Your stance on Hard Atheism

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's the thing. Ever heard anyone claim he's an agnostic regarding anything other than the existence of god? I think I haven't, and certainly not in the numbers we atheists do it. Does agnostic really mean 'i'm not sure about anything really' while in practice it is only used to describe a position of knowledge of the very specific claim a god exists?

I have. I've heard it used in the global warming debate ("I'm an agnostic about whether it's man-made").

Sure: It's intellectually honest to claim agnosticism. When pressed for answers on specific questions on the subject I fall in the category of agnostic atheist myself. But I don't label myself that way up front. Just like I don't label myself agnostic on other stuff I 'only' have as much knowledge about to consistently act in my or my loved ones best interests.

On an atheist forum, "agnostic" is a useful modifier insofar as it spells out a specific position.

I don't own any "agnostic atheist" T-shirts or anything like that (indeed, I don't own any atheist-related apparel or other things -- no Darwinfish on my truck, none of that).

I describe myself as "agnostic atheist" when discussing the matter. I don't, however, make it a part of my personal identity; construing as much would not be accurate.

I don't know if we are or are not brains in vats, being cruelly tricked into thinking 2 plus 2 equals 4. Yet whenever anyone asks me how much is 2 plus 2, I never say 'well i'm an agnostic mathmatitionist but I believe the answer is 4'.

Of course not. Mathematics is an abstraction ("2+2=4" could just as aptly be reworded "yellow plus blue equals green", because the applied values are abstract), whereas a claim of a god's existence implies that there might be a physical expression of the same. And that means that in order for me to say positively that there is not a god, I have to be able to physically exclude it. (We'll ignore for the time the point that "god" has such a nebulous definition that people could very easily talk past each other).

It is not a distinction I make in the non-atheist-forum world, because in the real world, it's a trivial distinction. But in the atheist-forum world, it spells out a specific position, and that is useful, especially when dealing with religionists who are all to happy to impute fallacies in their haste to erect strawmen.

There's a third option however: treating the evidenceless claims of god just the same as all other evidenceless claims. It's Hitchens razor really.

Which is exactly what the agnostic atheist does, when you think about it: "I see no evidence for the claim, therefore I see no reason to believe it."

But for those religionists who wish to stuff words in my mouth, I add the extra adjective in order to ensure no misunderstanding. It's pretty simple, really.