First, let’s leave out extremeists at other end who mistakenly claim they know there is or isn’t a God.
A month or so back on SDMB someone “corrected” me and claimed I was an agnostic athiest because he analyzed one sentence I worte in which I referred to myself as an agnostic. I said, no agnostic is accurate, and didn’t pursue it because it seemed like a highjack of the thread subject.
Recently on another board , when I called myself an agnostic someone asked
“Athiest or theist?” When I referred to it as intellectual harsplitting I wasn’t interested in the poster insisted that one HAS to be either an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, saying agnostic is a meaningless term by itself and one has to choose one or the other.
IMO that’s a nonsensical semantic argument. Surely one can hold the position that you just don’t know and suspect that , if there is something beyond this life , we won’t know it until we do {or don’t } get there.
I understand the terms. If someone is an atheist or theist, but acknowledges they can’t actually know with certainty, then they are in part agnostic. The degree to which one believes or disbelieves can vary. If someone is practicing a religion dutifully and simply acknowledges intellectually that they can’t know, that IMO makes them a theist and the term agnostic theist is unnessecary semantic nitpicking. And vice versa.
What say you? Is this just a new fad in psuedo intellectual arguments to point out the agnostic element in belief and non belief? Can someone be just a plain ole agnostic?
I think it’s wankery. It communicates that a person has given a tremendous amount of thought to their agnosticism. But personally, I don’t feel the need to prove anything to anyone. My disbelief is personal, and by heaping on extra qualifiers and labels, I’m ensuring that I will be questioned and asked to explain/defend myself.
I call myself non-religious because the only time I ever think about religion is when I see it brought up on this board. And even then I usually ignore the suspect. Put that wherever you want on your spectrum, I don’t care.
I think those people need to invest in a dictionary rather than relying on some of the online versions that can’t even distinguish between agnosticism and atheism. Someone actually told me they were the same thing a couple years ago and gave me a cite to an online dictionary that backed them up.
If they insist on using a qualifier though, I would suggest ‘half-ass’ as in half-ass theist or atheist. It’s much more descriptive and less likely to cause confusion.
As an aside, atheists in particular seem to have a bug up their ass about agnostics. They seem to regard us as misguided or uninformed atheists who simply need to ‘see the light.’ For all of the claims that atheists don’t proselytize, just walk up to one, say that you’re an agnostic and then judge for yourself.
That’s probably the best answer. “My position is X. You can call me whatever you want, but I’m still going to refer to myself as Y” But then you have to stop talking to the person or you’re doing just as much hairsplitting as they are. DNFTT and all that. Not that they’re being a troll, but if you don’t want to go down that path, just stop talking to them.
Yeah, it struck me as some psuedo intellectual argument that was circulating and a few had bought into it. If all they can do is assert, without really explaining, then it is not significant.
Here’s where the term apathetic agnostic comes in handy.
There’s nothing wishy washy, or weak kneed about simply acknowledging you don’t know and don’t think it can be known. It shows a conviction to personal honesty.
In what way would that be proselytizing on the part of an atheist?
Just as “atheist” in and of itself doesn’t tell you too much about a person, nor does “agnostic”. Far better to question a bit further and deeper if you really want the measure of a man.
I’m an atheist and only mention it is asked. Were an agnostic to come up to me and announce it my response would probably be “that’s nice, what type?”
I like to think of agnosticism as a sort of 12 step program for the metaphysically weary - each day not calling on a higher power to help to keep us from thinking about things like higher powers.
Thats sums up how I feel. I simply have no idea but lean heavily toward some kind of superior intelligence. I simply don’t believe we have advanced enough to make a call on it either way.
Well, for one, as the thread title states, you can be agnostic and believe in god. But that’s not the popular usage of the term “agnostic.” Typically, I find that most people who consider themselves “agnostic” are generally agnostic atheists or apathetic agnostics. (There’s also strong agnosticism, mild agnosticism, pragmatic agnosticism, etc.) It’s all hairsplitting. I self-identify as agnostic, but if pressed, I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in a god, but I don’t necessarily disbelieve in a god, either. I’m not particularly interested in the question anymore. “Atheism” carries a connotation of strong disbelief, in my experience, not the sort of mild “I don’t believe in God, but who knows?” so the general “agnostic” term is what is used in everyday language, although I am clearly both agnostic and atheist by the definition of those two words.
To the extent that you can be both then you’re neither. One indicates the absence of knowledge as to the particular subject the other implies the affirmation of a negative assertion - if only partially. It’s this sort of ad hoc redefinition of terms that causes these types of abuses.
See, I don’t see any problem. The first part refers to the knowability of the existence or non-existence of a deity or deities. The second refers to personal belief. I don’t think it’s knowable (agnostic) and I don’t believe (atheist.) I don’t see any contradiction, myself. I mean, agnostic theists exist, after all.
Well, that’s hardly fair. In that situation, which one is engaging the other? Which one is starting the the conversion. Which one said “This is my belief, what’s yours?”
Does it count as proselytizing when it’s solicited? Does it count when the ‘proselytizer’ is the one that was accosted?
Having said that, I’d be willing to bet that if you went to 100 atheists and told them you were agnostic, 75 of them would say “umm okay” or something along those lines. I’d be willing to bet, that’s about the response you’d get if you went to 100 members of the general public and did that to.
But, when you said “walk up to one, say that you’re an agnostic and then judge for yourself”, I’m guessing you mean more then just saying “I’m agnostic” but rather trying to get them into some kind of conversation or debate about it, right? But then that’s not really fair either, I mean, if you’re asking them to defend their position, what do you expect? Also, there’s a fine line between defending ones position and convincing someone to change sides. It’s hard to do one without the other.
Well, then, instead of being curt, why don’t you educate me? I am going by the accepted definitions of the words. I’ve always learned that agnosticism is “the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable” and that atheism is “the absence of belief that deities exist.”
Basically, this is the chart I’ve always been taught. If I don’t know what the words mean, then I guess a lot of people and philosophers don’t.
