I guess I’ll take a shot at this.
Being agnostic doesn’t mean that you don’t believe in science so things like psychic phenomena can be studied and either proved or disproved. You got me on the ghost thing because I just don’t believe in them.
Scott Adams, the author of the dilbert comics, wrote a book called Gods Debris which put a funny little twist on the whole god thing.
IMHO in everyday conversation, there is some sort of negative connotation related to the word “atheist” that makes “agnostic” a bit more PC.
But anyway, a question:
Suppose, a small group of people claim that they know of a thing called “X.” X, however is undetectable by any available scientific means. The group claims that X isn’t god; it is quite harmless and doesn’t do much of anything. Should we reject the claim outright and say that X doesn’t exist? Or should we say that there is a possibility that X might exist and that we are on the fence? Or should we conclude that it is impossible to prove/disprove its existence? I think there’s a practicality issue that should be taken into account.
No, we should say that there is no reason to say that X exists unless this group provides us with some evidence. Think about X = ETs. There is no reason, yet, to think that ETs do exist, but there is also no reason to think they don’t. “I don’t know, show me,” seems very appropriate in these circumstances.
I don’t understand why “agnostic” would mean that you “know” anything.
You say that “athiest” means “lacking belief in God.”
In the same way, “agnostic” should mean “lacking the belief that it is possible to know if God exists.”
It may be possible to know if God exists or not. But as of now, I lack the belief that it is possible.
Maybe this makes me a “weak agnostic” or something.
While science does not seek to undermine religion, it has inadvertantly created questioning as to the validity of religion and faith.
In my youth, I was religious. Now I am agnostic due to the fact that there really is no scientific proof (beyond any shadow of doubt, that is) to the nonexistance of God, and at the same to there is no physical proof that he does exist.
Maybe my mind refuses to let go of religion wholly and that’s why I won’t refuse the belief in God, but all the same I am now agnostic.
It seems to me that everything hinges on the significance of what IT is. If it is God, we assign the word agnosticism or/and atheism to explain our position as regards to our belief/non-belief. If it is an ET then as you say we’d say “show me.”
In my analogy I actually intended it to be something that’s really insignificant to the group that claims it exists and to us (X isn’t God, doesn’t do anything, doesn’t cause anything and doesn’t care about us). For practical purpose, if it is so in insignificant to everyone, then we should reject it outright. If we were to describe our position in re our belief about X, shouldn’t then we say we’re atheist in re. its existence?
However, the significance of it isn’t the only thing at issue. The claim of the believers does have a part also in our describing our belief/non-belief position. I think this is what leads some of us to adopt the position of agnosticism, especially if it concerns an omnipotent, omniscience being.
Since we’re talking about God, atheist should read “atheist.”
Just to make it clear… I’m not an agnostic because it’s PC. Being agnostic is only very slightly more accepted by Christians (and other religions, but most of my friends are Christians) than being atheist (and most of the time it just gets a “what?”–heck, even on this board).
I’m not agnostic because I used to be (or want to be) religious, and this is my cautious step away from (or toward) belief. I’ve been agnostic as long as I can remember.
I’m agnostic because I haven’t seen any proof that a creator doesn’t exist, and I don’t have any reason to believe one does exist. I personally don’t understand how anyone can truly be an atheist, any more than I can understand how someone can be, for example, a Christian. I think, given all current information, it’s impossible to know god doesn’t exist, so it takes faith to truly believe that god doesn’t exist.
Should we be “agnostic” toward anything that is claimed by some to exist, yet until now has not been proven (or impossible to prove) to exist?
To some degree, sure. However, if a few people claim an invisible pink unicorn exists, while I can’t prove that it doesn’t, I don’t care if it does, either.
In the case of God, a large group of people say that I’ll burn in hellfire for eternity for not believing what they do. That makes me take notice… and decide that I don’t buy it, but I can’t prove that they’re wrong.
I don’t mean to nitpick, but the way you worded the above quotation is interesting. I note that you say you’ve not seen any proof that a creator doesn’t exist, but when it comes to the existence of a creator you “don’t have any reason to believe one does” (emphasis added).
What I’m getting at is this: It appears (and I may be wrong) that you are using two different scales. In order to consider yourself an atheist appears to require proof that a creator doesn’t exist. In order to be a theist it appears all that is necessary is a good reason to believe a creator exists.
Maybe I’m reading too much into your particular choice of words.
Here is another reason why some people are agnostic:
Being agnostic is not about believing in God or not. It is about knowing if God exists.
So if you at times believe in God, and at times lack that belief, you could come up with a complicated explanation like calling yourself a “sometimes theist, sometimes athiest.”
Or you could just say that you are agnostic - you lack the belief that you can know if God exists, but you may or may not believe God exists at any time.
I think you’re reading too much (and in the wrong direction)… but your question made me think, so it’s ok 
I chose the different words because I don’t think it would sound good to use the same phrase twice
I can’t imagine myself ever being a theist. I don’t attach theism with wanting proof, and I do. I would love to believe that there’s some benevolent deity with some great plan, but I don’t buy it, and I can’t imagine that I ever would.
I am really very close to an atheist… but I feel it’s dishonest to claim that I know that god doesn’t exist, so I call myself an agnostic. I guess that’s why I get a bit offended when people claim it’s for PC or wishy-washy reasons…
I’m not sure I totally get you. Is insignificance a measure of unimportance, or does it mean that X by its nature does not affect us? Assuming the former, wouldn’t the more significant the thing is, the greater the evidence required to believe in it? And yes, the claim of the believers is important, since otherwise we have no idea at all of what it is we are supposed to be believing (being that lack of evidence is a given.) I’m an atheist in that I have no belief in any god (a - lack of , theism, belief in god.) I’m not an agnostic since I think that if a god existed he would be knowable - at least some gods, such as the Biblical god. Now I’m a strong atheist about some gods. I firmly believe the god of the fundamentalist type bible does not exist, since the historical claims have been disproven beyond reasonable doubt. Other gods I just have no belief in. And some people think that omnipotence and omniscience are self-contradictory, making them strongly atheistic about these gods.
I understand some people’s use of these terms as little as I understand a belief in god. It’s really quite easy, people.
Atheism and theism discuss belief. If you have a belief in some god, then you are a theist. If you have no belief in any god, then you are an atheist. Some theists might think they have proof that god exists, and some might just believe. Both classes are theists. Some atheists may think they have proof that gods do not exist, some may not. Both classes are atheist. So, jharmon is an atheist by this definition - which does not imply he knows god does not exist.
Agnosticism is about knowledge. One might believe in a god while stating that it is impossible to know if the god exists - a deist might fall into this class. That’s an agnostic theist. Similarly, one might not believe while also stating that knowledge is impossible. That is an agnostic atheist. I say that we certainly cannot prove that all gods don’t exist, but if one did it is likely. depending on how you define god, that we can have knowledge of his existence. Moses and Abraham certainly were supposed to.
I’m not sure I’ve ever understood problems with these definitions - except the reticence of some to be called atheists.
Voyager,
Thanks for the comments.
That’s exactly what I was trying to get to. That if one lacks the belief of God, then he/she is an atheist.
My point about the sigficance/insignificance of It (e.g. God on one end, “invisible pink unicorn” on the other (as Jharmon put it)) was the following:
If there’s no proof to the existance of a invisible pink unicorn, then one’s attitude toward it would be “atheistic.” However, toward God (since He is the creator), one might adopt an “agnostic” position because when it comes to God, one is willing to wait longer for more proofs?
IMHO, I think this line of thinking is rather inconsistent.
BTW, I do agree with you that atheism is about belief (or lack thereof) and agnosticism is about knowledge.
To get back to the point of the OP (if I may be so bold), the question is not really what the definition of atheist or agnostic is, or how people classify themselves. Instead, for those people who classify themselves as agnostics and who define agnosticism as a belief that the existence of God can neither be proved or disproved, I want to know why they think the existence of God cannot be proved. Also, is this inability to prove or disprove limited solely to the existence of God, or does it apply to other alleged supernatural phenomena such as ghosts, ESP, etc.?
I guess I just don’t understand how or why somebody could believe that God’s existence couldn’t be proven. If God is as he has been traditionally described throughout history, I would think his existence could be proven as easily as that of ghosts, UFOs, psychic powers, or the Loch Ness Monster. And if God is not as he has traditionally been described, and is instead merely some immaterial force that created the universe but has since chosen to not interact with the material world, then I would assert that this isn’t really “God” at all (at least not in the sense that most theists and atheists alike mean when they talk about “God”).
Barry
It seems to me that many people in this discussion and others are using agnosticism as a halfway point between belief, theism, and lack of belief, atheism. (Those who are not equating agnosticism with weak atheism, that is.) In your example, there are no IPU agnostics because no one really cares if you believe or not. For god, it seems very odd to require less evidence for belief for a very important thing than for a less important one. However, I see your point, in that people are less willing to declare a position of non-belief for something important - which in this case includes social pressure.
Could this definition of agnosticism be something like “I see no evidence to believe, but so many other people do believe, that I am uncertain of my knowledge, and thus want to declare an intermediate position.” We really need a new word for this.
To reuse my ET analogy - I’m this kind of agnostic about ETs. I do not believe in them, having no evidence, but I rather believe they are likely to exist, so while I might formally be an a-ETist, I’d hate to be labelled that way.
Having asked some people direct questions last week, I’d better not be so rude as not to reply!
Jharmon thanks - one of your answers made a lot of sense to me. Positing that there could be evidence after death. Yes, OK, so you are saying there is no evidence for a god that satisfies you now, but there is still a test that you will one day perform. Hence agnosticism until then.
RoundGuy
The point about the immaterial (or active only when strictly unobserved) toasters is that I personally think there is exactly as much evidence for those as there is for god. I actually found a similar discussion the other day:
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/rationallyspeaking/RS01-12-unicorn-debates.html
The argument runs:
It is impossible to know that god does not exist (as several people here have stated).
It is also impossible to know that there is not an immaterial unicorn in the room.
We take these two premises to be true for now. So, type-whatever-it-was agnostics, given those two premises, please be consistent.
Do you believe in the immaterial unicorn? If no, explain why you do not also disbelieve in god.
If you are agnostic about the unicorn, well, you have some odd ideas about reality and existence, IMO. It becomes pretty hard to know anything immaterial doesn’t exist. But hey, at least it’s consistent. And my dead Aunty Mabel’s spirit that sent the immaterial hovering toasters is waving Hi, and suggesting that you give me all your money.
No.
Because there is 6000 years (at least) of human tradition that says God exists. That fact alone is, at the very least, worthy of my consideration.
I cannot rule out the possibility that God is an IPU, but I would be quite disturbed if it were true. I cannot rule out the possibility that your Aunt Mabel is suggesting to have me depart from my money. But, I will not oblige without further evidence.
I will not worship something without proof that it deserves worship. At the same time, for me to say that nothing deserves worship, ever, would be a bit presumptuous on my part.