Agnostics

[Whateverist]

Here are some god related questions and the isms to which each gives rise if the answer is no:

1. Do you believe in the existence of God/gods?  No = atheism

2. Do you know if God/gods exist?  No = agnosticism

3. Do you understand what "God"/"gods" refers to?  No = ignosticism

4. Do you care if God/gods exist?  No = apatheism


For me it is no across the board.  I believe you must answer yes to the third question in order answer the first question definitively thereby accepting the burden of proof in the bargain.  Because of my position on the third question, I feel no more able to back up the general statement that no God/gods exist than I would be to argue in favor of the existence of gods.  For that reason hard atheists come off looking as foolish gnostic theists when they try to say something definitive about gods.

For question 3, you leave that to the theist to answer, and then you respond accordingly. There is nothing foolish about saying a certain god cannot exist if it is clear what god is being referred to and a logical argument is provided showing that such an entity is illogical.

Okay I find the idea of a cosmic watchmaker and the idea of an afterlife to be so fanciful that in the absence of any support I dismiss them out of hand.  On the other hand, I have nothing convincing to say to anyone who chooses to believe in fairy tales.  So why argue with them?  If you choose to argue against fairy tales in a serious way you can't help but lend them credence they don't deserve. Remember how Hamm vs Science guy came out?

[Whateverist]

Here are some god related questions and the isms to which each gives rise if the answer is no:

1. Do you believe in the existence of God/gods?  No = atheism

2. Do you know if God/gods exist?  No = agnosticism

3. Do you understand what "God"/"gods" refers to?  No = ignosticism

4. Do you care if God/gods exist?  No = apatheism


For me it is no across the board.  I believe you must answer yes to the third question in order answer the first question definitively thereby accepting the burden of proof in the bargain.  Because of my position on the third question, I feel no more able to back up the general statement that no God/gods exist than I would be to argue in favor of the existence of gods.  For that reason hard atheists come off looking as foolish gnostic theists when they try to say something definitive about gods.

Emphasis mine

See, there you go. It follows from that if you do believe in the existent of gods, you are a theist, if you don't, you're an atheist. There is no position in between. Agnostic is merely an additional description of the two.

No, agnosticism involves a negative answer to question #2, not question #1.

[Whateverist]

Bunch of fence sitters. Shit or get off the pot. Hoping that there are splinters. AAAAAAAAAAhahahahaha

Obvious attempt at humor is obvious.  But agnostic atheists are no less resolved in their disbelief in gods.  Fence sitting doesn't enter into it, as you well know you old goofball.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You are making a show of your ignorance.

It is nothing new.  I have stated this before.

Your reply is five words too long.

[Excited Penguin]

Emphasis mine

See, there you go. It follows from that if you do believe in the existent of gods, you are a theist, if you don't, you're an atheist. There is no position in between. Agnostic is merely an additional description of the two.

No, agnosticism involves a negative answer to question #2, not question #1.

Not knowing if any Gods exist equals lack of belief. That is a basic inference to make. Atheism concerns lack of belief. Therefore agnosticism is implicitly atheistic.

[Excited Penguin]

Bunch of fence sitters. Shit or get off the pot. Hoping that there are splinters. AAAAAAAAAAhahahahaha

Obvious attempt at humor is obvious.  But agnostic atheists are no less resolved in their disbelief in gods.  Fence sitting doesn't enter into it, as you well know you old goofball.

There is no such thing as a mere agnostic. You can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist, and somehow I doubt bennie here, for example, is of the latter.

You either hold a belief in God or you don't. It's as simple as that. If you don't, you are an atheist by definition. That is all.

[Whateverist]

No, agnosticism involves a negative answer to question #2, not question #1.

Not knowing if any Gods exist equals lack of belief. That is a basic inference to make. Atheism concerns lack of belief. Therefore agnosticism is implicitly atheistic.

Claiming something as knowledge requires something more than a hunch.  Belief does not.  Many theists handle belief as an exercise in stubborn insistence that what one would like to believe is indeed true.  Many anti-theists and strong atheists seem to exhibit the same habit of mind, albeit to the opposite end.  

It is possible to recognize that one can't shake a belief even though one knows he cannot make a convincing case for it.  I believe I can tell what my dogs are feeling at certain moments, but I wouldn't claim that as knowledge.  And even when I say I know my wife loves me I recognize that as a belief but not something for which I can make a convincing case to others.  My core values likewise come with beliefs I claim with or without making knowledge claims about them, even though I'm sure I can do as good a job justifying them as others can their's.

[Excited Penguin]

Come back to me when you stop being evasive.

[FatAndFaithless]

Err..what is he evading?

[Whateverist]

Obvious attempt at humor is obvious.  But agnostic atheists are no less resolved in their disbelief in gods.  Fence sitting doesn't enter into it, as you well know you old goofball.

There is no such thing as a mere agnostic. You can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist, and somehow I doubt bennie here, for example, is of the latter.

You either hold a belief in God or you don't. It's as simple as that. If you don't, you are an atheist by definition. That is all.

Okay, just reread this post of yours again.  At first I read it as saying agnosticism and atheism are synonymous, and I still see reason to take it that way.  But now I see you are also questioning whether one can be agnostic without also being an atheist.  But theists too can be agnostic.  That is, they can recognize they have no convincing argument for the God they so believe in.  (Personally, I respect these theists the most.)  So agnosticism is a separate thing from atheism, even though most atheists are also agnostic .. in other words, realistic about the support they have for the beliefs they hold.