Pyrrho

First, let us look at some "standard" definitions (all from http://dictionary.reference.com/):

Philosophers typically say that a theist believes in a god or gods, an atheist believes there are no gods, and an agnostic is someone who does not know (either because it is unknowable, or simply not known yet by the individual in question).

Now, if you want to equate a lack of absolute certainty with being an agnostic, then many theists would be agnostics as well. But that would be a very non-standard use of the term "agnostic".

Ernest Sparks

as a result of forum discussions, I describe my agnosticism thus:

If something isn't unconditionally-logically-necessary, then it isn't necessary;
If something isn't unconditionally-logically-impossible, it is still possible.

It's true that agnostics are apt to get the poor-lost-sheep treatment rather than the demon-possessed-hellion treatment accorded atheists. Recall Bertrand Russell's story about the guard when he was imprisoned during WWI for conscientous objection. The guard said something like this.

"You wrote your religious preference here as 'agnostic'. Hmm! Never heard of that one! Oh well, there are plenty of religions; I guess they all worship the same God."

Now, back to my prayers before the altar of Agnost!

Bumble Bee Tuna

Well, I'm a strong atheist.

I think of it this way:

True 100% knowledge of anything is impossible. Nothing can be proven because everything goes back to unprovable assumptions. Assumption: I exist. My input from the environment around me is accurate.

Since knowledge is impossible, when we use the terms "I know" or "I believe", we are really saying "The chance of ______ being true is very, very high".

I find that the existence of a deity is within a realm of possibility low enough that I see no problems with stating "I believe god(s) do not exist". You never hear anyone bothering to profess to be a "weak leprechaunist" or a "agnostic leprechaunist"...People just plain say leprechauns do not exist. Same with god. Strong atheism IMO is no different from weak atheism but most people stick to weak/agnostic because they don't want to deal with stupid theists who can't follow the line of reasoning and just parrot 'you are making a faith-based assertion there! You're no different from me!'. I admit against intellect of this level I usually don't bother calling myself a strong atheist because I realize they'll never figure it out.

-B

Conchobar

You are getting a bit fuzzy there, but it is so. It is also possible to be an Agnostic regarding god/creators in generic form but be an Atheist in respect to the Judeo-Christian God because that God is based on a Bible which disproves its own god. Non-anthropomorphic gods are a hypothetical possibility but without evidence I will not commit myself. I have no pressing need to confirm or deny hypothetical entities with no evidence.

Conchobar

SteveD

While it doesn't reflect the common understanding of the word, I prefer to view agnosticism the way it was originally defined by the orginator of the term, Thomas Henry Huxley.

"Agnosticism is, in fact, not a creed, but a method, the essence of this lies in a rigorous application of a single priciple. ...Positively the priciple may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively, in matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. ..."

The fundamental difference between atheism and agnosticism is that atheism is a statement about (lack of) belief and agnosticism is a statement about knowledge.

Based on the above definition of agnosticism, it appears that one could be either a theist or an atheist and still claim to be an agnostic.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I don't know if there is a god or not but I don't believe so.

Steve

Philosoft

See, I think this is a meaningless proposition. Is there a thinkable state-of-affairs for which there exists literally no evidence?

My, but this is confusing. Rejecting "bogus evidence" is the primary reason I'm an atheist!


I'm having trouble understanding what is the functional difference between your agnosticism and my atheism.

Pyrrho

I suspect that Conchobar has in mind the concept of insufficient evidence, though, of course, I freely admit that Conchobar can speak for him- or herself on such matters. Also, if we forget about Christianity specifically, and consider whether there is a "god" of any kind or not, it becomes a bit less clear what counts as evidence for or against such a nebulous (and perhaps vacuous) notion.

As for there being a "functional" difference between an atheist and an agonistic, often there appears to be no "functional" difference between the two. Why should there be? Unless, of course, one means that an agnostic may be more inclined to listen to someone who claims to have finally produced some decent evidence in favor of some god or other.

Philosoft

I think that would undermine Conch's assertion that agnosticism is a state of indeterminancy. The very presence of evidence seems to necessitate an accept/reject dichotomy.

You certainly have a point there.

I would think if we're going to all the trouble to define them seperately, there ought to at least be a way to tell them apart.
I don't know why this would be the case. Like I said, the god-concept doesn't exists in an evidential vacuum. The atheist and the agnostic both have probably heard the cases for and against.

Asha'man

I essentially agree with Bumble Bee Tuna, I'm more or less a strong atheist.

I am convinced that all non-trivial definitions of God (i.e. excluding meaningless statements like God is Love, God is Entropy, God is the Universe) are figments of the imagination, the results of primitive and superstitious thinking.

The utter lack of evidence for anything supernatural is overwhelmingly convincing: no supernatural entity is actively interfering with the universe, and any belief in such entities is groundless.

I am also a strong agnostic, according to the strict definition of the term: lack of knowledge of God.

Almost by definition, the only way to have knowledge of the supernatural is to be told by a supernatural source. Such knowledge cannot be acquired by observation, only revelation. I believe that no such revelation has ever occurred, so no knowledge of God exists (among humans, at least).

Needless to say, both of these beliefs are based on the evidence that I am aware of, and are subject to change if adequately convincing evidence is ever presented.

I make a subtle distinction between atheist and agnostic: atheism is a statement about belief, agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. But everyone has their own definition for these terms, so clearly stating your actual position is probably best.

MadMez

After discussing with a co-worker this thread, the lunch table got embroiled in a too-and-fro’ on what meant what. We came up with 6 types, and although realizing that there must be more, could only think of 3 nouns to describe 3 of the types. Were we right? Can someone educate us?

What are the correct ways of describing the following;

1. A person that does not believe in the existence of any god, gods, or supernatural being (s).
2. “Atheist” - A person that has not found any convincing proof of the existence of any god, gods, or supernatural being (s).
3. “Agnostic” - A person that believes that such a god, gods, or supernatural being(s) may exist, but have not been observed or correctly described. Or have not yet, or cannot yet. Whatever.
4. A person that believes that a god, gods, or supernatural being(s) exists but does not see any particular religion as relevant to the acknowledgment of it.
5. “Theist” - A person that not only believes in the existence of any god, gods, or supernatural being(s), and has picked a particular religion to follow it, but is not dismissive of any (or most) other religions and gods.
6. A person that not only believes in the existence of any god, gods, or supernatural being(s) but is adamantly dismissive of any other religion or god.

FYI, it was the most objective discussion I’ve took part in on religion, and all around the table fell into one of the categories, with all categories having at least one member. Oh, and I’m a “2”, and if someone could move that to a “1” after I die, I’d be most grateful.