Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[Whateverist]

Atheism has, like all other words, gained its "meaning" from its usage, and that usage has been that people by and large use atheism to refer to those who reject the existence of God/gods, and agnosticism to mean those individuals who abstain from assigning a truth value to the question of the divine, usually because they view it as unanswerable.

Nobody is asking them to assign a truth value to the question. We're asking them their opinion. Whether they say they won't assign a truth value is irrelevant. See my "car brand" analogy.

So when you ask if someone has an opinion, you're asking for a wild hunch? "If you had to guess, .."? That certainly is not what I have in mind when I ask for an opinion. I always assume that what someone thinks .. aka their opinion .. will either reflect something they belief is true or at least something true about them. It is a way to find out what matters to them. If I get the impression that they have a much lower regard for what they portray as their opinions, I generally stop asking.

[One Above All]

So when you ask if someone has an opinion, you're asking for a wild hunch? "If you had to guess, .."? That certainly is not what I have in mind when I ask for an opinion. I always assume that what someone thinks .. aka their opinion .. will either reflect something they belief is true or at least something true about them. It is a way to find out what matters to them. If I get the impression that they have a much lower regard for what they portray as their opinions, I generally stop asking.

When it comes to religious position, I am asking for the truth about them; specifically, what they believe in. Agnosticism is not saying "I do/do not believe", therefore it is meaningless as a term to describe belief. Agnosticism (and its counterpart, gnosticism) are used to describe certainty. What self-proclaimed agnostics are trying to do is say "I don't believe, but I don't not believe either", which is utter bullshit. You can't "not believe" but also "not not believe". It's meaningless and makes no sense.

[MindForgedManacle]

When it comes to religious position, I am asking for the truth about them; specifically, what they believe in. Agnosticism is not saying "I do/do not believe", therefore it is meaningless as a term to describe belief. Agnosticism (and its counterpart, gnosticism) are used to describe certainty. What self-proclaimed agnostics are trying to do is say "I don't believe, but I don't not believe either", which is utter bullshit. You can't "not believe" but also "not not believe". It's meaningless and makes no sense.

This is nonsense, and is the equivocation I mentioned earlier. Agnosticism isn't even about certainty per se, it's about the supposed inability to justify a position for or against the God/gods proposition. After all, I can still be uncertain about things I know to be true. For example, 99 × 99 = 9801, but whenever I recall that bit of knowledge, I always have some sneaking suspicion that I'm misremembering or am wrong.


As I said before, I'd say that atheism is clearly the belief that no gods exists. Agnostics are NOT saying "We neither believe nor don't believe", they're saying something like "We think the question (or our circumstances) are such that supporting or opposing the proposition of the existence of gods is unjustifiable." What you and other atheists are doing is like the following:


1
0
-1

"Oh, well since 0 isn't a positive number, we'll call it a negative number!"

It's true to say that zero isn't a positive number, but not being a positive number does not entail being a negative number. You're just conflating two different positions by describing what they have in common, and then basing your definition of atheism on that. You're saying supposedly strictly agnostic people are atheists since they're not theists. This is just a shell game.

[One Above All]

Agnosticism isn't even about certainty per se, it's about the supposed inability to justify a position for or against the God/gods proposition.

1: That goes completely against the definition of the term, as well as its origin, which is: knowledge. Agnostic = Without knowledge. Gnostic = With knowledge.
2: That still doesn't answer the question, which is: Do "agnostics" believe in the existence of one or more deities or not? You've completely missed the point, apparently. Belief or non-belief. Those are the only two options. Whether you believe your position is justified or not is irrelevant to the question.

[MindForgedManacle]

1: That goes completely against the definition of the term, as well as its origin, which is: knowledge. Agnostic = Without knowledge. Gnostic = With knowledge.

Okay, firstly how did I go against the common usage? I specifically said that agnosticism is about the supposed inability to justify either atheism or theism. Justification is usually considered a necessary component of knowledge.

Secondly, that etymology is just sloppy and cannot be outright be used like that. Otherwise we get hilariously false results like this:

"a" - without
float - staying above the ground

therefore, "afloat" should mean one is on the ground.... except it it means to be above the ground. The alpha primitive "a" does not unilaterally mean a negation of the word in front of it; language is rarely so uniform.

2: That still doesn't answer the question, which is: Do "agnostics" believe in the existence of one or more deities or not? You've completely missed the point, apparently. Belief or non-belief. Those are the only two options. Whether you believe your position is justified or not is irrelevant to the question.

No it isn't and I just addressed that. You're 1) conflating the definition of atheism with something that atheists and agnostics share and 2) rebranding atheism as if it were that commonality between agnostics and atheists. This is patently absurd. As I just illustrated, this is like calling the number 0 a negative number simply because it isn't a positive number.


The question isn't "belief vs. lack of belief", it's "belief vs. contrary belief". But there is obviously a middle ground which agnostics take, which is abstention. This is a lack of belief, but you're kidding yourself if you're claiming that's atheism. Perhaps another analogy will help.

Say I'm asked whether the proposition "Life exists elsewhere in the universe than Earth" is true or not. Clearly that proposition can only be true or false. However, given the current lack of evidence supporting that they do in fact exist, I cannot say they do. Likewise, I have no good reason to think the proposition is impossible. The only sensible course is to say "I don't know", becoming the equivalent of an agnostic on this topic. Sure, you can say "Ah, but you lack belief in the existence of ETs, so you're an a-ET-ist!" But that doesn't follow, since I'm clearly not saying Ets don't exist. I cannot assess the proposition's truth value, so I cannot rationally take a side. That is what agnostics typically do on the gods question.

[c172]

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?)

Without having gotten through this thread, I had thought agnostic meant that you believe there's no way to ever know the truth on whether there is a god or not. For me, I think there is a way to reveal that for sure, but we don't know what that is quite yet. So, based on what little I do know, I conclude there is no god, making me an atheist (but not agnostic).

[One Above All]

Okay, firstly how did I go against the common usage? I specifically said that agnosticism is about the supposed inability to justify either atheism or theism. Justification is usually considered a necessary component of knowledge.

Really? Ever met a gnostic theist who justified his position rationally?

Secondly, that etymology is just sloppy and cannot be outright be used like that. Otherwise we get hilariously false results like this:

"a" - without
float - staying above the ground

therefore, "afloat" should mean one is on the ground.... except it it means to be above the ground. The alpha primitive "a" does not unilaterally mean a negation of the word in front of it; language is rarely so uniform.

True. Retracted.

No it isn't and I just addressed that. You're 1) conflating the definition of atheism with something that atheists and agnostics share and 2) rebranding atheism as if it were that commonality between agnostics and atheists.

I never said all "agnostics" were atheists, if you'll notice. At best, I said they were bullshitters, since their position is like me asking- You know what, just read my car analogy. I'm not gonna quote it for you. Regardless, even that would be a stretch.

This is patently absurd. As I just illustrated, this is like calling the number 0 a negative number simply because it isn't a positive number.

Apples and oranges, as well as cherry picking. Numbers have many groups. Rational and irrational, positive and negative, perfect squares and imperfect squares, integers and non-integers, and so on. You just happened to pick a group where zero is a "special" number. Belief only has two groups: belief or non-belief. Why didn't you pick rational and irrational, or perfect and imperfect squares, or integers and non-integers?

The question isn't "belief vs. lack of belief", it's "belief vs. contrary belief". But there is obviously a middle ground which agnostics take, which is abstention. This is a lack of belief, but you're kidding yourself if you're claiming that's atheism. Perhaps another analogy will help.

Abstention from making an opinion? Are "agnostics" brain-dead or something?
Everything that can form an opinion does. It's just how our brains are wired. If you've heard or thought about it, you've formed an opinion. At first, it will most likely be a flimsy opinion and subject to rapid and seemingly random change, like when I first heard that, just because something is 100% probable, doesn't mean it will happen, and, inversely, that just because something has a probability of occurring equal to 0%, doesn't mean it won't happen. This still fucks my brain every time I think of it. Anyway, the only way an "agnostic" could exist, and that would be allowing for several light-years worth of leeway here, is if he/she had never heard or even thought about the concept of deities.

Say I'm asked whether the proposition "Life exists elsewhere in the universe than Earth" is true or not. Clearly that proposition can only be true or false. However, given the current lack of evidence supporting that they do in fact exist, I cannot say they do. Likewise, I have no good reason to think the proposition is impossible. The only sensible course is to say "I don't know", becoming the equivalent of an agnostic on this topic. Sure, you can say "Ah, but you lack belief in the existence of ETs, so you're an a-ET-ist!" But that doesn't follow, since I'm clearly not saying Ets don't exist. I cannot assess the proposition's truth value, so I cannot rationally take a side. That is what agnostics typically do on the gods question.

So either "agnostics" are equivocating, or you (you specifically; I don't know if you call yourself an "agnostic") have no concept of what atheism is.
Gnostic atheists (like myself) do, in fact, assert the non-existent of gods. Agnostic atheists do not. Regardless, atheism doesn't say jack about that. It says "I don't believe". It doesn't say "I'm saying they don't exist". You are conflating rational justifications with opinions. Humans are not rational, period. At least not 100%. You can have an opinion without any justification, and you can have an opinion without saying or even believing that it is 100% true. For lack of justification, you need only look at theists. Regarding not believing that something is 100% true, you need only look at scientists.

[zanOTK]

I'm of the opinion that anyone, atheist or theist, that doesn't have just a little agnostic in him/her is a total idiot. Or a lunatic. Or both.

Here's why:
An atheist that says he/she doesn't just not believe in God/s, but KNOWS there is no God/s is basically saying he/she knows everything. Why? Because they're saying that there is no room for there to be a God in all the things they don't know.

A theist that says he/she doesn't just believe in God/s, but KNOWS there is a/multiple God/s is probably either lying, (again) an idiot or insane, because there is no way they can prove that God/s exists. And if they say they know because they've experienced God/s, then how are they to know that they didn't mistake something else for God/s, or that they aren't just insane?

I'm saying this as a theist, and one that believes very, very strongly. But I also know there's room to be wrong.

But that's actually not an answer to the opening post. The answer is: yes, you can just not know. It's usually an in-between stage when going from theism to atheism or vice versa. Not everyone goes through it, and not everyone that does makes the full transition. But many do. And some never leave it. I used to date a girl that honestly didn't know whether she believed in God or not. Sometimes she felt like she did, sometimes she felt like she didn't. She would be described as an agnostic. Our relationship didn't last long enough for me to find out what, or if, she was transitioning to. But she was definitely agnostic while we dated. And I went through a period of pure agnosticism as well, while I was doing some major soul searching after leaving the Christian church. I didn't end up transitioning to atheism, and I eventually decided that I really did believe, in part due to my learning (well, re-learning) of the Baha'i Faith.

So yes, it is possible to just be an agnostic without being a theist or an atheist. It's just not normal for it to last a long time. But, that doesn't mean it never does.

[MindForgedManacle]

Really? Ever met a gnostic theist who justified his position rationally?

Sure. Have you never met theists who believed some argument demonstrated that God must exist? I'd say it's rational for them to believe that if they believe the argument works (it wouldn't make sense not to).

True. Retracted.

Okay.

I never said all "agnostics" were atheists, if you'll notice. At best, I said they were bullshitters, since their position is like me asking- You know what, just read my car analogy. I'm not gonna quote it for you. Regardless, even that would be a stretch.

Oh, you're not saying they're atheists, you're just saying they're bullshitters for not admitting that they are. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
I fail to see how your analogy says anything different that I haven'talready responded to.

Apples and oranges, as well as cherry picking. Numbers have many groups. Rational and irrational, positive and negative, perfect squares and imperfect squares, integers and non-integers, and so on. You just happened to pick a group where zero is a "special" number.

Okay, that's not what cherry-picking is; learn your fallacies. I picked a relevant and similatr case. If I didn't do that, I WOULD have committed the fallacy known as a category error.

Belief only has two groups: belief or non-belief. Why didn't you pick rational and irrational, or perfect and imperfect squares, or integers and non-integers?

Because those groups aren't like this one. And no, belief has 3 groups: belief, lack of or abstention from belief, disbelief (or contrary belief). You're doing exactly what I said you were doing, and something you've refused to address. "Atheist" is a term whose 'meaning' has been culturally developed (like all words) to convey the concept of people who believe no gods exist. What you're doing is essentially changing what people most often mean by "atheist" such that you can say that "agnostics are bullshitters". But to do so, you are equivocating on the terms people use.

Abstention from making an opinion? Are "agnostics" brain-dead or something?
Everything that can form an opinion does. It's just how our brains are wired. If you've heard or thought about it, you've formed an opinion. At first, it will most likely be a flimsy opinion and subject to rapid and seemingly random change, like when I first heard that, just because something is 100% probable, doesn't mean it will happen, and, inversely, that just because something has a probability of occurring equal to 0%, doesn't mean it won't happen. This still fucks my brain every time I think of it. Anyway, the only way an "agnostic" could exist, and that would be allowing for several light-years worth of leeway here, is if he/she had never heard or even thought about the concept of deities.

I'm sorry, but have you never even heard of people saying things like "I have no opinion on the matter"? People are perfectly capable of not assigning to a proposition a truth value (which is what it means to give an opinion). If I give my opinion on some proposition's truth value (generally), I'm telling you if I think it's true or false. But there are all sorts of propositions I cannot do that for.

In other words, not having an opinion on some topic is not equivalent to thinking it's false.

So either "agnostics" are equivocating, or you (you specifically; I don't know if you call yourself an "agnostic") have no concept of what atheism is.

How are they equivocating, especially seeing as I've demonstrated that you are equivocating? (And no, I'm not an agnostic). You don't even have a concept of what atheism is, because you're demonstrably contradicting what the word is taken to mean by most people.

Gnostic atheists (like myself) do, in fact, assert the non-existent of gods. Agnostic atheists do not. Regardless, atheism doesn't say jack about that. It says "I don't believe". It doesn't say "I'm saying they don't exist". You are conflating rational justifications with opinions. Humans are not rational, period. At least not 100%. You can have an opinion without any justification, and you can have an opinion without saying or even believing that it is 100% true. For lack of justification, you need only look at theists. Regarding not believing that something is 100% true, you need only look at scientists.

Atheism does not merely say that you don't believe, it's the belief no gods exist. Everytime I've shown how that's the case, you didn't respond to it. Again, you're simply describing something atheists and agnostics have in common, and then CHANGING the most widespread definition of "atheism" to that commonality.

And I don't actually think agnostic atheism is necessarily even a coherent position.

[Rampant.A.I.]

It's unanswerable by nature of the question.

Not necessarily. One could construct an argument that does the following:

-Takes a leaf outta of the philosophy of mind's book and lays the groundwork for what constitutes the minimum attributes required for godhood (as philosophers of mind do for the concept of personhood), which would exclude a good many supposed god concepts (many of which really just amount to a worshipped superhuman). Then you proceed with counter-apologetics regarding what is left.

Most of the rest (at least the passage in the spoiler tag) seemed too much like a New Atheist anti-religion rant.

If you define an entity as extant for which no empirical evidence is possible, you cannot preclude such an entity with or with a lack of said claimed entity.

---

And I don't actually think agnostic atheism is necessarily even a coherent position.

It's not. "I don't know, therefore God doesn't exist" is no more coherent than "I don't know, therefore God exists."