Why Agnostic?

[Purple Rabbit]

... but warn me if some genius like that surfer dude ...

Sorry, who? Am I detecting a cultural reference that this Canadian might not be aware of?

Meet the surfer dude who in 2007 stunned academia and the world of established theoretical physicists with his proposal for grand unification with a Lie group known as E9.

[Ryft]

Meet the surfer dude who in 2007 stunned academia and the world of established theoretical physicists with his proposal for grand unification with a Lie group known as E9.

You bastard. You've just determined my reading program for the next several years. God, that looks absolutely marvelous. I can't wait to explore this.

[Tsuyoiko]

In order to identify ("what") and evaluate ("how") the presuppositions which undergird a given set of beliefs, at minimum the set of beliefs must be identified (for example, there is no one universal set of atheistic beliefs; Solipsism, Buddhism, Nihilism, Scientism, Secular Humanism, etc. are possible atheistic beliefs). Once a specific set of beliefs are identified, the presuppositions can be identified and evaluated.

What are the presuppositions that undergird your specific set of beliefs?

[Tiberius]

Because the definition of atheism (whichever one it is) makes bugger all sense ... the agnostic is simply a sit-on-the-fence atheist IMO. I've posted before about it and we've disagreed (well there's a surprise). Combining the straight-forward concept of atheism with the crap that is agnosticism (at least as far as the two definitions of which I am aware) is bullshit hence "wishy-washy").

Indeed, we disagreed with it before, and you chickened out of an actual response to my points. Perhaps it's time for a response? Of course you consider agnosticism crap, because your agnosticism is to the real agnosticism what creationist's "evolution" is to the real theory of evolution. It's a confused and illogical version, whereas the actual position makes sense. Agnosticism says we can never really prove or disprove God. I put to you that God is unprovable because the attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are untestable unless the tester is also omniscient (and therefore knows about the validity of the claimant's three attributes). I also call in Shermer's Last Law, that "Any sufficiently advanced Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence is indistinguishable from God". Given any powerful being, you could not prove that such a being was god anymore than you could prove it was just a very powerful and technologically advanced alien. [Shermer's Last Law]

I don't think agnosticism is a valid position so as far as I'm concerned it is purely between theism and atheism.

So you think it's an invalid position but also a valid position between theism and atheism? Meh? Could you explain why you think a simple "I believe / I don't believe" doesn't exist? Surely any question involving such statements is an either-or, nothing more.

[Purple Rabbit]

I don't think agnosticism is a valid position so as far as I'm concerned it is purely between theism and atheism.

So you think it's an invalid position but also a valid position between theism and atheism? Meh? Could you explain why you think a simple "I believe / I don't believe" doesn't exist? Surely any question involving such statements is an either-or, nothing more.

Adrian in self-denial? Where does all this madness end??

[Tiberius]

I don't think agnosticism is a valid position so as far as I'm concerned it is purely between theism and atheism.

So you think it's an invalid position but also a valid position between theism and atheism? Meh? Could you explain why you think a simple "I believe / I don't believe" doesn't exist? Surely any question involving such statements is an either-or, nothing more.

Adrian in self-denial? Where does all this madness end??

Oops. Well that was the worst "misquote" ever

Of course, it was in fact Kyu, not myself who said:

I don't think agnosticism is a valid position so as far as I'm concerned it is purely between theism and atheism.

[Kyuuketsuki]

So you think it's an invalid position but also a valid position between theism and atheism? Meh? Could you explain why you think a simple "I believe / I don't believe" doesn't exist? Surely any question involving such statements is an either-or, nothing more.

Read the thing I posted to you before (the link), the one we disagreed on ... THAT is why I think agnosticism is a bunch of crap.

Kyu

[Tiberius]

So you think it's an invalid position but also a valid position between theism and atheism? Meh? Could you explain why you think a simple "I believe / I don't believe" doesn't exist? Surely any question involving such statements is an either-or, nothing more.

Read the thing I posted to you before (the link), the one we disagreed on ... THAT is why I think agnosticism is a bunch of crap.

Kyu

I read it, and I presented a rebuttal that you refused to discuss then. They are open to your "rebuttal" now.

It might be worth pointing out another reason you are in the wrong. You stated:

Like "theism" & "atheism", "gnostic" mean 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".

This is a gross misunderstanding of the origins of the word. Yes, theism is the opposite of atheism, but the word "agnosticism" was not originally meant as an opposite of gnosticism. Huxley coined the word to fit his definition of "the existence of god is unknown or unknowable". He used the word "agnosticism" because of the word "gnostic" meaning one who has spiritual knowledge. Huxley could have called his new definition anything, but he chose the word "agnostic" since the word "gnostic" commented on spiritual knowledge, and his word on knowledge being unknowable (chiefly in relation to god / spirituality).

It is in fact the word "gnostic" that has a rather modern meaning, stemming from the popularity of "agnostic", it has come to mean the polar opposite (which is why we used it in our scale). If the word agnostic meant "has no knowledge of god" then I would agree, atheists are inherently agnostic. However the word does not mean that, it never has. It has always meant "the existence of god is unknown or unknowable" (or derived versions of that), or the more modern (and in my opinion useless) definition of "I don't know what I believe".

So Kyu, a response to both points would be good...

[LEDO]

I always thought of an agnostic as a chicken shit atheist. HEY! Don't your balls start to hurt riding that fence all the time?

[Ryft]

What are the presuppositions that undergird your specific set of beliefs?

That God reveals himself and speaks with ultimate authority in the Scriptures—transcendent cognitive revelation—the ultimate reference point in predication from which everything else is derived via receptive reconstruction (for we argue from presuppositions, not to them). This is an absolutely loaded and tightly packed presupposition, somewhat analogous to a singularity from which an entire universe springs forth. But when comparatively examined, it is the only presupposition that is able to produce results which correspond with the real experiences of mankind.

What are the presuppositions that undergird your beliefs?

So you think it's an invalid position but also a valid position between theism and atheism? Meh? Could you explain why you think a simple "I believe / I don't believe" doesn't exist? Surely any question involving such statements is an either-or, nothing more.

It makes sense when you go Grammar Nazi on it:

"I don't think agnosticism is a valid position. So, as far as I'm concerned, it is purely between theism and atheism."

If the word 'agnostic' meant "has no knowledge of god," then I would agree that atheists are inherently agnostic. However, the word does not mean that. It never has. It has always meant "the existence of god is unknown or unknowable" (or derived versions of that) ...

The one produces the other. Consider: if it is the case that "the existence of god is unknown or unknowable" (original meaning), then it follows that one can have "no knowledge of god" (another meaning).

I always thought of an agnostic as a chicken shit atheist. HEY! Don't your balls start to hurt riding that fence all the time?

I suspect that a fideist (agnostic theist) would probably scratch her head in bewilderment at being called a chicken shit atheist, given that her belief in the existence of God sort of contradicts atheism.