Question for freethinkers

[Epimethean]

I think you are applying your own value set to that group. Agnostics are empiricists who have not finished collecting data.

But they still don't believe. Not my value. "a-" (not) "theist" (believer in one or more deities.)

But you are claiming that agnostics don't believe. Do you see a difference between not believing and doubting?

[Anymouse]

I think you are applying your own value set to that group. Agnostics are empiricists who have not finished collecting data.

But they still don't believe. Not my value. "a-" (not) "theist" (believer in one or more deities.)

But you are claiming that agnostics don't believe. Do you see a difference between not believing and doubting?

Nope. "Doubting" is non-belief. Believers do not doubt. "Doubting" is "strongly held opinions," which one does not fully believe.

[Epimethean]

Would claim that a scientist was not a scientist because he did not understand a process? Agnostics don't deal in belief so much as the admission that they do not know.

[Anymouse]

Would [you] claim that a scientist was not a scientist because he did not understand a process? Agnostics don't deal in belief so much as the admission that they do not know.

No, but "not understanding a process" is not belief. Nor is it doubt. Nor disbelief. Even the New Testament has an anecdote about doubt in the "Doubting Thomas" story. He didn't believe until he saw it for himself.

That makes "agnosticism" a subset of "atheist." They have a "why" for their non-belief. Babies don't believe, either. Does that make them agnostic, because they haven't been presented with religious information, hence they do not know? Or atheist because they do not believe? Or Christian or Wiccan or Muslim or whatever depending on where they were born, but not well-trained in their belief?

[Epimethean]

I think agnostic is outside of either, though applicable to either, too.

[Anymouse]

Well, I am willing to call it "unresolved." Like lots of stuff. Kind of drags away from the topic of the question, too.

(Christians are never willing to use those phrases "I don't know" or "unresolved." They know. (That is, they have knowledge without actually having knowledge, but they still call it knowledge. That's why I am picky about the definition of "atheist." Who gets to define it: the religious, like me; agnostics; or atheists themselves?)

[Rhizomorph13]

Agnostic is a statement about knowability

atheist or theist is an answer to the question, "Do you believe in God, god, or gods?"

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

It is possible to be one of four things:

1. agnostic theist
2. gnostic theist
3. agnostic atheist
4. gnostic atheist

One can be agnostic about any proposition, it is not restricted to the deity question.

[Epimethean]

Nicely put, Rhizomorph. It made sense that agnosticism stood outside of belief simply by virtue of its etymology.

[tackattack]

Well, I am willing to call it "unresolved." Like lots of stuff. Kind of drags away from the topic of the question, too.

(Christians are never willing to use those phrases "I don't know" or "unresolved." They know. (That is, they have knowledge without actually having knowledge, but they still call it knowledge. That's why I am picky about the definition of "atheist." Who gets to define it: the religious, like me; agnostics; or atheists themselves?)

Then allow me to shatter your world view. I don't know and have have doubts about God at times. I also have faith that God is there. This was asked and answered in a different thread. I think every theist that responded admitted they have doubts.

[bbrettle]

god is nothing more than a child with a magnifying glass frying us humans