I don't really feel like debating Hume, but he was against the validity of the senses. In other words, he says that there is a difference between the things we see and the things that are. My objection, which I think is both Aristotle and Ayn Rand's, is that you cannot know something as it is until you sense it. You don't know what "1" is until you have used your senses to determine what "1" is.
Calling Hume an agnostic would be wrong anyways, since I am pretty sure he considered himself to be an atheist. Either way, it really undermines his thought, which has been pretty influential. Hume is considered to be one of the major philosophers, which is ironic since he is really similar to Plato. Ayn Rand is similar to Aristotle and gets all sorts of shit for it, but I guess one more common-sense philosopher is already too much (even though Aristotle and Ayn Rand are not identical).
There are way too many differences between atheists/agnostics for them all to be lumped together. The most basic thing would be to label based on one's epistemological stance, since it avoids all of the stupid misunderstandings.
"Nature loves to be hidden."
Last edited by RNB; 08-11-2010 at 10:50 PM.