# Agnostics--could you more precisely state your position? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2012, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573 "2012-02-22T00:06:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/121 "2012-02-22T17:18:03Z")
> [@Doubticus](#): > > Agnostic here. > > It’s impossible for a bacteria in your blood stream to know that it lives in a sentient person. In the same way, the physical nature of our own existence could leave us blind to higher order beings. The knowledge of our existence is useless to the bacteria and similarly, knowledge of higher beings is worth about as much to us. Yes, but we can only say it is impossible because we know the nature of both Bacteria and Man. When it comes to the nature of Man and God, we only know of our own nature and thus _cannot_ claim to know that the nature of God is unknowable. edited to add: Logically, since we do not have knowledge of what knowledge we might have in the future, the only thing we can be say for certain is unknowable, and what will always be unknowable, is that which does not exist in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/122 "2012-02-22T17:20:14Z")
I am agnostic in that I believe it is impossible to prove through any epistomology as to whether a deity exists and thus it is all dependent on faith. Notice that that does not tell you whether or not I have faith that a Supreme Being, ordering force or hovering plate of linguini exists. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/123 "2012-02-22T17:23:29Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I am agnostic in that I believe it is impossible to prove through any epistomology as to whether a deity exists and thus it is all dependent on faith. Notice that that does not tell you whether or not I have faith that a Supreme Being, ordering force or hovering plate of linguini exists. Is it your belief that a deity is _incapable_ of revealing itself to us? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/124 "2012-02-22T17:29:52Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I am agnostic in that I believe it is impossible to prove through any epistomology as to whether a deity exists and thus it is all dependent on faith. What sort of things in your epistemology is it possible to know, and how do you know them? (Just easy examples, I’m not asking for a thesis on knowledge.) ---
**Author:** ![Doubticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@Doubticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doubticus)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/125 "2012-02-22T17:35:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Logically, since we do not have knowledge of what knowledge we might have in the future, the only thing we can be say for certain is unknowable, and what will always be unknowable, is that which does not exist in the first place. Perhaps, there are alternate dimensions of reality and perhaps, sentient beings exist in them, and it is possible, quite possible that we will never be able to bridge the gap between. To us, what is the difference between them existing and not existing? None as far as I can tell. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/126 "2012-02-22T17:41:08Z")
> [@Doubticus](#): > > Perhaps, there are alternate dimensions of reality and perhaps, sentient beings exist in them, and it is possible, quite possible that we will never be able to bridge the gap between. To us, what is the difference between them existing and not existing? None as far as I can tell. And who are we to say that this knowledge is absolutely unobtainable? You _cannot_ say that a wall cannot be breached without seeing it first, or at least getting a complete description of it first. ---
**Author:** ![Doubticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@Doubticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doubticus)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/127 "2012-02-22T17:45:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And who are we to say that this knowledge is absolutely unobtainable? You _cannot_ say that a wall cannot be breached without seeing it first, or at least getting a complete description of it first. I can say it hasn’t up to now and people have lived and died without seeing it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/128 "2012-02-22T17:51:32Z")
> [@Doubticus](#): > > I can say it hasn’t up to now and people have lived and died without seeing it. Actually, we can’t even say that. I can only say that no such evidence has been put before me, not that it doesn’t exist. What we do know now has little bearing on what we can know in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Doubticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@Doubticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doubticus)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/129 "2012-02-22T17:57:30Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What we do know now has little bearing on what we can know in the future. Perhaps, but it is the only standard by which we can claim to know anything. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/130 "2012-02-22T18:01:30Z")
> [@Doubticus](#): > > Perhaps, but it is the only standard by which we can claim to know anything. All I ask is that agnostics not confuse “do not know” with “can not know”, which is exactly what happens when the statement “We cannot know the nature of God” is made. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/131 "2012-02-22T18:15:40Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’m not redefining any word here. To be an atheist you DO have to be certain that there is no God…otherwise you aren’t an atheist, by definition. Instead, you are what Dawkins calls a “de facto atheist”. Or, an agnostic, though what label people self apply is entirely up to you. I think ‘de facto atheists’ is a bit unwieldy for me, while ‘agnostic’ is a lot easier. YMMV. > > -XT First of all, I have been involved in on-line discussions of this topic for over 35 years, and I have met exactly one person who falls into your definition of atheist. And he was a nitwit. Let’s explore the logical implication of your definition. What does it mean to be certain that there are no gods, in the theory of knowledge sense, and in the sense that we are certain that the world exists. Being certain that there is no Western God, even in all of his varieties, is clearly not adequate. Being certain that there is god which is believed in today. Even being certain that there is no god believed in in the past (perhaps a small turtle?) is not adequate, and here we are going beyond what it is possible to know. But we’d really have to be certain that there are no gods on any planet around any star in any galaxy. Perhaps the real god created the universe for the benefit of someone else. How can we be certain about that? So, your definition pretty much rules out the position of atheism for any sensible person. And that is the very essence of a strawman definition. If agnosticism is the position that we cannot know that there is no god, then we are all agnostics also. However it seems to also include it not being possible to know if there is a god, and that seems a bit odd, since any god worth his salt can prove his existence quite handily. (And did if you believe the Exodus story.) By prove I mean again to the same level we know there is a world. (I think extreme skeptics should be locked up, fitting punishment because they could never really be sure that they are in jail.) So I don’t understand the full agnostic position, but if atheist agnostic means no god belief and a belief that it is impossible to prove god’s nonexistence, then I’m fine with it, and subscribe to it. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/132 "2012-02-22T18:27:21Z")
If you don’t believe in God you’re an atheist. Most self-described agnostics don’t believe in God. As for the nonsense about _you don’t know there isn’t a God, so you can’t state it definitively_. That’s puerile. You don’t know to a 100% level that reality isn’t a turtle-fart or that space vampires don’t control the Emmys. But if anyone asks you, you say _no, that’s not true_. Just like if someone asks you what your mom’s name is, she may have been lying all your life, or you may be a kidnapped prince living with traitors to the crown, but you assume that the world isn’t some Truman Show lie and give the information as you know it. There is no God. I can say that because I know that all the evidence people have tried to show for Him has pratfalled embarrassingly. Take GEEPERS attempts over the last few weeks for instance. Given that there is no evidence for God, none at all, of course I assume that a sentient universe creating force that self-assembles doesn’t exist. Now, do I know it to 100%, of course not. I might be a brain in a jar, or a nightmare someone is having, or a computer simulation. But given the world _as our senses relate it_, God is a nonsense assertion. In any case, agnostic is a position on whether something is knowable. It isn’t a position on the existence of God. Plenty of people use it as atheism-light, a cop-out so they don’t piss off their families. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/133 "2012-02-22T18:36:28Z")
> [@The\_Bith\_Shuffle](#): > > In my experience, it’s hard to tell just what somebody who is “agnostic” is uncertain about. > > Do they mean that they think there’s a 50% chance that there’s a Christian God who hates homosexuals? > > Do they think there’s a remote chance that an Abrahamic God exists, but probably not? > > Do they think there’s got to be something supernatural, but they have no idea what it is, and it might not really be a god? I consider myself an agnostic because I adhere to the philosophy that no one knows whether a god of any kind exists, and that the people who tell that one does are lying. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/134 "2012-02-22T18:43:16Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > All I ask is that agnostics not confuse “do not know” with “can not know”, which is exactly what happens when the statement “We cannot know the nature of God” is made. Where is that written that all agnostics say “can not know” it surely is not the stance of the man who coined the term. I think some people who claim to be agnostic confuse currently unexplained with unexplainable. However if you believe that “do not know” but may know at some time you yourself are agnostic. I can see a day where your theory of “there are no gods” may be testable, but once again you have not provided a single shred of evidence to make that claim so until you make a single effort to prove what you posit I will claim. There is no current credible evidence to believe in the existence of any god. [QUOTE=Czarcasm] And who are we to say that this knowledge is absolutely unobtainable? You cannot say that a wall cannot be breached without seeing it first, or at least getting a complete description of it first. [/QUOTE] There is quite a body of evidence that walls have been breached, and that walls exist. “There is no current credible evidence to believe in the existence of any god.” What part of that statement claims it is “absolutely unobtainable” I do think that as we being to understand consciousness most of the common arguments for a god will be subject to falsification. Any claim that agnostics as a whole believe it will always remain so is purely the creation of a straw-man argument. ---
**Author:** ![starwarsfreek42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@starwarsfreek42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/starwarsfreek42)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/135 "2012-02-22T18:49:44Z")
I call myself agnostic. I don’t believe there is a god, but I don’t believe there isn’t one either. I don’t believe that we will know whether or not there is a god. I don’t believe we can know. I don’t believe we are supposed to know. I don’t believe that it matters. I sort of lean toward the notion that perhaps the universe itself is god, or the closest thing to a god that can exist. You know, that thing Carl Sagan says? “The cosmos is also within us; we’re made of starstuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” ---
**Author:** ![Craz3d117](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@Craz3d117](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Craz3d117)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/136 "2012-02-22T19:01:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > From what I understand, I’m an atheist- because when asked “Do you believe in god”, I say “no”. > > Also, from what I understand, I’m an agnostic- because when asked “Is there a god”, I say “I don’t know”. I think the difference is really as simple as this. Both an atheist and an agnostic would say “no” to the first question. However, regarding the second question, only an atheist would say “no” whereas an agnostic would say “I don’t know” Neither choose to believe in a deity but an agnostic leaves room for the possibility, whereas an atheist does not. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/137 "2012-02-22T19:01:48Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Any claim that agnostics as a whole believe it will always remain so is purely the creation of a straw-man argument. And no one as far as I know has made this claim. I was addressing only those in this thread that made claim that the nature of God is not only not known, but also unknowable. If this is not your belief, then it wasn’t directed at you. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/138 "2012-02-22T19:03:28Z")
> [@Craz3d117](#): > > I think the difference is really as simple as this. > > Both an atheist and an agnostic would say “no” to the first question. > > However, regarding the second question, only an atheist would say “no” whereas an agnostic would say “I don’t know” > > Neither choose to believe in a deity but an agnostic leaves room for the possibility, whereas an atheist does not. I don’t think this is quite right. I think one can be both- an atheist just doesn’t believe in god. An agnostic isn’t sure if there’s a god (at least, that’s one definition). I think I’m both. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/139 "2012-02-22T19:20:20Z")
I identify with the shorthand “agnostic,” although my full self-description would be apathetic agnostic atheist. I don’t care about the being or non-being of supreme beings; I allow for the possibility of human fallibility and am open to the idea that such knowledge is unknowable; and I do not believe in a “higher power,” be that a god or gods or an interconnected spiritual energy or whatnot. Given the confusion and the popular usage of the terms, “agnostic” has come to mean what I would describe as “weak atheist” or “agnostic atheist,” so that’s the word I choose to describe myself, although I would say “atheist” is probably more accurate if I’m going for one word. Problem is, “atheist” usually conjures up images of strong atheism, or atheists with a religious fervor in their atheism (rightly or wrongly, mostly the latter in my experience, save for these boards), so I use “agnostic” and just avoid any discussion of my belief system. ---
**Author:** ![Craz3d117](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@Craz3d117](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Craz3d117)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/140 "2012-02-22T19:24:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t think this is quite right. I think one can be both- an atheist just doesn’t believe in god. An agnostic isn’t sure if there’s a god (at least, that’s one definition). I think I’m both. Well I wouldn’t say an atheist is just someone who doesn’t believe in a deity, but rather rejects all possibility that one could exist. An atheist would say no to the first question because to he or she there is no other option. “A deity does not exist, therefore how could I possibly believe there is one?” An agnostic would say no because he or she _chooses_ to believe there is not a deity, but recognizes that their belief is not necessarily infallible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573.md?page=8)