You should read this:
I wouldn’t rely on wikipedia for this. Maybe Merriam-Webster though
As someone who majored in religion as an undergraduate, I have some basis for a claim of superior knowledge here, but thanks anyway.
Thanks for the laugh.
Nice to see you’re easily amused.
I’m agnostic about everything. I consider all knowledge to be provisional. So it seems pointless to make a big deal about it in regards to religion.
In other words, I disbelieve God and unicorns in exactly the same way. While I have no reason to believe either exists, I’m willing to revise my opinion in light of future evidence. But I don’t go around making a point of saying that I’m agnostic about unicorns. That would just be silly.
And I agree with those definitions. Not sure what the problem is. I am both agnostic and atheist. I’m not sure which word you think is better to describe my beliefs or lack thereof. Perhaps just plain “atheist”? Or is it plain “agnostic”? I really don’t know. I don’t believe in god, but I don’t know, and probably can’t know. Anything is possible, but without further evidence (which there may not ever be), I have no reason and do not believe.
Interesting, in what way is your knowledge superior to mine on the subject of the existence of god/gods? should all of us holdour tongues unless we’ve taken a similar course? Are you familiar with the parable of thecourtier’s reply?
As for your fall-back onto dictionary definitions…well…let’s hope that your “religion” course was a little more rigorous (though what counts for rigour in theology is open to question) Merriam-Webster is not necessarily a reliable source when it comes to common usage. It’d be nice if life were that simple.
That is why I suggested that you need inquire rather more deeply that just “atheist” or “agnostic”.
I’m an atheist and all that means is that I lack a belief in a god or gods. That’s all. To know more about me you have to ask more about me.
Sorry, that wasn’t intended to sound elitist. My point was that I have more than a passing familiarity with the appropriate use of religious terminology and I was trying somewhat inartfully to explain why.
The point you seem to be making is that the language is dynamic rather than static and must bend to common usage which is in fact correct. However that is only true once something truly is common usage and what you are suggesting is that two words that have quite distinct meanings have come be to used more or less synonymously - and I’m afraid that there is no evidence to support that claim. If however you can provide authoritative cites that suggest otherwise, I’d like to see them.
My perception is that in common usage, “agnostic” means simply means “I don’t know whether god exists or not and am not willing to commit one way or another.” But in more precise usage, it simply refers to the ability to know whether there is a god or not, and an agnostic may believe in god or not believe in god. Like I said before, there is such a thing as “agnostic theism.” Most self-identified agnostics I know don’t identify as atheists, even if they don’t believe in god, because “atheist” has a connotation of either anti-theism or almost something I would call “gnostic atheism.” I usually call myself an agnostic, even though I am technically an atheist, too. However, at the same time, I don’t know any proselytizing self-identified atheists, either, except maybe from this board. Most self-identified atheists I know simply don’t talk religion at all.
OK. What would you like me to say?
I don’t know, because I am not clear on the point you are making. I agree with the definitions of agnosticism and atheism you quoted. I just don’t know where you find disagreement.
of course, we all know this to be true.
I’ve not claimed it before on here, though others have.
What I can say for certain is that people I know have used the term “agnostic” when under closer questioning they are nothing of the kind. They just use it because they find it a softer re-stating of their actual atheism and, being British, probably they prefer to not cause a fuss.
I don’t know how common that would have to be in order to qualify as evidence for you.
I guess you’re on your own then.
And that’s generally how it’s used around here in the US, from what I can tell. Most people aren’t philosophy scholars and treat “agnostic” as a halfway point between theism and atheism. And that’s how I use the term in conversational shorthand. Much easier to say I’m agnostic and leave it at that.
shrug OK, then. I’m just really curious what your apparent frustration with this topic is.
Thanks, I’m sure this will be very useful in the future.
If “atheist” meant “lacks belief in God”, then one must be an atheist or a theist, because one must lack or have a belief in God. Thus if one were an agnostic then one would have to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. But this doesn’t seem to be what is going on in this case.
In any case, there are a bunch of definitions going around with precise enough meanings that one can just specify the meaning, if it comes to that.
Or use “atheist” rather than “agnostic” because they don’t want to give the impression that they take belief in God too seriously (see Russell’s “Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic”).
Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?
As much as one has to respect Bertrand Russel, the fact of the matter is that agnosticism also includes people such as myself who simply don’t countenance these issues any more. I guess we’d be the truly hard core agnostics. :rolleyes:
Evangelical Agnostic. “I don’t know, and neither do you”. 
. I actually think this was what the latest guy was trying to say. I can see the technical side of it when using certain definitions but IMHO it serves no usefull purpose.
I think there are a lot of nuances to any belief system. I have a friend who claims to be an atheist but will talk about ghosts and spirits that haunt his house. I think a ot of people reject the idea of a God with human traits, who deals out reward and punishment. IMO, atheist , agnostic, theist, are very superficial discriptions.
Preach.