# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/161 "2012-02-22T22:24:00Z")
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool] Uhh, I have no idea what you’re talking about at all or why you’re responding the way you are. [/QUOTE] It’s become a touchy subject for me, to be honest. > [@](#): > > That seems a bit ambiguous to me… it could be saying “I used to disagree that atheists are just as religious as Christians, but then I rethought that and have now changed my position”. Or it could be saying “I used to disagree… but then a bunch of people acting that way made me at least vaguely reconsider, but I still maintain my original position”. Or it could be saying something else entirely. I’m not asserting anything…merely saying I’m rethinking my position wrt whether or not atheists are ‘just as religious as Christians’…‘religious’ being used a bit tongue in cheek there. > [@](#): > > As for the other half of the post, I was attempting to be non-ironically supportive of you. I think people in this thread are being jerks to you, and was attempting to be sympathetic, and then you snapped at me in a weird way I don’t quite understand. My apologies…I misunderheard you, and as I said, I’m a bit touchy on this subject these days. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/162 "2012-02-22T22:41:03Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > That’s the same guy, and he’s responding to the pathetic criticisms theists leveled against his first video, both are really good. I think you know what my point really was. If not, I guess it doesnt matter. Otara ---
**Author:** ![typoink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@typoink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/typoink)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/163 "2012-02-22T22:44:00Z")
I realize there’s plenty of chatter here already, but just to state my views as I sees 'em: Theism is the belief in deity. Atheism is the lack thereof; it does not require an assertion to the contrary. No intellectually honest atheist can ever say they are certain no deity exists. Agnosticism says that the existence of deity is unknowable. This is trivially true. There is no such thing as perfect proof or perfect disproof for such. I’ve yet to see a useful third category, since I see “atheist” as comfortably including most of those who would probably describe themselves as “agnostic” (and the rest would probably fall into either “unconsidered” or “nonconventional theist”). This is not to disparage any self-describe agnostics; simply statin’ my terms. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/164 "2012-02-22T22:44:04Z")
Honestly I am lost at this point. xtisme, what exactly is your position, here? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/165 "2012-02-22T22:57:18Z")
On which point? I’ll answer honestly and non-snarkily. What specifically are you wanting my position on wrt this debate? -XT ---
**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/166 "2012-02-22T23:05:17Z")
> [@typoink](#): > > I realize there’s plenty of chatter here already, but just to state my views as I sees 'em: > > Theism is the belief in deity. > > Atheism is the lack thereof; it does not require an assertion to the contrary. No intellectually honest atheist can ever say they are certain no deity exists. > > Agnosticism says that the existence of deity is unknowable. This is trivially true. There is no such thing as perfect proof or perfect disproof for such. > > I’ve yet to see a useful third category, since I see “atheist” as comfortably including most of those who would probably describe themselves as “agnostic” (and the rest would probably fall into either “unconsidered” or “nonconventional theist”). > > This is not to disparage any self-describe agnostics; simply statin’ my terms. substitute unknowable with unknown ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/167 "2012-02-22T23:05:32Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > On which point? I’ll answer honestly and non-snarkily. What specifically are you wanting my position on wrt this debate? > > -XT I’m not even sure. This entire thread feels like it’s going all over the place and I’d rather try to figure out what you’re trying to argue, here. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/168 "2012-02-22T23:15:59Z")
Well, good luck with that…I’m posting most of this from my iPad while going through various air ports, and even I have lost track of what I was arguing here. 😛 Basically, I’m saying that atheist and agnostic are both labels that people self apply. As is theist, Christian, Muslim and all the rest. They mean what people THINK they mean, when they apply them. When I say I’m an ‘agnostic’, it means I feel a certain way about that label. To ME it could mean basically that I don’t believe in God, I’ve seen no proof that there is a God, but that there is still uncertainty in whether or not there MIGHT be a God (coupled with a health ‘I don’t really care if there is or not, I’m acting as if there isn’t until proven otherwise’). That’s what ‘agnostic’ means to ME. I take umbrage with folks who want to attempt to paste their labels on me, and tell me that I’m just a big pussy, and really I’m an atheist, but simply don’t have the balls or brains to admit this is the case and start marching along as I should. Do I think that atheists are all in lockstep? Nope. I also don’t really think that most are locked in at 100% disbelief either. I have no problems with folks who self apply ‘atheist’ to themselves when their world view is exactly like mine, and I think that means ‘agnostic’. What I ask is the same curtsy in allowing me to apply my own labels to myself, without telling me I’m wrong in various snide or insulting ways. The point of part of the above exercise (I think…I have slept since then, so only have vague memories of what all I’ve said in this thread) was a reverse demonstration, to see how folks liked it when their own self applied labels were strawmanned and also disparaged using definitions that aren’t universally accepted…certainly not by the folks applying those labels to themselves. Hopefully, somewhere upthread in all this mess I answered the OP, and did ‘more precisely state’ my position as an agnostic. If not, the I could go through it again, though my thought is that most folks would rather have a root canal than have me type more on this subject. 😉 -XT ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/169 "2012-02-22T23:16:52Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > I would hardly call an individual like Richard Dawkins “dishonest” > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum\_of\_theistic\_probability](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability) Dishonest? Probably not. Right? Possibly. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/170 "2012-02-22T23:19:33Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > I think a lot of self-declared agnostics in this thread need to look up the definition of ‘agnostic’, then immediately look up the definition of ‘weak atheist’. > > Then post their revised self-declaration. Semantics Jim. I do not accept that any “god” described by man is correct. There is no proof for these constructs that I can accept, but! I do not accept that there is nothing beyond what we know. Agnostic, weak atheist whatever. Labels are annoying, the world and people are not black and white. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/171 "2012-02-22T23:23:16Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And an atheist might reply “Why are you even bothering to consider the question at all when there is no evidence to weigh on either side?” Because that would be an ignorant thing to say, just because we don’t have evidence does not mean we shouldn’t explore the hypothesis. Is this theoretical atheist against philosophy? ---
**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, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/172 "2012-02-22T23:31:15Z")
I pretty much agree with what I think you are saying, but I’m going to nitpick your language because ambiguity is why we have these long discussions. > [@typoink](#): > > Atheism is the lack thereof; it does not require an assertion to the contrary. No intellectually honest atheist can ever say they are certain no deity exists. Assertion to the contrary of what? If I define atheism as lack of belief in a deity (which I do) an assertion to the contrary is not very clear. Is it belief in a deity? Is it belief in no deity? One thing it isn’t is the assertion of knowledge about the existence of a deity. I’d say theism and atheism are opposites, but strong atheism, the belief that there is no deity, is an extension of atheism and not directly contrary to any theistic position. Lacking belief in the nonexistence of a deity is true for both theists and weak atheists. > [@](#): > > Agnosticism says that the existence of deity is unknowable. This is trivially true. There is no such thing as perfect proof or perfect disproof for such. Well, the non-existence of any deity is unknowable. I’d contend that the knowledge of the existence of a deity is perfectly knowable if one would show up. We can’t disprove the existence of unicorns, but we sure could prove the existence of one. Or black swans. We can disprove the existence of certain deities whose definitions are logically inconsistent or which directly contradict known physical evidence. Tri-omni gods are impossible, omni-benevolent gods appear to contradict the existence of non-essential suffering in the world. The god of the inerrant Bible is non-existent because of massive amounts of physical evidence say the Flood never happened. Theists seem to say these days that God does not show his presence to be proved to exist because he cannot be proved to exist - which goes against the Bible. Actually the two alternatives are that he won’t show up for some reason or that he doesn’t exist - and the latter is much more reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/173 "2012-02-22T23:41:40Z")
> [@dataguy](#): > > This is an amazing discussion. It’s not atheists/agnostics arguing against believers. Its non-believers each arguing that their brand of non-belief has the strongest rational foundation. > > Really? Any of you see the humor of the absurdity in this? Many of us do. That’s why we merely lurk and laugh at both sides. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/174 "2012-02-22T23:46:47Z")
Yeah, you never hear about disagreements between theists. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/175 "2012-02-22T23:55:49Z")
It’s pretty simple for me. I recognize that The Truth, whatever it may be or not be, may also be simply beyond the grasp of the six pounds of gray jelly that are all we barely-evolved apes have to think with. We can have faith, sure, and if faith makes you happy, go right ahead. But faith is not _knowledge_. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/176 "2012-02-23T00:07:50Z")
**xt** , don’t have a cow man. I (sorta) understand the root of your anger at being labeled one way or the other, despite why you insist on self-labeling as an agnostic. Point I think you miss is that actions speak louder than words, so why get caught in an endless semantic wrangling that is not going to do a damn thing to change either how you think or what you believe? So freak freely as a godless agnostic. Hell, call me one as well if you need company. On a bit more serious note, I’ll go back to what I said in my first post to this thread – and tons more like it – you live your life as if there is no god/s, simple, you’re an atheist. All the rest is sophistry, pedantry and arguing for arguments’ sake. Pretty much describes The Dope, _ehe_? 😉 May the god/s we don’t believe in bring us both all we wish for. Including 2012’s Playboy’s Playmate of The Year. And a pony. Don’t ask. It’ll be fun if it happens. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/177 "2012-02-23T00:10:23Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It’s pretty simple for me. I recognize that The Truth, whatever it may be or not be, may also be simply beyond the grasp of the six pounds of gray jelly that are all we barely-evolved apes have to think with. We can have faith, sure, and if faith makes you happy, go right ahead. \*\* But faith is not _knowledge_\*\*. – bolding mine. Which is why it makes so many/most of these ‘debates’ totally sterile. You _cannot_ debate faith. So why bother? ETA: Unless someone is trying to pass it off as knowledge. Gloves off… ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/178 "2012-02-23T00:13:46Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > – bolding mine. > > Which is why it makes so many/most of these ‘debates’ totally sterile. You _cannot_ debate faith. So why bother? > > ETA: Unless someone is trying to pass it off as knowledge. Gloves off… Are we debating? I thought that agnostics were clarifying their position at the request of the OP. And since agnosticism has little to do with faith for most of us, we sure aren’t debating faith. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/179 "2012-02-23T00:25:42Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Are we debating? I thought that agnostics were clarifying their position at the request of the OP. And since agnosticism has little to do with faith for most of us, we sure aren’t debating faith. I am certainly not (debating). However, if I am not mistaken, quite a few people are debating _semantics_. And sure, agnosticism, in its classic definition as attributed to T.H. Huxley is not about faith but a declarative statement on the limits of knowledge. That said, let’s get real, Huxley’s definition is not the one most people have in mind when using the word to self-describe. And that’s the debate presented. I think the word has transcended its original meaning and it is now, in the mainstream, akin to skepticism as to the ultimate reaches of what is/will be known. And in that sense, I am a weak agnostic. Simply another way of saying “I don’t know.” Which pretty much settles the “debate” for me. Does not mean it does for you… ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573/180 "2012-02-23T00:43:44Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > I am certainly not (debating). However, if I am not mistaken, quite a few people are debating _semantics_. And sure, agnosticism, in its classic definition as attributed to T.H. Huxley is not about faith but a declarative statement on the limits of knowledge. That said, let’s get real, Huxley’s definition is not the one most people have in mind when using the word to self-describe. And that’s the debate presented. I think the word has transcended its original meaning and it is now, in the mainstream, akin to skepticism as to the ultimate reaches of what is/will be known. > > And in that sense, I am a weak agnostic. Simply another way of saying “I don’t know.” > > Which pretty much settles the “debate” for me. Does not mean it does for you… Seems to me that most people here are using a Huxleyian definition, rather than the more common “don’t care” or “haven’t decided” definitions but I’ll admit, I haven’t done a count. I am an agnostic deist, married to an gnostic atheist, with one gnostic atheist child (kids think they know everything) and another “I don’t care” agnostic child. Weak atheism really doesn’t describe him because it implies he holds a position on belief…he’s at the don’t care to bother to have an opinion point and when he does have an opinion (rare, but it happens) he is as likely to come down on the God exists side as the God doesn’t. (Most of his friends are Christian). He is slightly more likely to have an opinion on God as on the aforementioned dark matter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agnostics-could-you-more-precisely-state-your-position/613573.md?page=10)