It’s clear that some people look at theist and atheist as being about belief and Agnostic as being about knowledge and what we can know, exclusive of belief. IMO, in fairly common usage , agnostic is also referred to as someone’s status concerning belief , meaning undecided or uncommitted to either belief or non belief. My guess is that’s why it’s described that way by some dictionaries.
If some people use the terms agnostic atheist or agnostic theist , that’s fine , I understand them even though I find them unnessecary.There’s nothing especially “official” about them. IMO, the goal in communication should be to understand and clarify the meaning of the person you’re communicating with, so that a discussion may continue , rather than descend into an argument of termnoligy and trying to tell someone what they are after they’ve repeatedly said otherwise.
The idea that someone has to be either a theist or atheist and can’t be just an agnostic strikes me as bizarre and a little ridiculous
It’s like asking someone if they believe in god and when they respond “I haven’t decided” you insist they have so decided, you can’t not decide.
Stop arguing about the way other posters are posting. Stick to arguing the points you each want to make and stop trying to tell other posters what they “really” meant or telling them that they have been arguing poorly.
I can see the argument. Someone who “hasn’t decided” is certainly not a “theist,” and, in some functional way, is “atheist.” He doesn’t go to church, doesn’t pray to Adelicnander, doesn’t recite from the Big Blue Book, etc.
On the other hand, I accept the utility of the third category. “You must answer yes or no” is, in itself, sometimes fallacious, and often just rude. The third option creates a comfort zone. “Plausible deniability.”
The atheists can accept the agnostics as fellow travellers, without forcing them to carry membership cards.
Hm? Obverse of my argument. I never said that going to church was a requirement, only that someone who is not religious would not go to church.
(And, before you say, “He might just be going for the music or the buffet” take it as implied "going to church to worship or participate in religious activities.)
Seriously, you’re nitpicking a point that I never made.
I hate to differ with you, but some people will go pretty far to get into a position of respect and/or power because they might see the church as an organization that would be run better if they were in charge.
Look how many preachers get into it because of the money. In “Up From Slavery” Booker T {the auther not the wrestler} said many ex slaves were going into religion to avoid manual labour.
In this country many people attend as a career move.
After consideration , if you’re saying an agnostic might appear to be atheist because thay are not obviously religious, I still can’t agree. Lot’s of believers don’t attend so anyone who isn’t obviously religious might easily be any of the three.
Agnostics don’t engage in rituals. Atheists don’t engage in rituals.
Agnostics are functionally the same as atheists. They may hold a personal private reserve of uncertainty, but they don’t participate in religion either.
Some few believers don’t behave in any way, whatever, to display their religion. So, yeah: they would be functionally pretty similar to atheists. Amusing when the door to door guys come by to try to proselytize them.
Well, you could back that up, and I think you’d fail.
But people of faith, who don’t behave according to that faith in any way are, functionally, indistinguishable from agnostics or atheists.
Mind you, the moment they say to a friend, “Oh, yes, I do believe, I just don’t go to church,” they have acted in accordance with faith, and fall out of your category of absolutely nonobservant faithful. At that point, they are functionally different from atheists and agnostics.
While I agree with you that people of faith who don’t behave in a recognizable religious manner, are functionally similar in appearance to agnostics and atheists, I would also like to point out that the number of people who claim affiliation with a religion vs. the number of people who go to church once a week is VERY different. Even the number of people who claim affiliation vs. the number of people who go to church minimally is quite different.
I completely agree. There are many (millions?) of “CE” Christians – who go to church only on Christmas and/or Easter. And many who don’t even go that often, but who still self-identify as Christians.
One might or might not classify these people as “functionally similar” to atheists. Their very act of self-identification, if asked, is a functional difference. There might be other statistical differences, such as voting patterns, shopping habits, etc.
(The trouble with statistical differences is that they might be coincidental effects of some third, unrelated cause.)
