I ate Pascal's Wafer

nermal, Erm, not quite. Agnosticism is completely different from atheism. The agnostic simply says that God's existence is unknowable. You can believe that we can't know of God's existence one way or the other yet disbelieve in God, thus making you an agnostic atheist--which is another term for weak atheist. Or, you can believe that we can't know of God's existence one way or the other yet believe in God, thus making you an agnostic theist.

In other words, the agnostic simply states that we can't know for sure that God exists. I would think that this is an honest assessment, is it not? One can either believe or disbelieve in God either way from there, but could still be considered an agnostic as he does not believe we can know for sure whether or not God exists.

Right. However, unless you know of God's existence either way, you are, by definition, and agnostic. You believe, but honestly admit that you don't know for a fact.

Yes. The agnostic (generally these people tend to be agnostic atheists, though agnostic theists are not discluded) is simply claiming that his lack of knowledge is more important than his belief. He holds that beliefs are something which anybody can have, so his personal belief regarding the god issue is not a defining feature. He holds that his defining feature is his agnosticism--his admittance that we cannot be sure of God's nonexistence. Apparently the agnostic values his skepticism and willingness to admit that we don't know everything more than his simple beliefs which do not distinguish him from others with their own beliefs.

-Nick

mike_decock

This is where I disagree with you.

Agnosticism refers to "knowledge". IMO, EVERYONE is an agnostic on the God issue. Nobody KNOWS if there is or isn't a God since there has never been conclusive evidence either way.

Theism and atheism refer to "belief". The "weak" theist or atheist will admit that they are agnostic, yet believe or don't believe in the existence of God. Both of these, IMO are the only intellectually honest positions.

The "strong" theist or atheist claims to "know" that God exists or doesn't exist and denies their agnosticism. IMO, both of those positions are intellectually dishonest.

-Mike...

nermal

Sorry to tell you, but you don't disagree with me. We agree completely.

My earlier post may have been unclear. The word agnostic denotes and connotes different things, and I must be more specific.
Generally when one thinks of an agnostic, one thinks of a person who makes no assertions about God and follows no religion. This is my perception, and I may be in error.
One can certainly be a religious agnostic, in fact, all faith based religions speak to the "unknowability" of God. The agnotic I was referring to was the non religious agnostic, but you lend much more clarity to the term.

I agree with your assertion about agnosticism. From that assertion, I think we could agree (think about it) that the word "agnosticism" is meaningless. Everyone is an agnostic, atheists, theists, et. al. Therefore the term makes no distinctions, and therefore it is useless. Only "strong" atheists can claim antiagnosticism, and I assert their position is untenable.
Perhaps some Fundies can deny agnosticism also, but I haven't met any rational Fundies, so I won't speak to that.

Those who claim "agnosticism" aren't telling us anything about themselves. If they wish to distinguish themselves in the context of a religious debate, they need to find a different term, otherwise the debate would go something like this:

Agnostic: "I am an agnostic. I do not know of the existence of God."
Christian: "So am I. I do not know of the existence of God, but I believe in it. I have faith."
Atheist: "So am I. I do not know of the existence of God, but see no evidence for it. I do not believe in God."

What's the Agnostic's position, Mu?

The simple question is this: Do you believe in God(s)?
Can an "agnostic" answer this question without evading, and without admitting theism or atheism?

Ed

mike_decock

The meaning of the word "agnosticism" is fairly distinct: "without knowledge". We both agree that this applies to everyone.

The admission of agnosticism is what distinguishes the "weak" (a)theists from the "strong" (a)theists. The usefulness of the term is in defining the intellectual honesty of the individual.

I assert that answering "I don't know" is an evasion of the question which is asking about belief, not knowledge. You either have a belief in God or you don't.

I think the only "strong" agnostic response to this question would be: "I don't know, sometimes I believe there is a God and sometimes I don't believe".

-Mike...

nermal

Ok, it has meaning, just like "human" has meaning. But in the context of a religious discussion, I maintain that it is useless. What point is there in calling oneself an agnostic if it does not distinguish one from any other? I still do not see evidence of "strong" atheists. I've never met one. I've never read a book or even a post by one. As before, I've heard the claim, but the argument always falls back to the "weak" atheist position.

I contend that atheism is atheism. There is no strong or weak.

I further contend that agnosticism is a security blanket. One can claim agnosticism without having to do the intellectually difficult work of making a claim of belief or disbelief, and defending that position.
Also, it does not carry the same stigma that atheism carries, which makes a claim of agnosticism seem more palatable.


This is exactly what I said in my original post. This is the crux of the issue.

That sounds more like intellectual apathy or laziness.

Weak and Strong agnostics? There is way too much stratification here. If the only logically valid position is "the existence of an supernatural God is unknowable," and I maintain that it is, then the term agnostic lends nothing. How does stratisfying a useless category lend to its efficacy?

Ed

mike_decock

I just coined the term "Strong Agnostic" just for the sake of it .

I agree that, technically, you are right: Everyone is agnostic and is either a theist or an atheist.

The stratification is only useful in determining the measure of intellectual apathy, laziness or honesty of the individual, not their beliefs.

-Mike...

Psycho Economist

What did I say? I said atheism and agnosticism don't refer to the same question. Ease up on the theist / atheist duality. There's more to life than that.

There's more wiggle room between belief and knowledge than you're admitting. One can know something and still not believe it: denial. And one can believe and know at the same time: acceptance.

Yeah, this hypothetical guy is going out on a logical limb... but that doesn't mean it's not a possible for a person to put himself in that position.
Yeah, it serves a purpose. People choose to call themselves what they consider most relevant. If my belief about the existance of deities is less important than my six-inch stature, why shouldn't I put my lilipution status first? Not everybody has the same priorities as you.
Apology accepted.

It's the first time I've tried to express that as a syllogism. I've been able to articulate it better before, albeit less formally. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

Philosoft

Why? Non-cognitivism is characterized by the identical lack of belief as atheism; n-c-ists merely have an additional premise: that certain words (i.e "God," "supernatural") refer to non-concepts or erroneous concepts.

We're all atheists - we've all heard the claims and rejected them.

nermal

I can't ease up on that. It's my entire point. I contend that "agnostic" is a meaningless qualifier in a discussion of religious positions. I contend that the theist/atheist duality is all there is.

Denial is irrational; it's self delusion. I am trying to keep the topic limited to rational persons, since there is nothing interesting about irrational people.

Acceptance is just coming to terms emotionally with what you know. It does not speak to belief.

The existence of theists prove a person can put himself in that position. That is my contention. The "strong" atheist, by asserting the unprovable, forces himself to play on the theists' field, and gives credence to the lie that atheism is a religion.

But how can a label which distinguishes you from no one else be most relevant?

Ed

Bumble Bee Tuna

Agnosticism is meaningless. You cannot "know" anything. So one has to be "agnostic" about everything in life. Yet we still use the word "know". This means that agnostic is a useless word.

I am a "strong" atheist. The question of God is no more unknowable than the question of the color shirt I'm wearing. Solipsism is a worthless, bullshit philosophy and it's what you're stuck with if you're an agnostic.

If I don't "Know" that god doesn't exist, then I don't "know" anything.

-B