To Agnostics, question for you

[Bob Kelso]

You're no longer Christian?

Incorrect

I also agree with Napoleon. I don't think anyone can know for sure.

Agnosticism has connotations of disbelief also I believe.

This may be overly simplified but; Agnosticism and Gnosticism aren't stances of belief, they are a description of one's knowledge. You either know for sure (gnostic) or you don't (agnostic).

I am an agnostic atheist, just like any intellectually honest atheist (or theist for that matter).

Agnosticism is just being honest, it can have disbelief involved but I don't believe it's inherent.

[jesus_wept]

I generally think the tern agnostic is a weasel word for people who either don't want to call themselves atheists or don't want to admit they're theists. One term (agnostic) deals with knowledge and the others belief (atheism/theism) so the two are not incompatible and I always think there is something dishonest about someone who trys to answer the question of whether they believe by starting they don't know. I don't know either, hence I don't believe so I'm a an atheist. Many theists don't claim to know either, but they do believe.

Perhaps I'm just being paranoid because I've spent too much time arguing with "agnostic" theists online though.

[fr0d0]

This may be overly simplified but; Agnosticism and Gnosticism aren't stances of belief, they are a description of one's knowledge. You either know for sure (gnostic) or you don't (agnostic).

I had my beliefs as "agnostic Christian" for a while. It confused a lot of people so I had to change it.

[OGirly]

I generally think the tern agnostic is a weasel word for people who either don't want to call themselves atheists or don't want to admit they're theists. One term (agnostic) deals with knowledge and the others belief (atheism/theism) so the two are not incompatible and I always think there is something dishonest about someone who trys to answer the question of whether they believe by starting they don't know. I don't know either, hence I don't believe so I'm a an atheist. Many theists don't claim to know either, but they do believe.

Perhaps I'm just being paranoid because I've spent too much time arguing with "agnostic" theists online though.

maybe a bit paranoid lol Saying you don't know is a perfectly valid option to most questions; and sometimes the wisest. Agnostic just means you don't know as others have said in the thread so if they are using the term correctly it's not really a cop out. They honestly just don't know either way; what they feel is what sends them in either atheist or theist directions in my opinion.

[Whateverist]

I took the label at the very beginning when I decided to abandon religion, but to me the term seems to indicate that I was seeking answers. The atheist does not believe, and that is pretty much that. The agnostic does not know for certain, and I figured that if I had any real doubts or some desire to know for sure, I'd be searching. Seeing as I was not, I think atheist applies best.

Looks like a point on which we can very reasonably disagree.

I don't think either term goes very far in telling you who I am. Both are just items on the long list of things I am not:

Q: Do you believe in gods? A: No, I guess that makes me an atheist.

Q: Do you know if gods exist? A: No, I guess that makes me an agnostic.

Both labels carry baggage. As you say, "agnostic" leaves it open for people to wonder if you're actively trying to figure it out. Many people also seem to think it means you assign a higher likelihood of there being a god than an atheist would. But both of those are just misunderstandings. I still don't know that there are no gods, so the label still flows from the answer given to that question.

As we see here everyday many people also misunderstand what it is to be an atheist. They think we hate god. They think atheists make the claim that gods do not exist. They think we're all alike in lots of irrelevant ways when all we know for sure is we answered no to the belief question.

I'm not putting "atheist" or "agnostic" on my gravestone or my business cards. Neither question gets at who we are .. except insofar as we live in a time when so many people are still religious and too many want to legislate on biblical principles.

[Alex K]

Since I'm reading Carriers book about bayes theorem, I must object: not being able to prove that god does not exist does not mean that I do not know anything about the likelihood. I think I can confidently say that given what I know, that God exists is very very unlikely. That is not nothing, and it makes me an agnostic atheist (the only alternative being a fundamentalist closedminded atheist).

[Whateverist]

maybe a bit paranoid lol Saying you don't know is a perfectly valid option to most questions; and sometimes the wisest.

Lol indeed. As a teacher I can vouch for how widespread the perception is for thinking IDK is a reasonable response. It rarely correlates with wisdom though.

Agnostic just means you don't know as others have said in the thread so if they are using the term correctly it's not really a cop out. They honestly just don't know either way; what they feel is what sends them in either atheist or theist directions in my opinion.

It probably is a cop out if you answer the belief question with IDK. Surely you know whether you ever do, say or think anything out of consideration of what you know or suspect about gods. If you ever reflect on how a god would be affected by your actions, you may well be a theist. If you temper your actions out of consideration of a god's judgement just admit you're a theist.

The only slack I can give you is if you think subconsciously or out of habit even though you don't literally believe in a beardy guy in the sky. Then okay, you may acknowledge that the beliefs you are running on still reflect your religious upbringing. That's honest. With time you might find you no longer have any stray theistic beliefs banging around in the basement.

---

Since I'm reading Carriers book about bayes theorem, I must object: not being able to prove that god does not exist does not mean that I do not know anything about the likelihood. I think I can confidently say that given what I know, that God exists is very very unlikely. That is not nothing, and it makes me an agnostic atheist (the only alternative being a fundamentalist closedminded atheist).

The problem with the part I've bolded is what it is you think you know about gods. Unless you have a better definition than I do, how certain can you be that what you do know is incompatible with a god existing?

[Tonus]

I took the label at the very beginning when I decided to abandon religion, but to me the term seems to indicate that I was seeking answers.

Looks like a point on which we can very reasonably disagree.

That's why I was careful to qualify my post (bolded part) although I should have replaced "seems" with "seemed." I think that for the recently-deconverted there is the misconception that "agnostic" refers to someone who has doubts, while "atheist" refers to someone who is certain. I think that there is a difference between saying "I'm not sure if there is a god" and "I do not know if there is a god." I think that those are two different situations, in that most of the time the things we have doubts about (did I leave my keys in my coat pocket, or in the kitchen?) are very different from the things we admit we don't know (is there life beneath the icy surface of Enceladus?).

[*Deidre*]

'Agnostic theists" hmmmm lol
So, this is a person who does not know but who thinks he/she "might" know?

Too many labels. :p

[Alex K]

maybe a bit paranoid lol Saying you don't know is a perfectly valid option to most questions; and sometimes the wisest.

Lol indeed. As a teacher I can vouch for how widespread the perception is for thinking IDK is a reasonable response. It rarely correlates with wisdom though.

Agnostic just means you don't know as others have said in the thread so if they are using the term correctly it's not really a cop out. They honestly just don't know either way; what they feel is what sends them in either atheist or theist directions in my opinion.

It probably is a cop out if you answer the belief question with IDK. Surely you know whether you ever do, say or think anything out of consideration of what you know or suspect about gods. If you ever reflect on how a god would be affected by your actions, you may well be a theist. If you temper your actions out of consideration of a god's judgement just admit you're a theist.

The only slack I can give you is if you think subconsciously or out of habit even though you don't literally believe in a beardy guy in the sky. Then okay, you may acknowledge that the beliefs you are running on still reflect your religious upbringing. That's honest. With time you might find you no longer have any stray theistic beliefs banging around in the basement.

---

Since I'm reading Carriers book about bayes theorem, I must object: not being able to prove that god does not exist does not mean that I do not know anything about the likelihood. I think I can confidently say that given what I know, that God exists is very very unlikely. That is not nothing, and it makes me an agnostic atheist (the only alternative being a fundamentalist closedminded atheist).

The problem with the part I've bolded is what it is you think you know about gods. Unless you have a better definition than I do, how certain can you be that what you do know is incompatible with a god existing?

I'd say incompatibleness is not required, only for 100% certainty. What figures into the equation is the priors, which are arbitrary, but you can for example set them to 1/2, the probabilities that god belief and accorsing myths would arise in absence of a deity, and what the probability for the world being what it is given that there is a deity (this can include theodicy depending on which deity). It's impossible to give exact numbers, but one can put orders of magnitude you find reasonable and see where it gets you.