Agnostic: a pointless term?

[YGninja]

No-one calls themselves gnostic, apart from the Gnostics, ie the religion of Gnosticism.

When it comes to the standard Christian god, I am a gnostic strong atheist.

Really, so you know with certainty? Lets hear an argument vindicating such assuredness then.

The word isn't very old, it was first used by Thomas Huxley in 1869 colloquially to describe his position on God - that there was for him inadequate data to form an opinion. This is the real meaning of agnosticism and you shouldn't get caught up relying on etymology to translate meaning.

What people mean by a word is the word's real meaning.

Who's people? and which people get to define the 'real' meaning?

Most people use what I call the "old nomenclature":
- Theists believe gods exist.
- Atheists believe gods do not exist.
- Agnostics include everyone else.

That gives us what is called a "normalized database": Everybody fits into a category, and nobody fits into more than one category.

That is the meaning, and there is no good reason to change it, other than social engineering as it attempts to fool every neutral into associating themselves with atheism

The second most common usage is what I call the "new nomenclature":
- Theists believe gods exist.
- Strong atheists believe gods do not exist.
- Weak atheists include everyone else.

See above. Also note how, for instance, there is no separate section for "weak" or "strong" atheists on forums such as these, or anywhere else for that matter. Even though you claim they are hugely different things, one group of people being neutral, and the other believing there is no God. Its because the whole thing is a farce, you are just cynically trying to make everyone associate with atheism by default. You make people assign themselves as an atheist, they they come here, or to any other atheist hub, and expose themselves to the ideas you want them exposed to. "God = equivalent to flying spaghetti monster", "bible = fairy tale", "you cannot believe in science and God", "there is no evidence for God" etc etc.

The new nomenclature is number 2, but it is coming on like gangbusters, and is particularly popular among atheists (that's new-nomenclature atheists: everybody but theists). We had a long thread on something like, "Atheists, what do you mean by the word 'atheist'?" at freeratio.org a few years ago, and nobody even mentioned your definition. So I'm tempted to claim that the great majority of people who self-identify as atheists use the new nomenclature.

Yes, number 2 is only used by atheists, typically young atheists, (although most atheists are younger than most religious people) who don't know the real definitions as they've only come across the terminology when looking into atheism, where the atheist promulgators feed them these contrived definitions. There are no grounds for these definitions.

You may not like the new nomenclature, but if it is supported by dictionaries and in common usage, you have no argument that the word "agnostic" doesn't "really" mean what so many people use it to mean.

Yah i do, and i've already presented these arguments.

Agnosticism is mutually exclusive to atheism, because atheism has always been a belief, and a belief cannot come from a position of no or inadequate knowledge.

You are overstating your case. Many many people throughout history have used the word in ways you don't approve of.

You won't find a dictionary prior to the last 10-15 years with any kind of "lack of belief" definition, and even today such resources are vastly outnumbered by more accurate ones. Same is the case with 'agnostic' which was never the literal antithesis of the word 'gnostic'. It was originally and always traditionally used in matters pertaining to belief in God.

The 'lack of belief' = atheism idea is nonsense,

Theists believe gods exist. Atheists are those who don't happen to have that belief. That's perfectly clear, not nonsense at all.

No, you are flogging an ungrounded and invalid definition of atheism. Atheists believe there is no God, agnostics don't have any belief, as they claim ignorance.

lack of belief has never been the definition of atheism,

It is currently one of the two most common meanings. I suspect that among self-identified atheists, at least in America, it is the most common meaning. Your claim that it has never been the meaning is fantastical, wishful thinking.

Only for the reason that the wrong definition has been fed to a generation of young, impressionable kids as they react against 9/11 and Islamic terrorism, with no real grounding or knowledge of the history of religion, and with no prior familiarity with the terminology. Again, show me a dictionary older than 10-15 years with this definition. What we're seeing is social engineering capitalizing on the terrorist events of recent years. Perhaps that is the point of the terrorists events? Its an interesting subject, probably this isn't the place for that debate.

and there are no historical grounds for it.

I've spoken with a linguist who disagrees. I've looked in dictionaries that disagree. I think your claim is hokum.

But, if your claim were true, it wouldn't matter. The current meaning of words depends entirely by what people mean by them now.

Give an argument then. Show me a historical definition supporting your claim. Show me a reason to believe you. If we define a word by whatever we think people mean, we're in hot water, dogface. (by dogface i mean you are very handsome, i say so).

Whats more, it would make atheism and agnosticism indistinguishable

Your old system makes agnosticism (those who don't have a belief as to whether god exists) and agnosticism (those who lack knowledge) hard to distinguish.

Thats incoherent. The actual system, what you call "old", is 100% coherent. Agnostics cannot have any belief, as they don't possess enough knowledge to form a belief. Atheists believe, and theists believe. Both have a BOP to explain why they believe. Neither need to be certain about their position to avoid being described as agnostic.

The new system is much clearer, because it avoids that problem.

The only time the new system causes confusion is when people mix it with the old system. Most of the time when that happens, I get the feeling it is done deliberately. The confusion is the goal; it is intended by people who don't like the new system, so they pretend to be confused, and try to make it confusing for others.

The new system is incoherent, and has been invented for reasons ive already mentioned.

- a lack of belief can only exist in the absence of knowledge, which is agnosticism.

See, now you are using "agnosticism" to mean "without knowledge," which is a usage you have been arguing against.

No, i have made the same argument throughout. Agnosticism is without knowledge, NOT without certainty.

No, you could say "i don't know if x exists, therefore i do not actively believe it does", which is an extraneous statement but atleast coherent.

It's not extraneous. Everybody believes some things without proof. "I don't know if X exists, but I nonetheless believe it exists," is common and logical. So, "I don't know if X exists, and I also don't believe it exists," isn't extraneous.

Now you are confusing proof with evidence. No-one believes anything without evidence. Evidence is whatever can be used to support a position, and a position can never be assumed without evidence. Proof shows irrefutably that a position is true. If you have no knowledge about the existence of X (agnostic) you cannot believe anything about the existence of X. Declaring both; "atheist agnostic", is extraneous.

This btw, is why i find it funny when atheists say "there is no evidence for God", it is so far wide of the mark, and the only claim they can actually defend is "there is no presently identifiable naturalistic evidence for God, in my opinion", a far cry from the claim they circulate amongst themselves and the neutral suckers they fooled into associating with atheism.

When you say you "don't believe", what you are actually saying is you believe it doesn't (exist).

Not only is this not true, but you yourself, in your previous sentence, gave an example of different usage.

"I don't believe X," is often meant as a figure of speech, litotes, in which one understates for effect. The meaning is "I believe not-X." Example of litotes? "He's not the sharpest pencil in the box," means he's really dull.

But you can't require us to use litotes every time we make a negative statement. Often enough, when we say, "I don't believe X," we are being literal, not figurative.

But this isn't the position of the atheist.

I don't believe that you have an odd number of coins in your pocket. But that doesn't mean I believe that the coins are an even number.

When you wrote, "No, you could say "i don't know if x exists, therefore i do not actively believe it does ..." you were careful to be clear that you weren't using litotes, which proves the point that one can say one doesn't believe X without meaning one believes not-X.

I agree " i don't believe" don't necessarily mean you believe the opposite. I never claimed it was a rule. In this case though, with all of the experience ive had discussing matters with atheists, they don't really have a lack of belief, they believe, but they just want to avoid the BOP. Its a phenomena which has become pandemic in the community. Young atheists do it instinctively without even thinking, its how they've been taught.

This is just mis-use of a colloquialism. You are also missing the meaning of the word agnosticism, which is a lack of knowledge precluding the ability to form an opinion.

That screws up both systems of nomenclature.
- Theists believe gods exist.
- Atheists (or strong atheists) believe gods do not exist.
- Agnostics (or weak atheists) are unable to form an opinion due to their lack of knowledge.
- Members of group X have enough knowledge, but they are so flaky that they don't form opinions anyway.
- Members of group Y don't have enough knowledge to legitimately form opinions, but the do so anyway.

What other groups would there be? I don't know, but it's clearly easier to stick with one of the two major systems.
- Weak atheists (what the old system calls "agnostics") include everyone who is neither a theist nor a strong atheist. The motivations and justifications of the weak atheists don't affect the fact that they are weak atheists. If you've met Jehovah, have seen proof of his existence, and are currently sitting on his lap, but you still don't have a belief as to whether he exists (perhaps because you are brain damaged) then you are a weak atheist despite the fact that you have proof.

The three categories ((theist, strong atheist, weak atheist) or (theist, atheist, agnostic))
cover everybody, regardless of their state of knowledge.

Weak atheist; strong atheist is just a contrivance inserted by you, not me. Ignoring their reference i agree with the first two claims. As for the third, if they don't form opinions its not that they're "flaky", its that they feel they do not have enough knowledge to align in either direction. For the fourth, if people form opinions or beliefs, they must assume they have knowledge. Whether that knowledge is right or wrong, or whether its appropriate to form a belief on a small quantity of assumed knowledge, is irrelevant.

Agnosticism has never pertaining to knowing with certainty, this is why i warded you off defining by etymology.

Preferring fictional history, "Nobody has ever used 'agnostic' that way."

Back up the claim. Here is Websters 1913 dictionary:http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=agnostic&use1913=on&use1828=on
Ag*nos"tic (#), a. [Gr. priv. + knowing, to know.] Professing ignorance; involving no dogmatic; pertaining to or involving agnosticism. -- Ag*nos"tic*al*ly (#), adv.

Nothing about lacking complete certainty.

No-one can ever really say they *know* anything ...

That's not a defensible position.

So attack it.

Not having belief in something merely because you don't feel compelled by the claim, cannot make you an atheist. It makes you an agnostic.

Depends which system of nomenclature is being used. In the new system, anyone who is not a theist is an atheist. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it false.

You don't get to define yourself, not matter how hard and how much you lobby to do it.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-9794-page-1.html
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy even had to issue a statement explaining why they have dared to retain the traditional and actual definition of atheism, so much pressure and abuse they have been receiving to change it.

Anthony Flew (who later became a theist) first used your definition, admitting it wasn't the standard definition, and that he was effectively trying to incite the change for the purposes of social engineering, to make people presume atheism as a default position.

"the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew)"

If you are not convinced by 1, your position is not -1, but 0.

But you're the one trying to get us to use more litotes, so that "I don't believe god exists" is interpreted as "I believe god does not exist." That's inconsistent with your claim that if you are not convinced by 1 your position is not -1 but 0.

No, i was not advocating the use of "litotes", my comment as to what he really means was a comment made of insight, i was not claiming a rule.

So what are you? An agnostic or an atheist? You cannot be both, its incoherent.

Even in the old system of nomenclature, "agnostic" sometimes refers to those who don't know. You've used it that way yourself, in this thread. And it is perfectly possible to be that kind of agnostic while being an atheist of either type (old system or new).

Already discussed this contrivance, its origin, purpose and validity.

You cannot simultaneously assume any belief while denying there is enough evidence to form an opinion.

That's (a) wrong, and (b) a strawman argument.

It's wrong because people do sometimes believe things in the teeth of the evidence. Sometimes they may be crazy. But they probably aren't all crazy, because this is so often used as an admirable characteristic on TV. "I know he's still alive! I don't have any evidence, and he's been down there for forty days without food or water, but I know he's alive!" When we say "keep the faith," we don't mean it as an insult. Plantinga says he couldn't fail to believe in god regardless of the evidence. He would proudly believe even if gods were scientifically proven not to exist.

It's a strawman argument because nobody is suggesting that there isn't enough evidence to form an opinion. One can believe something on less evidence than would be required for knowledge.

a: For them it is evidence, whether it is logical, reasonable, or a figment of their imagination, is irrelevant. People cannot believe something without assuming evidence which constitutes knowledge. In your example: "I know he's still alive! I don't have any evidence, and he's been down there for forty days without food or water, but I know he's alive!" The speaker would be misinterpreting the meaning of evidence, commonly how atheists do, as limited to something physical. Merely a 'feeling' that he's alive would constitute the evidence.
b: No because the evidence is the knowledge. You believe the evidence exists, you profess knowledge of evidence; you profess knowledge. It doesn't mean you are certain, or even near certain, but it is the thing which you hold as true which is the knowledge without which you couldn't have a belief. To use the previous example, that 'feeling', is held as true, in the sense that she does actually feel it. Hence she has knowledge of the feeling, which is the evidence thats grounding her belief. To put it more simply: All beliefs have a cause. That cause must always be evidence for the belief, otherwise there is nothing to link the cause to the belief.