Not Using "Agnostic" Anymore

[rexbeccarox]

---

The recent surge of belief-questioning in the US has caused all kinds of semantic debates, with the most important one being, IMO, about the definitions of atheism, agnosticism, and theism (although, I've never seen a debate including the definition of the word "theism" unless it's been related to the latter two). The definitions, for the purpose of this thread, are as follows:

Atheism- a lack of belief in a god or gods.

Agnosticism- lack of knowledge; in this case, as to whether god or gods exist.

Theism- belief in one or more gods.

Also, god or gods- creators of and rulers over the universe. Deism isn't included in this definition because I don't think a deist god is relevant to this particular conversation.

So many times, when people have found out I'm a non-believer, it's come down to a conversation about "how can you know there's no god?" And then I end up having to explain the fact that I don't claim to know. That I'm agnostic. That atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive, blah blah blah. That convo gets boring very quickly.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone in the entire world is agnostic. No one can know for sure whether a supreme creator/ruler exists. Theists usually don't tack on the word "agnostic" (although I realize the arrogance of most of their positions prevents this), and the word has become, to a lot of people, a description of a stepping stone to atheism. This is insulting! I'm going to stop using the word, because it feels like I'm apologizing for something every time I do. Maybe it seems counterintuitive, but I'm sick of suffering people who aren't paying attention. If someone thinks I'm arrogant enough to know, they're just projecting. I don't want to engage with them anyway.

/rant.

---

Well I'm glad you raised the point and I like the idea of defining the keywords in the thread first of all - if only this could be done for every word and every debate.

As it should.

Nevertheless, there are a few issues here.

You can be an atheist and have a lack of belief in god. You can also be an atheist and have a belief that god will never exist. The 8/7 view, as I like to say.

Most atheists I have encountered are <=6/7, but the perception is nearly always 7-8/7.

This is where agnosticism is helpful. Anyone with any rationality can agree that we do not know everything - as you mentioned this is a given. Except it genuinely isn't.

Except, when it comes to knowledge of a supreme being, it is. No one can know for sure.

It's like I told my woman she was beautiful ten times a day. Ten times a day she'd smile, then look away.

I get frustrated with people not understanding my experience of definitions either. However, to say "fuck you, I'm not helping you understand me" is to be even more close-minded on the issue.

There does come a point, after a few years, when trying to help your woman understand she is beautiful, that you realise, she doesn't trust it or you. I told her, on the day I quit, you don't love me, you love the relationship.

Except beauty is subjective. Existence of a supreme being isn't.

A lot of people enjoy the argument for entertainment. However, I enter debate because I want to be proven wrong. Once you understand the motivations, as well as the definitions of the person who you are debating with, it is a lot easier.

But yes, we communicate in miscommunication so I write "other" or "music" on any forms. It's just as valid an expression for me.

I was really just talking about conversation in general, with the semantic debate coming as a result. I rarely seek out a debate.

---

Theists usually don't tack on the word "agnostic" (although I realize the arrogance of most of their positions prevents this)

Yea, most of them fall into the gnostic category.

But, part of my point is, they don't. They aren't gnostic, they just call themselves that. No one can know.