Agnosticism is more than you think

[juroara]

Agnosticism is saying, in essence, "I don't know." It means the person is unsure whether or not they believe in any sort of deity. An atheist, on the other hand, by definition, is one who simply does not believe in a deity; that is, they do not hold it to be true that there is a deity. They do not deny the possibility of a higher power, or claim that they have evidence to refute that argument; rather, since no evidence has been put forth to back up the notion of a god or gods, they see that there is no reason to believe in any form of a higher power; they do not accept that statement to be true. Agnosticism and atheism are fully compatible, though one who is both an agnostic and an atheist is more commonly referred to as a "weak atheist." Agnosticism on its own is more of a philosophy or school of thought. In short, it's a war of semantics, and matters about as much as a small clump of dirt. Do atheists on this forum have a need to increase their numbers by calling every agnostic the same as an atheist? An agnostic doesn't automatically mean confused or "weak" atheist. Once a upon a time, an agnostic had a strange philosophical point of view that YOU CAN NOT KNOW. I have met these agnostics, and they do not agree with atheists anymore than they agree with theists. Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you." Understand that it its heart TRUE agnosticism isn't a confused person. It's someone saying you can not know. This is true agnosticism. Because at its heart it is a philosophy and not a belief, not only do you have agnostic atheists, but you also have . . . . . wait for it . . . AGNOSTIC THEISTS! I think its disrespectful and the same as christian selling their bible door to door to tell every agnostic you meet that they are just weak atheists. There will always be people out there who acknowledge their own humanity, and the limitations of the human mind, and they would humble themselves to the agnostic philosophy - that maybe this is just something we will never know

[Xaqaria]

Although you say this is a Strong Agnostic, it is actually the original definition of Agnostic intended by its creator, Thomas Henry Huxley.

[juroara]

Although you say this is a Strong Agnostic, it is actually the original definition of Agnostic intended by its creator, Thomas Henry Huxley. That's what I thought? I remember talking to agnostics years ago and that's what agnosticism was all about. I guess at some point people didn't understand and started using the term wrong. Too late now I guess, I guess people will always see the agnostic as simply a confused person

[Indecent Exposure]

I would agree with everything you've said. Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. Most atheists are skeptical, people who use reason and logic so atheists almost universally accept that definition of agnosticism. Atheist's don't say there is no chance that a deity could exist, they just believe it just as unlikely as a number of random claims. Atheists don't really have a belief on the issue as such, since its a non-issue. Are you atheist to the idea of purple unicorns? So basically all atheists are agnostics. The problem lies in the fact that many atheists, consider themselves as agnostics, rightly, and yet don't understand that the beliefs they hold are also atheism, purely because they don't understand the true definition of atheism. Atheists also believe that we don't know if there is a God we just don't see any evidence suggesting there is. An agnostic theist would have to believe in god and yet not "pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable" This means one of two things, they either don't believe that god's existence is a certainty, yet they still believe in his existence. Or they believe that the existence of deity is "demonstrable". And i would think that most theists would come under one of these two categories. To summarize, nearly all atheists are agnostics and most theists are agnostics. The difference lying in the fact that most people claiming to be agnostic are the agnostic atheists as almost universally, agnostic theists identify as theists.

[Universal Mind]

Theist: "I believe that at least one god exists. That does not mean I know it with 100% certainty." Atheist: "I believe that no gods exist. That does not mean I know it with 100% certainty." Agnostic: "I'm on the fence. I have not formed a conclusion either way, and I don't think anybody is in a position to do so."

[Indecent Exposure]

Theist: "I believe that at least one god exists. That does not mean I know it with 100% certainty." Atheist: "I believe that no gods exist. That does not mean I know it with 100% certainty." Agnostic: "I'm on the fence. I have not formed a conclusion either way, and I don't think anybody is in a position to do so." I wasted quite a lot of time writing that post. This does the job quite nicely.

[Xaqaria]

Theist: "I believe that at least one god exists. That does not mean I know it with 100% certainty." Atheist: "I believe that no gods exist. That does not mean I know it with 100% certainty." Agnostic: "I'm on the fence. I have not formed a conclusion either way, and I don't think anybody is in a position to do so." Your definition of agnostic is not exactly consistent with the original intent. It was not supposed to be a statement of being 'on the fence' but rather a positive statement of the fact that if a god were to exist it would necessarily be beyond the scope of human understanding and therefore no conclusion can be made.

[Indecent Exposure]

I would agree with everything you've said. Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. Most atheists are skeptical, people who use reason and logic so atheists almost universally accept that definition of agnosticism. Atheist's don't say there is no chance that a deity could exist, they just believe it just as unlikely as a number of random claims. Atheists don't really have a belief on the issue as such, since its a non-issue. Are you atheist to the idea of purple unicorns? So basically all atheists are agnostics. The problem lies in the fact that many atheists, consider themselves as agnostics, rightly, and yet don't understand that the beliefs they hold are also atheism, purely because they don't understand the true definition of atheism. Atheists also believe that we don't know if there is a God we just don't see any evidence suggesting there is. An agnostic theist would have to believe in god and yet not "pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable" This means one of two things, they either don't believe that god's existence is a certainty, yet they still believe in his existence. Or they believe that the existence of deity is "demonstrable". And i would think that most theists would come under one of these two categories. To summarize, nearly all atheists are agnostics and most theists are agnostics. The difference lying in the fact that most people claiming to be agnostic are the agnostic atheists as almost universally, agnostic theists identify as theists. What do you think about this Xaqaria? You've defined agnosticsm wrongly, if you are referring to its original context. Its original meaning is defined above. A gnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. So agnosticism is not exclusive to the question of a deity, it refers to only accepting conclusions that can be demonstrated. I don't think I need to reiterate the entirety of my post. It seems people ignore posts that require some thought. I thought I put across a decent argument; a response?

[Xaqaria]

. How are our posts in disagreement, exactly? My point was that it is a positive statement about what can be demonstrated, and what can't, not that it was exclusive to the matter of a deity. My understanding of Huxley's point is that one should be an agnostic about anything that is necessarily beyond the scope of demonstration in order to remain intellectually honest, and that to be agnostic is a firm position and not the lack of decision between two opposing positions. By the way, you don't have to quote yourself, I read it just fine the first time you posted it.

[Photolysis]

Do atheists on this forum have a need to increase their numbers by calling every agnostic the same as an atheist? 1) Agnosticism is how you feel towards whether a proposition can be proven true or false. It is not an answer by itself. You are either an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. Regardless of what TYPE of agnostic atheist/theist you are. 2) We automatically disbelieve positive propositions until we actually believe them. Therefore anyone who doesn't believe in god, regardless of whether they reject it outright, don't know, haven't given it any thought, are completely confused, whatever, they are all atheists. 3) Agnosticism has nothing to do with the level of doubt. If you're 99% sure, you're still agnostic. /thread