Please define "agnostic" to me...

[SCSimmons]

The problem is, the usage of these terms is somewhat inconsistent amongst different speakers of the language. This is partly due to religio-political considerations-if ‘atheist’ is defined as someone who firmly believes that there are no deities, and ‘agnostic’ as someone who totally suspends judgment on the matter, then there aren’t too many of either …

But that leaves some issues with non-categorized belief systems. I don’t believe in any deity I’ve ever heard described (by anyone other than a few pantheists, whose ‘deity’ I don’t agree rightly falls into that category). And I don’t think the general term s ‘deity’ and ‘god’ are well-defined enough to make a blanket statement about their existence or non-existence (according to some definitions, the idea is incoherent or clearly contradictory to observed facts, but according to others, my lack of belief is simply due to lack of positive evidence). But according to the definitions in the paragraph above, I am neither an agnostic nor an atheist. To which I stick out my tongue and describe myself as an agnostic atheist anyway.

[Silocke]

The

[Dr.Rieux]

@JimMacMillan

Have you heard about the United Atheist Assocation? They are a Non Profit group :rolleyes:

And they have no invisible means of support.

[John_Kentzel-Griffin]

I don’t know.

[Jon_the_Geek]

@SCSimmons

But that leaves some issues with non-categorized belief systems. I don’t believe in any deity I’ve ever heard described (by anyone other than a few pantheists, whose ‘deity’ I don’t agree rightly falls into that category). And I don’t think the general term s ‘deity’ and ‘god’ are well-defined enough to make a blanket statement about their existence or non-existence (according to some definitions, the idea is incoherent or clearly contradictory to observed facts, but according to others, my lack of belief is simply due to lack of positive evidence). But according to the definitions in the paragraph above, I am neither an agnostic nor an atheist. To which I stick out my tongue and describe myself as an agnostic atheist anyway.

Exactly. I find it odd that most self-described atheists I’ve spoken to (online and off) are of the “agnostic atheist” variety (don’t believe in a deity, but don’t think the existance of a deity is impossible), and yet everyone else defines atheism as something like “the (religious) belief that there is no God.” Most of us atheists (based on my informal investigations) don’t hold this belief, and yet people say that’s what atheist means.

I think I’m going to start defining “theism” as “the belief that all supernatural things that have ever been suggested are true.” Sure, most self-described theists don’t actually think that way, but what does it matter what they say? They just don’t know what the word really means.

Oh, great link, x-ray. It describes what I’m trying to say here perfectly

[Voyager]

Well, this has been covered a million times in GD, but…

The orthogonality of the terms can be seen by their makeup. A-gnostic is clearly talking about knowledge. A-theist is talking about belief.

You can find the Huxley definition of agnosticism here. Simply though, a theist has belief that there is some god, an atheist lacks this belief. This can include a belief that there is no god, but does not have to.

An agnostic believes it is impossible to determine the truth of the proposition “there is a god.” A strong atheist, who believe there is no god, and who feels he can prove this, (not necessary, since atheism is a statement of belief) is not an agnostic. I am a weak atheist, who thinks it is impossible to disprove the existence of a god, but think it can be proven to a good level of certainty. Actions of a god like those in the Bible, (assuming checks for cheating) would be pursuasive. So I don’t consider myself an agnostic. It is perfectly reasonable for a theist to believe without thinking the existence of god can be proven, that theist can be an agnostic also. I gather that Polycarp fall in this category.

Here is a summary, using gnostic as the opposite of agnostic, which is not really the accepted usage.

Gnostic theist: Believes in a god, and feels the existence of a god can be (and often has been) proven. (Probably most theists.)

Agnostic theist: Believes in a god, but does not think there can be perfect knowledge that the existence proposition is true. (Poly?)

Gnostic atheist. Believes it possible to have knowledge of the non-existence or existence of a god. I fall into this category, on the existence side, and a strong atheist does on the non-existence side.

Agnostic atheist. Does not believe, and thinks the existence proposition cannot be demonstrated one way or another.

All four positions seem reasonable to me. The breakdown has helped me get this straight in my mind at least.

[scr4]

I like Voyager’s summary. But if you throw in the Scientific Method into all this, I think only two of the positions are scientifically valid. Either you believe in a god because you think there is enough evidence, or you don’t believe because you think there is insufficient evidence. (Note that you don’t need evidence to show non-existence of something; lack of evidence of existence is sufficient.)

[alterego]

@aruvqan

Agnostic chiming in here - though I will variously refer to myself as a pagan, or an heretic.

I fully believe that there is a god, but I can not tell you exactly who or what it is, nor will I decry any as a false god because for all I know every god is actually the same god just seen through different eyes…or perhaps godhead is in every god because every living thing is a part of god.

By your own definition you are not an agnostic. What you are describing is religious pluralism and subjectivism.

[alterego]

It is perfectly reasonable for a theist to believe without thinking the existence of god can be proven, that theist can be an agnostic also. I gather that Polycarp fall in this category.

That, as well as your “agnostic atheist” is a contradiction in terms. It is like having “dry water”. You cannot suspend your judgement on the issue and still believe that God exists. Once you have that belief you have made your judgement. I am almost positive you made this term up. Can you provide another citation defining an “agnostic theist”? I think where you are falling short is that you have to realize that when you have a belief, that belief is like knowledge to you. It may be an illusion, but it is knowledge nonetheless.

@scr4

(Note that you don’t need evidence to show non-existence of something; lack of evidence of existence is sufficient.)

I really don’t think this statement belongs in GQ.

To stop the thread before it heads that direction, the talk pages on these Wikipedia articles fairly accurately reflection the state of the definitions of these terms, and the articles are pretty good.

Theism

Agnosticism

Atheism

[alterego]

My apologies. The first set of quotes should reference “agnostic theist” as well, but it holds true for both.

[brane_damaj]

@Carnac the Magnificent!

Can you provide a specific cite in the Bible that says agnostics “will go to Hell”?

I’d be doubly interested in such a cite in the New Testament.

Jiminy Christmas! There are more ways to go to hell than there are to Cleveland! Here are a few that directly address the belief issue, straight from the NT:

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18).

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).

[H]e that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him(John 3:36).

So how can we avoid hell, according to the NT?
For by grace are we saved through faith…not of works" EPH 2:8-9.
Or is it…
“…and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and
they were judged every man according to their works” REV 20:13.
Or is it…
“Ye see then that by works a man is justified, not by faith only. For as
the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead
also” JAMES 2:26

And from the Koran:

“Surely those who disbelieve . . . Allah has set a seal upon their hearts . . . and there is a great punishment for them” (Koran 2:6-7).

“Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men all” (Koran 2:161).
There are more, but that’s all I could find on short notice. Thanks to Landoverbaptist.com for the quotes.

[Jon_the_Geek]

I found a great essay by Bertrand Russell on this subject today (entitled “Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?”). Here’s a relevant excerpt:

@Bertran Russell

I never know whether I should say “Agnostic” or whether I should say “Atheist”. It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

[scr4]

@alterego

(Note that you don’t need evidence to show non-existence of something; lack of evidence of existence is sufficient.)

I really don’t think this statement belongs in GQ.

I meant that’s how the scientific method works. Whether it applies to a god is a subject for GD. But if you choose to apply it, then you’d be obliged not to believe in anything that can’t be proven to exist.

[Polycarp]

To attempt to answer the question that Voyager posed me above, I believe in the Triune God defined in the Nicene Creed (which I will post here only on request) – though I have a few reservations about the implications people tend to read into that Creed.

I am confident that no “ontological proof” demonstrating by deductive logic the existence of that particular God has ever been devised – and I suspect strongly that none can. And IMO this is because He values faith and free will so highly as to refuse to provide that sort of objective proof for Himself.

I have very much adequate evidence to have convinced me of His reality and intent towards me and mankind generally – but I am acutely aware that that evidence is subjective in nature, not subject to objective review by others or disprovability, as would normally be the case in inductive reasoning. And I believe that He provides such evidence to those who will be open to it, the idea of belief in Him being one of His gifts, given when in His awareness of the person’s inner makeup it will be appropriate to give it.

What that makes me in the system of terminology being discussed in this thread is highly debatable. But I am a theist, a believer in the God of Jacob, a Christian, an Anglican, and an Episcopalian, in descending order of specificity of categorization.

[Voyager]

@alterego

That, as well as your “agnostic atheist” is a contradiction in terms. It is like having “dry water”. You cannot suspend your judgement on the issue and still believe that God exists. Once you have that belief you have made your judgement. I am almost positive you made this term up. Can you provide another citation defining an “agnostic theist”? I think where you are falling short is that you have to realize that when you have a belief, that belief is like knowledge to you. It may be an illusion, but it is knowledge nonetheless.

Many theists do confuse belief with knowledge, but some are quite aware of the difference. An agnostic is suspending judgement on his knowledge, not his belief. For example, I can believe in the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence in the universe without claiming to have knowledge of them. This is not quite the same case, since while we may not be able to prove that they don’t exist, we can prove that they do - someday.

I believe that many theists convert their belief into knowledge fallaciously, I think. I don’t want to get into examples, since that is more GD territory. I do not have a citation for my terms (you are correct, I made them up) but the orthogonality between atheism - theism and agnosticism - gnosticism has been discussed many times in places like alt.atheism. I will consult my books for an example, but the links you gave, if you look at them again, support my position. (The first definition of agnosticism, that is. Agnosticism has been commonly used as a term for weak atheism, which has muddled the picture terribly.)

[Voyager]

@scr4

I meant that’s how the scientific method works. Whether it applies to a god is a subject for GD. But if you choose to apply it, then you’d be obliged not to believe in anything that can’t be proven to exist.

The scientific method does not claim to prove that things don’t exist due to lack of evidence. However it is reasonable to act as if they do not exist, provisionally, while being open to a change if evidence does show up later. Again, this is the difference between belief and knowledge.

For example, strong atheists who say they can prove their is no god, and thus believe there is no god, have a weak case, since I can usually find holes in their proof. A strong atheist, however, who understands that he cannot prove his position, but holds it as a matter of belief, has a more justified position. I’m tempted by this one, but I really try not to believe in anything without solid evidence.

[Polycarp]

@Voyager

The scientific method does not claim to prove that things don’t exist due to lack of evidence. However it is reasonable to act as if they do not exist, provisionally, while being open to a change if evidence does show up later. Again, this is the difference between belief and knowledge.

For example, strong atheists who say they can prove their is no god, and thus believe there is no god, have a weak case, since I can usually find holes in their proof. A strong atheist, however, who understands that he cannot prove his position, but holds it as a matter of belief, has a more justified position. I’m tempted by this one, but I really try not to believe in anything without solid evidence.

Your first paragraph describes “weak” or “pragmatic” atheism as I’ve seen it defined on this board quite well.

Joe Doper will say, in essence, "I see evidence for the Loch Ness Monster, but far more evidence that it does not exist and that the ‘pro’ evidence is legendary, mythical, or founded in errors of perception. Therefore I believe, provisionally, that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist.

“I take the same stance with regard to the Christian God, or indeed anybody’s God. I want hard evidence convincing me of His existence, or I will deem Him as non-existent.”