definition a douchebag. There's nothing more douchey than a truth that cannot be denied.

When one cannot attack an argument, attack the person making the argument and hope that the audience is dumb enough to be duped.

kashif313 says

As far as other claims made by atheists that there is nothing after death; they cannot give 100% proof to support their claim.

Take a computer. Turn it off. Unplug it. Smash it to little bits. Microwave the bits. Feed the microwaved bits to a lizard. Does the computer still download porn from the Internet?

Take a human brain. Kill it. Decompose it. Feed the decomposing bits to microorganisms. Does the brain still produce thought?

Yeah, there's no way I can be 100% certain that the brain isn't still working. After all, electricity is a pure mystery that can never be explained, nonetheless exploited to create a world-wide communication network. No one can understand how electronics work, not even in principle. It's a mystery, like why the sun rises every day and why the tides go in and out. That can never be explained.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ShjTbghQGcU

kashif313 says

Puzzling are Atheists in my book. Why you may ask? Simply because they claim that God has nothing to do with creation.

Why assume only one god? Why not tens of thousands of gods bickering over how the universe should operate and each with different moral codes? The assumption that there is one and only one god is going far more out of on a limb than assuming no god. Monotheism is a far more radical premise than atheism.

Nonetheless, the existence of god is irrelevant to the arguments D1, D2, and D3. If your afterlife exists, regardless of whether or not there is a god, then it is perfectly reasonable to murder babies to send them to paradise. If you don't accept that conclusion, then you don't accept the premise that the afterlife exists. You are simply lying to yourself.

The Original Bankster says

this is basically why they outlawed suicide so early on in the history of religions. People killing themselves to get to the afterlife became an epidemic in early iterations of religious ideas. Yes, humans really are that dumb.

Ah, but it is dumb if and only if the afterlife is a lie. The stupidity is in the premise, not the conclusion.

Heraclitusstudent says

While atheist can't give 100% proof afterlife doesn't exist,

Prove that it is impossible to disprove the afterlife. That's an assumption.

I most certainly can disprove specific afterlife myths just like I can disprove specific myths like Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster. You can show the myths were hoaxes created by people. You can show contradictions in the myths. You can show that the myths contradict the laws of nature.

Something isn't "undisprovable" simply because many people want to believe it. In fact, I would argue that anything that is undisprovable in principle is either meaningless or fictitious. Real things have consequences that can be observed. That's a law of nature. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If heaven exists, it has a thermodynamic footprint that can be observed.

Furthermore, there are an infinite number of ridiculous assumptions one could make if you're only criteria is that the assumption is not disproved. You could assume that an evil god created the universe and wants man to murder babies. Are you going to act on that possibility? Are you going to teach children about that "possible afterlife"? If not, then it is hypocritical to teach them the Christian afterlife. There's no more reason to accept one hypothetical afterlife than the other.

upisdown says

LOL, you and others, don't believe that there's an actual person named Dan, that you and them have read his posts and responded to, yet believe in a god and an afterlife though.

Toooooooo funny.

What's really ironic is that I am both god and an atheist. I don't believe in myself. Yet somehow I manage to post on PatNet even though I don't exist. It's a mystery that man cannot understand. I work in mysterious ways. The faithful should worship me and send lots of money to me. I will reward them in the afterlife.

And it makes just as much sense to believe in what I just wrote as it does to accept any other afterlife myth. Can anyone here prove with 100% certainty that I did not create the universe?

kashif313 says

define atheism for us. If everything is not by chance AND there is no God...then how does our physical world come into existence? Is there a hybrid approach or are there now various "sects" of atheism?

Atheists deny the existence of God.
The question is: are you denying what is known about how the universe evolved from the big bang to what it is now?

If not: news flash for you: no divine intervention is known to have happened.

If your proof of the existence of God (and the truth of your religious dogmas) is that the universe exists as it does, I'd say that's a tiny bit flimsy.

Heraclitusstudent says

Agnostic people claim they don't know the unknown and that is the 100% correct position.

The pussy position is not necessarily the correct position. Agnostics are closeted atheists who don't want to risk offending the stupid.

In fact, so-called agnostics are not really agnostic. They disbelieve in Thor. They disbelieve in Native American gods. They disbelieve in ancient Sumerian gods. They disbelieve even in polytheistic myths that are part of still practiced religions.

Do you have any idea how many gods there are in India alone? Don't give me the bullshit that any agnostic thinks that maybe Garuda, the snake-hating sun god, plausibly could exist. No agnostic puts Garuda on equal footing to Yahweh in terms of possibly existing.

So-called agnostics almost universally reject polytheism. They are not open-minded. They are conformists. There's a big difference.

Agnostic: Maybe this guy's legit.

mell says

Plus atheists cannot answer the question what was there before the big-bang or who created the massive and dense energy that erupted into the big-bang.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ro0yZyVR0Qk

There was nothing before the Big Bang. Time and space are curved at the singularity. Asking what happened a minute before the Big Bang is like asking what is located one mile north of the north pole; it is a meaningless question.

As such, the universe was not created and no one created it. Time is finite in the past direction, and the universe has existed for all of that finite amount of time.

If a god had created the universe, that would just move the question to what created the god? If the answer is that the god was not created and always exist, then just conclude that the universe was not created and always exist. Or to put it in terms that the religious would have: the universe itself is god, but god is not a sentient being. God is unaware, has no morality, and does not even know of the existence of mankind. God is just the mundane laws of nature, and it provides no afterlife and no moral guidance. Can you accept that god? Can you be agnostic about that god? God is nothing more than the universe itself, and all religions are lies about god.

Now, if you are willing to redefine god like that, I'm a firm believer in god. Of course, such a god merits understanding, but no worship. And there are no holy books, no resurrected Jesus, no afterlife, no soul, no free will. Are you still willing to call it god?

Never make a statement like "atheists cannot answer the question" unless you're damn sure they can't. This was an easy question to answer; all it takes is honesty.

kashif313 says

Also, do we really understand the Big Bang? Can you mathematically explain the singularity found in the big bang and black holes? If you cant explain this, then the phenomena of existence itself cannot be explained. Is this your claim to the "known" - you're citing the big bang theory and hanging your hat on it? Wow - nice argument.

Wow... The big bang happened. Existence exists. Ergo God exists, ergo afterlife exists, ergo religions must be true - all of them. Ergo everything that happened after the big bang was meant to happen....
Seriously. What crap!

mell says

Plus atheists cannot answer the question what was there before the big-bang or who created the massive and dense energy that erupted into the big-bang.

The fact that something is not known - or even cannot be known - is not evidence that what is known is not known, and is even less evidence that some random other statement (like God exists) is true.

Heraclitusstudent says

kashif313 says

Also, do we really understand the Big Bang? Can you mathematically explain the singularity found in the big bang and black holes? If you cant explain this, then the phenomena of existence itself cannot be explained. Is this your claim to the "known" - you're citing the big bang theory and hanging your hat on it? Wow - nice argument.

Wow... The big bang happened. Existence exists. Ergo God exists, ergo afterlife exists, ergo religions must be true - all of them. Ergo everything that happened after the big bang was meant to happen....

Seriously. What crap!

Never said all religions are true.

By the way, you never answered the question - explain singularity - the point at which physics and the what is "known" breaks down....still waiting. I know it's far easier to call names and deflect from the argument presented than to actually address the issues at hand. Perhaps you know as well as I do that even the "known" universe isn't really known. Can you explain dark energy and dark matter? That is 96% percent of what is known and even that is an unknown. In fact, we do not even have scientific/mathematical equations to explain the phenomena.

So, what exactly is the basis of your argument? Let's start with there is no God....you can take it from there. Im listening....

Dan8267 says

Agnostics are closeted atheists who don't want to risk offending the stupid.

I'm not an agnostic myself, but agnosticism is valid from a purely logical perspective, and is mostly sufficient to eliminate random beliefs about things we don't know.

Dan8267 says

There was nothing before the Big Bang. Time and space are curved at the singularity. Asking what happened a minute before the Big Bang is like asking what is located one mile north of the north pole; it is a meaningless question.

This is simply not true unless you put yourself above the experts (physicists, believers or not) who do not have an answer to this question but different theories exist. And it's not a challenge, it's a fact. The rest you wrote I have no issues with, there are plenty of people who believe that the universe and mankind is one and may just exist without a special "creating conscience", but that doesn't mean that there cannot be other dimensions of existence.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

Agnostics are closeted atheists who don't want to risk offending the stupid.

I'm not an agnostic myself, but agnosticism is valid from a purely logical perspective, and is mostly sufficient to eliminate random beliefs about things we don't know.

I have heard this before and even mentioned this in a previous post, I am not sure where this is coming from. In this modern materialistic age I would say most youngsters are not afraid of anything (except for not having the latest and greatest smartphone) so it would seem illogical to me that today's agnostics are afraid of someone. Maybe some of them are simply too lazy or pragmatic to ponder over this, but I don't think they are afraid. And especially if you acknowledge that you may not comprehend some or all aspects of the paranormal - should it exist - then it makes somewhat sense to focus on the moment and carpe diem.