Why Agnostic?

[fr0d0]

To the lay person I think that would mean someone who has established conclusively that God exists. I think that sounds a bit final and over-stepping the mark. Is that a correct reading?

Um, yes. Conclusively estabished does mean established conclusively. Sort of tautological.

If it sounds "a bit final" then it accomplishes its aim. Is it over-stepping the mark? I don't think so, because a "conclusive" argument is not necessarily one that is somehow universally convincing. Rather, to establish something conclusively is to adequately settle the question. If someone holds that theistic arguments don't adequately settle the question (i.e., not conclusive), then they belong to the agnostic theist category.

I see. I totally agree with this now.

On the same grounds I think you Kyu should declare yourself Gnostic Atheist & not Agnostic Atheist..
You have settled the question. That does not imply absolute proof, just like the opposite of the scale Gnostic Theist does not imply conclusive proof. This new scale has abolished the incorrect & impossible classifications.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Dawkin's scale still makes vastly more sense to me.

Apart from the fact that he uses a faulty definition of agnosticism. You opposed the certainty factor in my scale, yet if you read Dawkins' scale carefully you will see that it is nothing but views on certainty.

I don't think his definition of agnostic is wrong and I still think his scale makes more sense than yours ... I'm not going to apologise for the fact that I think Dawkins is more correct on this than you.

I don't think "agnostic atheist" is a wishy-washy title if you actually understand what the words mean (and the notes are there to explain). Far from being wishy-washy, it explains more about your view than a simple "atheist" title does. I think being agnostic about your atheism makes you a more intellectually fulfilled atheist.

I do. I disagree. I disagree

Kyu

[Tiberius]

Agnosticism has never meant "Exactly 50 per cent.‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’".

Agnosticism has always meant (ever since Huxley defined the term) that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. Huxley sought out to oppose the people who claimed things like spiritual proof of God, or likewise atheists who claimed absolute knowledge. (http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/what.htm)

I don't want you to apologize; it isn't your fault that Dawkins didn't bother to read into the subject when he used a "modern" non-philosophical meaning in what was meant to be a atheistic philosophical book. As people have already argued many times before, there are only two positions on whether you believe in god or not. "Yes" and "no". There is no middle ground, but for the people who honestly cannot make a decision (the apatheists), or those who switch between both as if unsure.

Anyway, I would like to know why "[you] do", why "[you] disagree", and why "[you] disagree". This is a place where people are meant to express their views and explain them...not just reject something in 3 sets of 2 words.

[leo-rcc]

http://www.atheismtest.com/

Problem solved.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... you'd like to know. Well I'm too fucked off to care!

Kyu

[Tiberius]

Hehe, thanks for that one leo. Nice example of the actual definition being used properly.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... you'd like to know. Well I'm too fucked off to care!

Just drop the act and admit that you were being a tad arrogant, you were incorrect and couldn't admit it...

[Purple Rabbit]

I don't think "agnostic atheist" is a wishy-washy title if you actually understand what the words mean (and the notes are there to explain). Far from being wishy-washy, it explains more about your view than a simple "atheist" title does. I think being agnostic about your atheism makes you a more intellectually fulfilled atheist.

I do. I disagree. I disagree

Kyu

I side with Kyu on this one. There's just to many homonyms of the word agnostic. In one of my older dutch dictionaries there even is the meaning of agnosticism as fundamentally unknowability. On a useful scale its use should be undeniable and straightforward, it isn't (your need for notes illustrates this). Am I being agnostic when I doubt if it is me typing this? Of course not, I'm only being not absolutely sure about it.

[Tiberius]

I side with Kyu on this one. There's just to many homonyms of the word agnostic. In one of my older dutch dictionaries there even is the meaning of agnosticism as fundamentally unknowability. On a useful scale its use should be undenaible and straightforward, it isn't (your need for notes illustrates this). Am I being agnostic when I doubt if it is me typing this? Of course not, I'm only being not absolutely sure about it.

The reason there are so many homonyms is because people have been mis-using the word. The word in a philosophical sense (as defined by Huxley) is someone who does not claim absolute knowledge on certain matters; they hold that concepts such as God are unknowable. Your dutch dictionary is correct with the definition (although it seems a bit short, what was the full definition?).

On a useful scale it should be used in the way in which it accurately reflects the definition. The only reason we have a note there is because so many people have a misconception about the word. We want people to choose a definition and use the label, not look at the label and say "but I'm not agnostic" (thinking it means something else) and reject it. Hence the note to explain the definition.

"Am I being agnostic when I doubt if it is me typing this?" You could be if you did not claim absolute knowledge that you were typing it. An agnostic would hold that all their experiences could not be real, and that there is no way to either confirm or deny this, given the subjectivity of their position.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Just drop the act and admit that you were being a tad arrogant, you were incorrect and couldn't admit it...

No because I don't accept I'm incorrect ... I think Dawkins' scale makes more sense than yours and I think the term agnostic atheist is wishy washy. I'm also getting bored of arguing it.

It's worth noting that Wiki (which I don't accept as authoritative and based on a rapid scan) says Huxley didn't define agnosticism as god being unknown or unknowable but as a rejection of gnosticism (knowledge) of god and that the idea of god being unknown or unknowable entered literature later. From that article (and again I admit this is on a very brief scan) it appears Huxley defined agnosticism as more being opposed to the "gnostic" orthodoxy than anything else ... I have to admit I am under the impression that this idea of agnosticism meaning unknown/unknowable is a recent thing and that the "standard" meaning (from decades back) is that it simply defines someone as not knowing whether there is a god or not rather than something more philosophical.

Kyu

[Tiberius]

No because I don't accept I'm incorrect ... I think Dawkins' scale makes more sense than yours and I think the term agnostic atheist is wishy washy. I'm also getting bored of arguing it.

Yet you haven't actually argued why you think it is wishy-washy (or if you have I have missed it, apologies). What definition of agnosticism do you accept then, and why do you accept it?

Do you really think that there can be a mid-position between "belief" and "non-belief"? I don't think it can be a three-way choice. It's an either-or situation, and whichever way you spin it, either you do believe or you don't.