Totalitarianist

Animals are unaware of death. They do not believe that they will cease to exist. They enjoy the feeling of immortality, and yet are Atheists. That Atheist philosopher McTaggart also believed in immortality. I believe some Buddhists believe in immortality and not Deity.

Totalitarianist

No, it is impossible by definition. Agnostics absolutely lack knowledge of Deity. If you believe in Deity, you must also necessarily believe that you have knowledge of Deity. To be able to say that something "exists" is knowledge. The agnostic cannot even apply the concept "existence" to Deity, for that would be knowledge. Ignorance is total ignorance; that is, ignorance of ignorance. You cannot even know that there is a "thing" of which to be ignorant. If the agnostic has any knowledge whatsoever of Deity -- he is on the contrary no agnostic at all, even if all he can say about Deity is that he "exists".

Therefore, all agnostics are atheists, and no theists are agnostics. For if you have knowledge of Deity, you necessarily believe in him. Agnostics cannot have knowledge of Deity. They necessarily do not believe in him, and are necessarily atheists.

The agnostic/atheist distinction is meaningless.

HelenM

They lack certainty. "I don't know" is not necessarily a statement of ignorance. It can be a statement about lack of certainty also.

You may lack certainty. You can believe in something without being sure about it.

In fact, if you're sure then you know rather than believing.

I think your basic mistake is equating 'agnostic' with 'ignorant' and not allowing it also to mean 'uncertainty'.

I think most people mean 'uncertain' rather than 'ignorant'. I would agree that one reason for uncertainty is lack of knowledge. Another reason could be having knowledge but being unable to prove whether it's accurate/true/reliable or not.

What you mean is: by my definition and assumptions, all...etc.

Not necessarily by anyone else's.

I responded to this earlier in this reply, the first time you said it so please see above.

Helen

Sabine Grant

I agree with you Helen... I will also add that it seems that the degree of being an agnostic or a theist or a non theist involves individuality.

My husband for example is a self declared agnostic. He does not embrace an identifyiable divine authority but does not deny the possibility of the existence of an undefined supreme entity in charge of the Universe. He is well balanced in the sense that he allows for " I have yet to know all things" which makes him the wise person he is. He certainly would not want to be classified as an atheist or a theist or even deist.
People have a right to their indivduality in which one should respect their nuances and tendencies rather than attempt to classify them in a general group.

Paperstreet

Actually NO ONE can answer a or b, to the first question. So technically everyone doesn't know and is agnostic. The second one limits it to religion, which is a different question. (which is the point I know)

Athiest and agnostic are not the same thing, although no christian or religous person will admit they do not know if there is a God or not.

DMB

I agree with the majority view on this. One can be epistomologically agnostic and either a practising theist or a practising atheist. All those theists who take Pascal's Wager seriously would presumably fall into the former category.

My understanding is that some people use the word "agnostic" to describe someone who maintains that we cannot know whether or not god/s exist/s. This seems totally reasonable to me. If you know that god exists, as some theists claim, then where is the merit of faith, of which so much is made?

I long ago decided that I live my life on the assumption that gods as portrayed by various religions are too far-fetched to take seriously. I therefore decided it was more honest to call myself an atheist than an agnostic, even though I can't say I know that no gods exist.

I do sometimes play with the idea of a remote deistic power, but I wonder if I would give even that a second thought if there were not such a long human history of manufactured deities. We are born with clean slates, apart from any hardwired predispositions, but we all grow up in human cultures that quite early on present us with one form of religious and superstitious belief or another. It's impossible to imagine what it would be like to grow up in a religion-free world. The closest analogy I can think of is the way in which most of us Westerners have managed to grow up without serious belief in fairies, leprechauns, elves and so on, even though a few generations back most country people, particularly if illiterate, did so believe. When I lived in Cornwall as a child, I met people who did still believe in Cornish piskies; they were considered to be tricky and malevolent. One had to avoid being out on the moor at night, for fear of being led by piskies into a bog.

As a young woman I lived in a 15th-century house where a famous mediaeval murder was alleged to have occurred. Most residents of the town believed that the house was haunted by the murder victim and couldn't understand how I dared to live there on my own.

I don't know how many members of this board have come across similar superstitions. My impression is that with better education such beliefs are being eroded. Perhaps in time the same will happen with the various religions.

RichardMorey

Plenty of people answer a or b to the first question. That is why I think that it is important to view the first question as a measure of certainty. Just because they are not JUSTIFIED in answering a or b doesn't mean they don't. "agnostic" and "atheist" are personal, subjective labels - justification isn't the point.

There are a few (precious few) who are Christian and describe their faith as not based on knowledge. I call these people Christian agnostics. It should be noted that anyone who is stupid enough to fall for Pascal's Wager belongs in this category.

Totalitarianist

Your definition is wrong.

HelenM

This is what Merriam-Webster says:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
- ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun

Helen

Totalitarianist

That is the definition which I previously accepted. Now I know that it is incorrect.