Why Agnostic?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Well firstly I think you showed that piece to me before, and I corrected the origin of the word "atheist". The 'a' doesn't come from English grammar, but from Greek. ('a-theos' literally means "without god" in ancient greek).

That doesn't really defeat the point does it because the Greek "a" still does exactly the same thing as the English grammar "a" i.e. reverses the sense of the word.

Secondly, your argument that atheism and agnosticism are one and the same is invalid. ...

I don't think it is ... as I said in my original post:

"gnostic" means knowledge (in this context "of god") in other words the gnostic "knows of god" or "has knowledge of god" and the agnostic "knows not of god" or "has no knowledge of god" and today that has changed slightly to mean that the agnostic "does not know if there is a god" or holds that "the existence of god is unknown or unknowable".

Now belief in something (the acceptance of a given explanation) is a two state affair, you either accept that explanation or you reject it i.e. I believe that science represents our best current understanding of the universe around us ... given the nature of science it is not hard to defend that POV nevertheless it is merely a belief on my part. The agnostic, by the very act of saying he/she "does not know" (or indeed by claiming that the existence of deity is unknown and unknowable") is essentially rejecting current religious *explanations* EXACTLY as an atheist does. In fact what is clear about the agnostic position is that it differs from atheism only in the way it is perceived by others and, indeed, historically the term is believed to have originated with T.H. Huxley as a term he used because he did not like the connotations associated with the "atheist". In other words, if the agnostic does not accept current claims to deity (and typically they don't but for various reasons they don't want to say there is no god) then the agnostic, at that point in time, is an atheist whether they want to be identified as such or not.

The other definition of agnosticism, that the existence of god is unknown and unknowable, is little more than a philosophical dodge ... of course the existence of god is not known or knowable because god won't come out and play nice with the scientists.

So logically, agnosticism and atheism are one and the same position ... one or the other is a redundant term. Since atheism (apparently) has precedence and the definition makes more rational sense in relation to "theism", agnosticism is, IMO, the redundant term.

I accept some of the modifications you make but:

• Belief in something (the acceptance of a given explanation) is STILL a two state affair, you either accept that explanation or you reject it.
  
• The agnostic (the "don't know" kind) is essentially rejecting current religious *explanations* in the EXACT same way an atheist does.
  
• The agnostic (the "existence of god is unknown and unknowable" kind) is STILL engaged in little more than a philosophical dodge regardless of whether they are agnostic believer or an agnostic disbeliever

In essence, whichever way I look at it agnosticism is an utterly redundant term, the agnostic at any given point is either a believer or a disbeliever (a theist or an atheist) and uses "agnosticism" primarily to shield him or herself from the being identified as a theist or the harsh perception of atheist.

Which brings me back to my original point ... agnosticism is wishy washy.

Kyu