Hey guys, just joined the forum after lurking for a couple weeks, and I wanted to grab your input on something that’s been bothering me.
Whenever I hear someone say “I’m not atheist, I’m an agnostic”, I’m not exactly sure what that means. I was under the impression that agnostic is a qualifier for your belief that simply means you don’t claim to know your belief is true, such as being an agnostic Christian or somesuch.
When I see people shying away from the term atheist or squirming in their seat and milling around before tentatively using the word ‘agnostic’ alone, it grates on me just a little bit because it feels to me like they’re reinforcing the connotation of the word ‘atheist’ being somehow undesirable or simply misunderstood.
I’d never deign to shove labels onto people, and people can describe themselves however they like I suppose, but am I out of bounds with my small irritation? Unless of course someone is claiming that they don’t know what is going on inside their own head, which I never really understood either.

Thanks for your input!

(also unrelated…I can’t seem to upload an image to change my avatar..anyone had trouble with that before?)

You're right as to the definition of "agnostic". I think people who say "I'm agnostic" misunderstand the meaning of "atheism" - they think saying "I'm atheist" means "I know god doesn't exist".

Either that, or like my girlfriend, she knows better, but simply doesn't like the stigma that goes along with the word "atheist", and just picks a word that her parents are less likely to be hostile to.

Lastly, this pic:

(June 17, 2014 at 10:31 am)ThePinsir Wrote: You're right as to the definition of "agnostic". I think people who say "I'm agnostic" misunderstand the meaning of "atheism" - they think saying "I'm atheist" means "I know god doesn't exist".

Either that, or like my girlfriend, she knows better, but simply doesn't like the stigma that goes along with the word "atheist", and just picks a word that her parents are less likely to be hostile to.

Lastly, this pic:

I can totally understand the fact that someone might want to use 'agnostic' in place of 'atheist' to avoid social or familial tension, I just wish more people would use the word atheist without discomfort...though I suppose that's a bigger indication of the societal bias against atheists.

I figure agnostics come in three basic flavors: agnostic atheist (doesn't know, doesn't believe), agnostic theist (doesn't know, believes anyway), and agnostic agnostic (doesn't know what they believe).

I think just agnostic is fine for people who are really on the fence about whether God is real or not.

To answer the question in the title of the thread, no.

Theist is the on position, atheist is the off position, "agnostic=I don't know" it does not indicate what you dont know so it is not a position.


The problem with people who use the word "agnostic" by itself do not take into account time frame issues of past claims, current claims, and future possible discoveries.

You can be of the "off" position on past and current claims, but "I don't know" about the future.

My current position about past and current god claims is an absolute "OFF". But strictly semantically and "technically" we have not lived the entire future. But even in that case I find the idea of a any god fleetingly unlikely to the 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance.

So I am a strong atheist on the past and present and even a strong atheist about the future but a "technical" "agnostic atheist" even though I still find the claim to be absurd. As far as a future discovery of the existence of a god I look at it as "True we have not lived the future yet, but monkeys might fly out of my ass too, since we don't know".

Now conversely an outright theist claims a specific god to be real. An agnostic theist isn't sure what to call it or what it's attributes are but holds the "on" position.

Agnosticism, on its own, when it comes to belief, is meaningless. The religious perspectives are two, and only two: atheism and theism. There is no middle ground. You either believe, or you don't. You can't "not believe" but also "not not believe". It makes no sense.
To understand this, imagine if I asked you what brand you car was. In response, you'd say that it was a blue car. Would your answer be apropos? No, it would not. I didn't ask you what color it was. I asked the brand. Likewise, when you ask someone if they believe or not and they say they're an agnostic, they're just saying they're not sure. That's it. Nothing more. They don't tell you if they're not sure if deities exist, but believe that they do, or if they're not sure if deities don't exist, but disbelieve in their existence. They're just not sure. You might want to say "That's great, you're not sure if deities exist or not. But do you believe that they do, or do you lack belief that they do?", which is the first step in educating self-proclaimed agnostics in what the term actually means.

When you evaluate truth claims, you compare the available evidence to establish whether or not the claim is coherent within the network of other justified true beliefs.

Concluding a given claim is true or false in the absence of sufficient evidence for or against the claim is, by definition, forming an irrational belief.

The claim <God Exists> is claim about the supernatural no evidence can possibly exist for.

Theists like to claim "creation is evidence of God," but such arguments are always non-falsifiable arguments from ignorance, and don't qualify as rational beliefs. There's no way to test the claim, prove or disprove <God Exists.> We have thousands of years of ontological arguments to demonstrate this.

Even though the likelihood of <God Exists> seems very low, based on empirical evidence about the world, there's no way to evaluate the truth of the claim. It's not empirically testable, it's non-falsifiable, so it doesn't meet the criteria to even be evaluated as a true or false claim.

When Bertrand Russell introduced his Tea pot claim to demonstrate the untenability of an ontological argument, he formulated it in such a way that it was unfalsifiable with the technology of the day.

Since truth claims are true or false independent of belief, it makes no sense to me to form a belief about a truth claim I can't evaluate in any meaningful way.

That said, claims about the nature of and actions of specific Gods are falsifiable. The more claims about the Abrahamic God that are shown to be false (the great flood, garden of Eden, 900 year old people, created the earth in six days) the lower the likelihood that specific God exists.

If I tell you I have a pet newt, and start describing characteristics that sound vaguely newt-like (he likes to swim, I have to keep water in the tank, he has four legs) and part way through you realize I'm describing a red-eared box turtle, the newt doesn't exist, and I'm talking about a different creature entirely.

My 'cheat' on agnosticism is I am keeping the door open in case god wants to resurrect Brian to prove that god himself exists.

The world gets Brian back, I'm a believer. Simple as that. Ball's in gods court now.


IOW, the heart has its' reasons, of which reason knows nothing.

(June 17, 2014 at 12:10 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I figure agnostics come in three basic flavors: agnostic atheist (doesn't know, doesn't believe), agnostic theist (doesn't know, believes anyway), and agnostic agnostic (doesn't know what they believe).

I think just agnostic is fine for people who are really on the fence about whether God is real or not.

You ask them which god(s) they believe in. If they don't believe in one, then they're atheist. Theism makes the positive claim that one or more gods exists. Atheists don't make that claim. If you're open to the idea, but you're still not making the positive claim that any gods exist, then you're atheist.

An agnostic atheist simply doesn't make that positive claim. A gnostic atheist makes the negative claim that no gods exist.