But I'll mention it again. Regardless of how many times this has been said, I still see the word "agnostic" used way too often.

There can be no such thing as agnosticism. You are either a theist ( you believe in a diety ) or an atheist ( you do not believe in a diety ). In most cases, the atheist declares himself as an agnostic because it seems "safer." You're not stating outright that you lack belief in a god. Perhaps you do not believe in a god at this point, but you're open to be swayed. That's not agnosticism; that's atheism. Or maybe you were raised religious, and while you retain your beliefs, you're questioning them. In this case, you're a theist. That comfortably squares away MOST "agnostics."

Agnosticism defined:

strong agnosticism, i.e. the view which is sustained by the thesis that it is obligatory for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence. (...) weak agnosticism, i.e. the view which is sustained by the thesis that it is permissible for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence.

"Weak Agnosticism Defended", Graham Oppy

Quoted from "The agnostic fallacy" (http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/agnostic.html)

"If we examine the agnostic premise, we find that it is quite unreasonable. Agnosticism is based on the notion that we can have no knowledge on the god question. But for this to be true, the agnostic must know all possible arguments of atheism and theism, since he discards them all out of hand. If any single argument is valid, then agnosticism must crumble. Many such arguments are available in the atheist literature, and it is disingenuous to deny them.

Furthermore, the lack of knowledge inherent in agnosticism is self-contradictory. If we know nothing about the god-concept, then we cannot claim it exists, or discuss it rationally.

If we claim not to know anything about the concept, then we still know something about it : that it is beyond human understanding, and rational discussion. Therefore agnosticism is contradictory, and must inevitably lead to strong-atheism.

Furthermore, agnosticism must be self-contradictory, as identity is necessary for anything to exist, and there is no such thing as an undefined object. Whatever exists in reality has attributes. If we admit that we have no knowledge about the god-concept, including how to define it, then it cannot exist. Thus assuming agnosticism is true leads to a contradiction.

Agnostics have to answer the following question, if their position is to make any sense at all :

How can you presume that "god" has some possible meaning if you have no knowledge about "god" ?

To claim that "gods could exist" is possible, one must attribute some meaning to "god" in order for this proposition to be meaningful. To say that "gods cannot exist", from this semantic viewpoint, is to say that there can be no referent to "god", because the word "god" is meaningless.

But the agnostic has no knowledge about "god" from which he can attribute it meaning. Therefore agnosticism contradicts itself on this crucial issue."

Now, I know that my post on totse.com wont stop anybody from claiming agnosticism as their stance, and will likely attract flames from those who consider themselves to be "agnostic." That's fine. But, hopefully, this will spark a healthy debate and enlighten those who have never been introduced to this topic.

I think you people should just shut the fuck up about the stupid words. They are only used to convey meaning, they are not the beliefs themselves. Another popular claim is that there are no such thing as atheists. Another claim is that Catholics aren't necessarily Christians. I don't care. Just shut up.

Commonly used meanings:

An agnostic is basically someone who isn't sure what to believe. That's all there is to it. Atheists don't believe in gods. Put the two together, and you get atheist agnostics, who don't believe in God but aren't sure what to believe. That's my way of approaching it. It probably doesn't go by encyclopedia definitions, but at least it gives you an idea of what people are saying they believe.

My point is, if they are used to mean these things, then let it be. They're just tools to convey meaning.

*grumpy*

Say what you might, the term "agnostic" is too vague to communicate what exactly the individual thinks or believes. That individual would, therefore, have to explain him/herself in greater detail to give you an idea as to what their stance is. You needn't try to give me a lesson on the usage of words. The fact that we can communicate, in clear terms, on this board makes it apparent that we know that words are used to convey a meaning of some kind. The BEST words convey a complete meaning. For instance: atheist and theist. These words have a complete, well defined meaning. You failed to address any point that was made in my original post.

quote:Originally posted by BattleTested:

That individual would, therefore, have to explain him/herself in greater detail to give you an idea as to what their stance is.

Exactly. People are usually too complicated to fit into your simple categories.

Myself, I believe that there are deeper levels or reality, higher worlds or dimensions, whatever. But for the ultimate nature of reality, I don't know - and I call bullshit when someone claims to have all the answers.

What category is that?

There might be a God, there might not be a God.

What's so hard about that?

I realize, agnosticism isn't a stopping point, it's on your way to becoming a believer or non-believer.

quote:Originally posted by READKNOWDO:

There might be a God, there might not be a God.

What's so hard about that?

I realize, agnosticism isn't a stopping point, it's on your way to becoming a believer or non-believer.

At this point, you lack the belief in a god. Therefore, you're an athiest.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Exactly. People are usually too complicated to fit into your simple categories.

Myself, I believe that there are deeper levels or reality, higher worlds or dimensions, whatever. But for the ultimate nature of reality, I don't know - and I call bullshit when someone claims to have all the answers.

What category is that?



It's not about fitting into categories. It's about getting rid of a word that doesn't truly describe ANYBODY. My question to you is do you have any belief whatsoever in a god? You either do or you dont. Theist or atheist.

Okay. I'd say the universe I'm aware of doesn't appear to have an intelligent designer. That doesn't mean there isn't a concious order on a higher level, or superhuman intelligence.

Also, I'm not convinced of a reality independent from our perception of it.

quote:Originally posted by BattleTested:

At this point, you lack the belief in a god. Therefore, you're an athiest.

How so? An athiest states, "There is no God". A believer states, "There is a God". An agnostic states, "I don't know". Wow. Saying I don't know does not mean one doesn't believe. It means one doesn't know WHAT to believe.

An atheist does not state "there is no god"; at least not all of them. Strong-atheist believe that no god(s) exist(s), a weak-atheist simply lacks a belief in a god.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

An atheist does not state "there is no god"; at least not all of them. Strong-atheist believe that no god(s) exist(s), a weak-atheist simply lacks a belief in a god.

Finally, somebody who knows what they're talking about. It's simple linguistics, people. The prefix, a-, is used to communicate a lack of whatever it preceeds. So it simply means a lack of belief in a god.

A person believes what they believe. Stop making stupid threads about the triviality of words. Does it really matter what word you use to describe it? No matter what word is used the belief is the same.