But the definition of 'agnostic' is 'without knowledge'. An agnostic does not know (in the literal sense) if there is a god or not, as it is unknowable (at this time). An agnostic atheist goes one step further and claims that he/she does not believe there is a god. I agree that it is repetitive, but that's because I don't believe anyone can know with 100% certainty.

(EDIT: D'OH! You beat me to it, EvF!)

(August 26, 2010 at 4:59 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: As far as I think I'm aware, I'm just going by what the word agnosticism means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

And the same with atheism, atheism is disbelief in deities. You don't have to deny the possibility of God's existence, that would be illogical.

Why illogical?

Incidentally, the Wikipedia page on Agnosticism acknowledges many meanings including the one I gave earlier.

It may also talk about the bastardized meanings of agnosticism, but the original meaning is to believe that knowledge of something (especially God)'s existence is unknown or unknowable.

It's illogical to deny the possibility of God's existence because there is no proof that God is impossible.

As I said, Wikipedia talks about many meanings. I suppose we must each choose the one we prefer. Maybe we will need to have this discussion without using the words which clearly have a different meaning for each of us. I'm also trying to work out why the concept of "proof of the impossibility of God" is making my head hurt, and then I'm trying to fit the concept of illogicality around that. In truth, I don't understand what is being said. My personal definitions of all these things are probably too far removed from Wikipedia to be able to engage. Sorry! I suppose that if the existence or non-existence of God makes no difference to my position as an existentialist atheist then the question of how I arrive at the assertion that God does not exist becomes less important to me than it is to you.

This article might help you understand why agnostic atheism is not a contradiction in terms:

Agnostic Atheist

^ Thanks. The issue isn't one of my understanding, though, it's one of terminology. Many thanks to everyone for referring me to Wikipedia articles. I am sure they are a very profound and highly accurate source for mainstream thinking. Given that there is disagreement about the terminology, I am happy to discard the words atheist and agnostic completely. What remains is two categories of people - those who don't believe in God, and those who believe there is no God. Those who don't believe in God give more emphasis to evidence and the logic behind arriving at a position on the existence of God, those who believe there is no God give more emphasis to thinking through the human consequences of the certainty of the non-existence of God and comparing that with the consequences of a position which is less certain. If, in thinking things through, we always have to account for even an infinitesimal possibility that some infinite god or other might pop into existence from behind a lamppost (please don't take me literally), then our thinking will be completely different from our thinking based on the certainty of gods' non-existence, which is why it is important to make the distinction.

@Eilonnwy,
I dont know anyone else mentioned that logic I am too lazy to read all the posts But if our god is death and since we believe we wont be exsisted after we died, our god is not exist and therefor he is right. So to us Deathgod=no god though I don't think he/she will be happy to be right

(August 28, 2010 at 4:28 am)Existentialist Wrote: If, in thinking things through, we always have to account for even an infinitesimal possibility that some infinite god or other might pop into existence from behind a lamppost (please don't take me literally), then our thinking will be completely different from our thinking based on the certainty of gods' non-existence, which is why it is important to make the distinction.

In practise, an infintesimal probability is indistinguishable from an impossibility. No-one gives the extremely implausible any consideration in their daily life. An agnostic atheist probably behaves as though the non-existence of God is certain, because anyone who doesn't worship God must behave as though there isn't one.

(August 28, 2010 at 4:28 am)Existentialist Wrote: If, in thinking things through, we always have to account for even an infinitesimal possibility that some infinite god or other might pop into existence from behind a lamppost (please don't take me literally), then our thinking will be completely different from our thinking based on the certainty of gods' non-existence, which is why it is important to make the distinction.

I imagine that, like me, you would agree that reason is not the end-all and be-all of everything. Contra Aristotle, we are not rational animals. We are capable of using reason, as well as abusing it. Reason is only a tool-- a handy tool, which we are capable of putting to use. Reason is something we are capable of utilizing, but it is not inherent in any human nature.

That being said, one can never be absolutely certain of any god's existence or lack thereof (though the theist may claim he is absolutely certain, under the guise of "faith"). One can, however be reasonably certain, just as I am reasonably certain the sun will rise tomorrow-- but of course I am not absolutely certain.

We cannot be absolutely certain of anything-- only reasonably certain-- because reason is the only tool available to us that appears to get good results. Ancient books or political demagogues however are far less trustworthy.

I used to consider myself agnostic but the reason I jumped to atheism was because I thought with agnosticism your position is that god can neither be proven or dis-proven and there is no way to know with our current tools and abilities.

However, one could say the same for almost anything the human imagination can create, eg. the FSM, IPU, flying teapot, etc. My point is you can create any imaginary being and claim it is true and at the same time cannot be proven wrong with absolute certainty.

We are quick to deny the existence of invisible unicorns and fairies, so what makes the Judeo-Christian god so different that it is OK to be agnostic about it? I think YHWH as well as the thousands of gods created by mankind are just products of the imagination of people of the time to try and explain what they could not. But, why should we take one god or imaginary being more seriously than the others?