CALDONIA

Here's my humble take on the issue:

"Do you believe in [a] God?"

Atheist: No.
Agnostic: The question is meaningless and not worthy of examination.

Hans

You started it.

No more yelling though, I promise.

Nowhere357

Have you heard of the agnostic theist?

Hans

Yes I have. As I understand it, it is their contention that God exists.

metacristi

Zadok001


The two questions are distinct but strongly related.Basically agnosticism is related with KNOWLEDGE whilst atheism/theism is related with BELIEF.The real problem is whether God does exist or not.How can we determine that rationally?By carefully examining all available evidence (subjective and objective) including whether the concept of God is coherent internally.Is this data enough to prove that God does exist/does not exist or at least make 'objectively' 'God hypothesis' more probable/less probable than naturalism?Well agnostics arrive at the conclusion that all data available (usually only objective,scientific data is accepted) is not enough to reach a clear conclusion.Indeed this is the only rational conclusion we can derive if we study very carefully all scientific facts.From science we cannot conclude 'obectively' neither that God hypothesis (God defined as being merely the creator of the universe) is less probable nor that it is more probable than naturalism.All unbiased people do recognize that.I for example,I am an agnostic in what 'objective',scientific,knowledge is concerned and a believer in what BELIEF is concerned.
When dealing with the question regarding belief/disbelief agnostics arrive at the conclusion that this state of facts (not enough objective evidence to settle the problem of God either way) makes also impossible to take a decision of whether to believe or to disbelieve.As a consequence they prefer neither to believe nor to disbelieve.This is perfectly rational in the light of known facts however it is not the only rational stance.

Do I have have the right to believe in God (or an atheist to disbelieve) if there is no sufficient scientific data to settle the problem of God's existence/nonexistence (beyond all reasonable doubt)?Yes as much as a rational base does exist for the belief/disbelief.For that I do not need scientific evidence proving beyond all reasonable doubt that God does exist,in fact even subjective (not intersubjective at least for the moment) evidence is accepted.I believe [God defined merely as the creator/formator of the actual order in Universe] especially due to some first hand,subjective indeed,strange experiences (but not only).Anyway enough to base a strictly personal belief.By belief I understand here 'an opinion,especially a firm and considered one' that 'God hypothesis' is more probable to be true in the light of all evidence (subjective and objective available to me).For the moment at least.No 'immutable' dogmas,no positive claims or proselytism (it's one to discuss a concept and totally another thing to make a positive claim),no certitudes then.
Conversely the disbelief position is as acceptable as belief as much as a rational base does exist also.Being an atheist due to a feeling IS NOT a rational base.The lack of scientific evidence (after carefully examining all scientific objective available data) is an acceptable reason to rationally back a disbelief position.
BUT THIS IS IN NO WAY ENOUGH TO CLAIM THAT "GOD HYPOTHESIS" WAS PROVED INFERIOR TO NATURALISM,RENDERING BELIEF NON RATIONAL THEREFORE,AS MANY ATHEISTS CLAIM SO OFTEN!

Indeed naturalism is a conjecture (I've explained why in a previous thread here-about what evidence would make God hypothesis less probable scientifically),the decision to believe/disbelieve is still subjective:there are no logical or experimental constraints yet that makes a belief (even if the decision was taken only after carefully examining all existing evidence-subjective and objective) non rational.

Here are my (controversial from my previous net experiences) definitions of agnosticism:


1.'Hard' agnosticism- 'God(s) cannot be known [forever]'.This type of agnosticism is often mistaken as the only type of agnosticism.Given that it is self-defeating logically (implying objective knowledge that 'God can never be known' is TRUE) many concluded from here (wrongly) that agnosticism is not a valid position.


2.'Weak' agnosticism-'I suspend judgement regarding disbelief/belief until I will have sufficient reason to believe/disbelieve'.
Weak agnostics DO NOT sustain that God cannot be known [forever] but only that today we have no sufficient reason to believe/disbelieve.'Sufficient reason' to believe/disbelieve does not mean necessarilly 'objective' (scientific) knowledge but only enough evidence that can be interpreted (subjectively varying from person to person-there is no unique,rigid standard) as supporting belief/disbelief.Anyway,usually,scientific objective knowledge is required.

Keatslover

I define myself as agnostic and I'm not sure exactly what it means. But then, to me agnostic isn't an exact concept. Mostly I'm agnostic because I don't believe in being sure anout the existence or nonexistence somthing like a deity. To claim either theism or atheism would be to say that I know the truth about what (if anything) is out there. Either of these would be intellecutually dishonest. I simply don't know and I'm personally ok with that. You can say I'm being indecisive or hedging my bets if you like but I simply don't think in a way that would make athiesm or theism a feasible alternative.
--Kate

Nowhere357

As belief, or as knowledge?

Hans

I would presume they believe God exists, just as a theist does.

Nowhere357

Then all I have left is to object to having my agnostism lumped together with the agnostism of the agnostic theist. Which really is no objection at all.

Your classification system is fine with me. I'm agnostic on spiritual reality of some sort, and a hard atheist on the xian mythological god.

I tried re-reading some of this thread, and now I have a headache.

Starseyer

I consider myself agnostic.
I say that the supernatural is outside of science. Science is the realm of human knowledge, which concerns itself with things that can be tested (very simplistic definition, I know there is more to it). Since the supernatural is outside the realm of human knowledge we cannot make definate claims to knowledge about it.

Also, any claim made about the supernatural world can never really be proven one way or the other. Far as we know one claim is as good as another.
Consider prayer as an example. I've heard many xians make claim to the effectiveness of prayer. Say a person prays for something. If they get it, their prayer was answered. If they don't get it, their prayer was answered. They will say that God is telling them "no" or "later". So silence is considered an answer, too.

Anyway . . . My answers to the questions:

Is there a God?
-I don't know.

Do you believe in God?
-No.

I guess that makes me an agnostic atheist