You may be right to an extent, but any belief an agnostic has one way or the other is held back by their uncertainty. An agnostic is generally going to have tendencies towards both theism and atheism which leaves them somewhere in the middle.
If you’re an agnostic with a strong belief in the possibility of deities, but have no direct belief in deities themselves, does that make you a theist or an atheist? I don’t think it makes you either, because either one is going to mischaracterize you. I think the proper term is an agnostic.
and you would be wrong - as soon as you decide that you believe/disbelieve - for whatever reason - then you are no longer agnostic -
agnostic == without knowledge - you don’t have an opinion or belief one way or the other on the matter.
IOW - you can’t be “agnostic with a strong belief” - you could be “theist” in general (you believe in the possiblity/existence of generic gods) - but “agnostic” as to a specific “god” - but thats a pretty fine line to try and hold - and its nonsensical in the end.
It sounds like you are trying to be a deist - rejecting religion/religious notions as to “God” but still believing in “God” - which is a form of theism.
And I disagree that “agnostic” == uncertainty - thats a religious ploy - it simply means “I (or we) don’t have the needed knowledge to form an opion one way or the other” - if anything - its likely the most honest approach a person can have until the matter is studied.
I am an atheist not because “the possibility” hasn’t been disproven - but because there is absolutely no reason to believe in “God(s)”. If objective evidence is ever presented for the existence - I may change my stance - that doesn’t make me agnostic, etc.
I think you left out an important term in YoungKusher’s formulation: he said a strong belief in the possibility. It isn’t a “strong belief” in the way we would ordinarily use the term.
Now, in my mind, the very phrase “strong belief in the possibility” is nonsensical. When we’re talking about a possibility, it either exists or doesn’t. You can’t have a “strong” belief, any more than you can have a “weak” belief. It’s a possibility, nothing more. One is “open” to possibilities. One doesn’t “believe in them.” So, a big part of the problem here is that the words were chosen poorly.
(We can assess the relative probability of some kinds of possibilities…but that requires evidence. One can have a “weak openness to the possibility” of Bigfoot…but that’s because the matter is subject to meaningful evidentiary analysis. As to matters for which there is no evidence, one cannot hold either a “strong” or a “weak” openness to the possibility. Pick a number at random from one to 50. Is it 37? I’m open to the possibility, but it is meaningless to say that I have a “strong belief” in that possibility.)
fair enough and agreed - and what you posted is likely why I left it out of the response - saying “I strongly believe in the possibility” is really just saying “I believe in X”.
When you posted this I don’t think you quite understood what I was trying to say. I said, “any belief an agnostic has one way or the other is held back by their uncertainty [due to a lack of knowledge]” IOW- there is no actual belief, just tendencies to agree with certain aspects of both sides, leaving the person neither theist or atheist.
Then, in the second paragraph, I proposed a specific question trying to give an example of the first paragraph, but I agree I had poor WC.
No, I’m not trying to be anything. I have no devout belief in any deity, but I often wonder why there couldn’t be some out there or if there is some out there. This wonderment is a direct result of a part of me that wants to believe, but doesn’t have the necessary foundational evidence to put that belief onto.
I didn’t realize that it was a religious ploy. Is it not true that being a theist or an atheist requires more certainty than it does to be an agnostic? It is true, so having uncertainty on the matter is a big part of it, just maybe not a word you agree with.
Well what I’m trying to say, is that according to your definitions, all agnostics would be atheists as well. I think one thing that is mutually exclusive is that agnostics tend to have doubt on holding the position of “no belief” and doubt on holding the position of “belief.”
Indeed I have become fatigued from arguing semantics in this thread which may have caused me to use the terms I did, but my point, in essence, is still there regardless of word choice. I think a lot of agnostics have a smidgen of “faith” in some possible deity existing. The type of “faith” that doesn’t make them a theist, but if you put a gun to their head and asked them, they would guess a higher probability of a deity existing than if you did the same thing to atheist.
But, again, to put it in terms of probability requires an actual body of evidence to assess. Faith does not operate in the realms of evidence. It’s “belief in that which is unseen.”
Once you start evaluating evidence, you’ve left faith behind and entered into science.
Either you have faith, or you don’t. There cannot be levels or degrees or strengths of faith. It’s one of those absolutes you aren’t supposed to modify.
In practice, what you’re talking about is someone who sees some evidence for a proposition, some other evidence against it, and is unsure of how much weight to assign to each of the two possible truth values. That’s a rational approach to knowledge.
Faith is not rational. It operates in a different way.
I agree that this is arguing semantics. I also acknowledge that the word is sometimes used differently than I would insist on.
Every now and then, you hear the story of someone who sets out to study the Bible, and, after reading it with great care, comes to be convinced by it that it is the truth. That is not faith! That’s an examination of a body of evidence, in order to come to a rational conclusion. (I think the conclusion is flat-ass wrong, but that’s an opinion, an entirely different kind of thinking!)
the atheist holds no belief in gods - whatsoever - even states “does not believe” - thats taking a position on one side of the debate.
The agnostic does not do this- the agnostic says “we don’t have the knowledge to decide either way”.
You keep fumbling around something that is so inherintly simple.
Agnostic is not about uncertainty - agnostic is “without knowledge” - “niether believes nor disbelieves”.
When I say that its a “religious concept” that “agnostic = uncertainty” - I mean that folks that do believe simply say that someone that claims to be agnostic is “waffling” or is simply uncertain.
If you say you do not have the knowledge as to the truth of the claim that “deities exist (or not)” and therefore you do not believe or disbelieve (neutral) - then you are agnostic.
If you “strongly believe” in the existense - then you are no longer agnostic - you have a belief - even if that belief is not to a specific “god” - you are a theist.
and yes - the way you keep talking - I would call you a deist - maybe its because of the way you argue it - but you keep saying
a) you strongly believe in the existence of gods (even if its just a possibility) - just not a specific one
b) you keep renouncing religion
Exactly - and if you “evaluate the evidence” for God and decide that the truth to the claim that “god exists” or “god does not exist” cannot be shown - you can decide to be agnostic on the matter.
Its also a default position when you haven’t studied something at all - if you have no knowledge to back up a claim you’ve read - you should be agnostic until studied up on it.
“I believe lawyers exist, I do not believe in lawyers” does not make you agnostic about lawyers - just means you don’t like them very much.
If you have a “little bit of faith” that god exists - you are no longer agnostic in the matter - maybe you are in practice - but not in definition.
[QUOTE=Agnostic theism - Wikipedia]
Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.[1] The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in.
[/QUOTE]
However - I would say that “devout” is not a needed qualifier to change you from agnostic to theist - if you believe in gods - you believe in gods - doesn’t have to be religous or even strong.
“Wondering” if gods exist does not make you a theist either - and leaving open the possibility that “gods exist that we don’t yet have evidence for” does not make an atheist an agnostic.
All I am trying to say in any of this is to be “agnostic” with no qualifiers is take “neither” position - and its due to there being “no knowledge” on the subject - or in the case of deities - that the truth to the proposition that they exist or not is “unknown and/or unknowable”.
Theist - believes in the existence of god(s).
Atheist - does not believe in the existense of god(s) (or holds no belief - we’ve debated that wording before)
Agnostic - neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of gods - on the basis that we do not posses the knowledge to make a determination one way or the other.
That’s the whole point of the phrase “put a gun to their head,” there is no longer speculation of evidence, it is a simple gut check to show where they are inclined to be in regards to deities. The whole point is to show that agnostics are generally inclined to be more optimistic, other wise they would just define themselves as atheists with “no belief in gods.”
Maybe, but that’s why i quoted the word faith. I mean what else do you call it when you are predisposed to the likelihood of something that is indeterminable? It’s certainly not “faith” in the way you’re using it, but maybe more optimistic.
Of course, they’re functionally very similar. They would be likely allies in opposing theocratic oppression of nonbelievers. They both “don’t believe.”
I get it from the same thing I quoted. Here it is again:
You’re right, that does not make you an agnostic, but many agnostics would agree with you on some level. Does that make them an atheist? I have no devout belief in any deity, but I still find the possibility plausible enough to not discredit at all. Does that make me something other than an agnostic? maybe I’m just a theistic sympathizer.
Right, that’s pretty much exactly what I stated.
I agree.
Hwhat now? Other people seem to get what I’m saying easy enough.
You’re splitting hairs and I don’t see why. In this case, uncertainty is nearly synonymous with “without knowledge.”
I think you’re own personal views of me cloud your perception. Never once did I say that “a)” is what I believe. I get the feeling that you are purposely opposed/antagonistic towards my posts. Whenever there is a “fill in the blank” if you will, you seem to fill it with nonsensical bias. I could post the same posts to Trinopus and get much more clear, concise, reasonable, and productive responses.
Where did I ever say that I believe in any god whatsoever?
This definition implies that the person does not believe wholly in what science has to say or what religion has to say. Unless, using your idea, someone has little knowledge of either. The problem I have with this, is that most of the people I have ever known to claim to be agnostic, have been far more knowledgeable in science and religion than the average person.
I have no “personal views” of you - in the part you quoted, I even said “it could be the way you are arguing it” - you certainly come off as a theist in your posts.
Did you miss the part where I stated that a person could decide to be agnostic after studying all the evidence?
I’ll again drop it, since you are going back to making it personal. My posts are in response to your arguments “no devout belief”, etc.
I see the agnostic as “neutral” in these cases -or atleast by definition - they are likely to side against ‘oppression’ with either side against which ever side is doing the oppressing.
Ok let’s see if we can wrap this up. The problem as I see it, is that** x-ray vision **tends to pick apart sentences and phrases and assign rigid meanings to them, refusing to consider explanations by the original poster or how separate posts might be parts of a larger picture rather than a stand alone absolute statement.
I’ve been told , several times, that I somehow implied something about atheism , in a sentence where it wasn’t mentioned at all. That seems bizarre to me. As if saying “I like ice cream” somehow implies something about my attitude toward candy. It doesn’t.
I’ve been told I’m an atheist when I’ve clearly repeated that I am an agnostic and I reject the notion that some hold that you can’t be just an agnostic.
Finally, I’ve been told I’ve changed my position and flip flopped. I insist I haven’t/ My posts are consistent when taken as a whole picture.
I get the feeling that if I said “Fire can provide heat” in one post and “Fire can provide light” in another I’d be accused of being inconsistent and flip flopping.
So, assuming we’re speaking the same language and have a somewhat similar understanding of it, here’s a final effort to demonstrate that my posts and statements are not inconsistent
When** x-ray vision **posted that my argument looked like some old theist argument I thought it might be helpful to point out
“I’m not a theist, I’m an agnostic” Later I tried to explain my basic view of the three positions and convey that although I understood the terms agnostic atheist and agnostic theist, I find them unnecessary and don’t use them.
Me earlier
**x-ray vision **has repeatedly made statements like
Calling this my preferred definition, {whatever that means} as if this casual description/example was final and contained my definitive take on agnosticism. By associating agnostic with “knowing” rather than belief it must now and forever more be associated with knowing and any association with belief is a flip flop. {fire = hot, so you can’t later say fire =light}
So when I elaborated further,
I get, this from** x-ray vision **
So is that changing the definition or just another piece of the same picture?
If you were to ask somebody who is still looking at the issue and hasn’t decided one way or the other , “Does God exist?” what might their answer be? Could it be, “I don’t know if god exists. Maybe yes , maybe no. There isn’t anything conclusive one way or the other. I suspect this is something we can’t really know” my previous post?
Seems like that fits just fine and makes perfect sense. No flip flop or definition change at all.
Let’s see some more unnecessary word parsing shall we?
When I say
I get this from **x-ray **
Now we need to parse conviction and strong conviction? Regardless of what is going on internally when one decides to declare their position publicly that is a form of conviction and commitment, {another word unnecessarily parsed} If someone makes a conscious choice to declare themselves a theist or an atheist it comes from some degree of conviction or commitment. An agnostic is not willing to declare either way and chooses to not commit to either atheism or theism. As far as strong conviction goes, a theist or an atheist can intellectually recognize they may be wrong but still be 70, 80 or 90% sure they are right, can’t they. Of course.
A theist, agnostic or atheist might all acknowledge “I don’t know, and can’t really know” A theist and atheist have declared themselves either believers or non believers while for the agnostic , like myself , the question remains open enough that no committment is made to either belief, or, non belief.
If you want to get hung up on agnostic being about knowing and theist and atheist being about belief there’s this.
When it comes to knowing, all three can be agnostic. When it comes to belief, each makes a personal declaration chosen by the individual. I believe, I don’t believe, or , I’m unwilling to declare either way.
So no flip flop , no changing definitions. All posts are a consistent part of a larger picture.
What I keep telling you is that you’ve done more than imply things about atheism. You’ve come right out and defined it.
I don’t care what you clearly repeat in regards to how you want to label yourself. You’ve provided words and definitions and then when it comes to how you label yourself, you suddenly change definitions. There are many examples of you doing this. I’ll show a few examples again:
***"Here’s my take ,
I believe in god, but I recognize that god’s existence cannot be proven in any scientific way. There is no objective evidence to establish God’s existence. =
Theist , one who is a little more open minded and less defensive about their belief.
I don’t believe in god. because there is no objective evidence that any such things exist, I acknowledge that this can’t be known in an absolute or scientific sense. An athiest,
I have no opinion on the existence of god. An apathetic. Someone who is uninterested in the question, or chooses not to be drawn into it.
I don’t know if god exists. Maybe yes , maybe no. There isn’t anything conclusive one way otr the other. I suspect this is something we can’t really know. An agnostic."***
You clearly are defining agnostic in regards to knowledge, and theism and atheism in regards to belief. You have even declared that you’re not defining agnosticism in a way that is mutually exclusive to theism and atheism. All is good so far. You also said: “I call myself an agnostic because my response to “Does God exist?” is I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone else does either.”
This statement backs up the previous one- agnosticism is in regards to what one knows. All is still good so far. More:
“An intellecdtual honest atheist will acknowledge they can’t really know, just as an honest theist will.”
Fantastic! So intellectually honest atheists and theists will acknowledge that they are also agnostic, using your definition of agnostic. Okay, I’m still on board.
What have you said that contradicts the above? Let’s take a look:
“IMO, that means the atheist, agnostic and believer operate with many of the same human traits.”
That heavily infers that agnostics are mutually exclusive to theists and atheists. When I point this out to you, you deny this. More:
"Also, I’m not a theist I’m an agnostic duscussing the validity of certain arguments. "
Again, this shows that one is either one or the other. You also declare yourself “not a theist.” Hmm. I know what I would call someone that is not a theist. What would you call them?:
“If they answer with “No I don’t believe in God or gods” they are atheist.”
What other declarations have you made about yourself?:
“I’m not a believer”
Where are the contradictions? It happens when it comes down to you labeling yourself. Then things begin to change:
It’s been said agnostic, is about not knowing while theism or atheism is about belief, so that means you can’t just be agnostic. Bull pucky I say
It’s been said? Yes, it’s been said by you! Then there’s this:
***"But let’s look at it another way. A sliding scale of degrees of belief
On one end the most ardent believer, on the other , the most ardent nonbeliever. Somewhere in the middle , a group who are agniostic. Who decline to choose belief or non belief. Right next to the agnostic , a hairs breadth away in degrees of belief, is the Theist who may have some doubts and acknowledges the problems with belief , but still identifies as someone who believes in god in some form, perhaps the mysterious undefined other.
The agnostic next to him has many similarities, the difference being he cannot in good conscience identify as a believer. He has one too many doubts to say “I believe” but finds enough unanswered questions to not choose" I don’t believe"
Further down the line is the agnostic who is a hairs breadth away from Atheism. He more skeptical than his fellow agnostic, but still unwilling to declare “I don’t believe. Nerxt to him, someone who has made the decision to declare themsleves an atheist. znd so on.”***
You have denied defining agnostic in a way that is mutually exclusive to theism and atheism several times, and everything in the direct quote above defines agnosticism as being mutually exclusive. You also change the definition of agnosticism from being about knowledge or what what can know, and now define it as one who declines to “choose” to either believe or believe and that agnostics are separate from atheists and theists, which of course makes the term mutually exclusive from theism and atheism.
Now you’re back to defining agnosticism in a mutually exclusive way. Unreal. Yet you defined agnosticism this way earlier:
“I don’t know if god exists. Maybe yes , maybe no. There isn’t anything conclusive one way otr the other. I suspect this is something we can’t really know. An agnostic.”
Being an atheist is not something someone commits to. It’s just being without belief. You have acknowledged that many times in this thread and others.
Go back to the definitions you provided! Now you’re declaring that atheists, theists and agnostics can all be agnostic. Awesome!
No. A declaration is not required. But it’s your statement, So I’ll again remind you of these statements of yours:
***“I’m not a theist”
“I’m not a believer”***
Declaring that atheists have made a commitment is bizarre (and contradictory to earlier statements). Atheist generally don’t say that any question is not open enough. No case has to be closed to be without belief and being without belief is all that’s required to be an atheist. You acknowledged this at least once also, before you had odd qualifiers to atheism such as when you defined atheism thusly:
***I don’t believe in god. because there is no objective evidence that any such things exist, I acknowledge that this can’t be known in an absolute or scientific sense. An athiest, ***
In the definition above, an atheist must also be an agnostic and be an atheist for a specific reason.
Great. So agnostics can be agnostic and so can theists and atheists. Lovely. Except for when they can’t be.
No. Belief or being without it is not about a personal declaration that is made. “Unwilling to declare” does not mean one is neither an atheist or theist. It just means they’re not making a declaration.
