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.

[Cinjin]

"As far as I'm concerned..." is the mantra of every Christard on the planet.

Agnostic, atheist, theist, deist, the label you choose means nothing. They will still call you whatever they want and continue to require you to explain yourself if you speak up about your thoughts on their god(s).

[rexbeccarox]

"As far as I'm concerned..." is the mantra of every Christard on the planet.

Agnostic, atheist, theist, deist, the label you choose means nothing. They will still call you whatever they want and continue to require you to explain yourself if you speak up about your thoughts on their god(s).

Oh yes, I'm well aware of this. I guess that's part of my point, actually. I rarely even use the word "atheist" unless I'm among other atheists, which is my own choice, so I guess my rant isn't as much as not using "agnostic" anymore, but more like me deciding to stop apologizing about my beliefs, or lack thereof, and knowledge, or lack thereof.

[naimless]

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.

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 (Dawkins scale).

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.

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.

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.

[popeyespappy]

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.

[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.

[popeyespappy]

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.

Oh I agree. They don't use the label just claim the position.

[naimless]

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.

Yes but it is impossible. You never know how many definitions of words another person knows. For example, there is the assumption I understand what you understand "should" means. Then the intonation of the phrase is another issue. My reply, right now, is probably not teaching you anything new. It's just attempting to find common ground and reinforce similar definitions. But you knew that, too, and so on...

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.

I understand what you are saying. But I also understand how someone can know for sure. Think of how many things we know for sure, with regards to science, that will not be for sure in 200,000 years. You can't. In 200,000 years, is my belief of a flying spaghetti monster the truth? Genuinely calculating it, I'd currently give it a 1/2,589,300,000,000,000,000 chance. That isn't factoring in my objective chances of being right - that is just me factoring objectivity from my subjective position.

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.

Only if you trust the current human perception of objective reality. We have limited senses.

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.

You seek a debate if you disagree with the semantics of a conversation. Again, I understand you are saying their definitions are incorrect and yours are more objectively true so it isn't your fault.

I don't believe the universe is free enough for it to be their fault either though. We can agree to disagree on that if you wish.

[rexbeccarox]

As it should.

Yes but it is impossible. You never know how many definitions of words another person knows. For example, there is the assumption I understand what you understand "should" means. Then the intonation of the phrase is another issue. My reply, right now, is probably not teaching you anything new. It's just attempting to find common ground and reinforce similar definitions. But you knew that, too, and so on...

In any real debate, definitions should be agreed upon, whether it happens at the very beginning, or as the convo goes. Ideally, this should happen beforehand.

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

I understand what you are saying. But I also understand how someone can know for sure. Think of how many things we know for sure, with regards to science, that will not be for sure in 200,000 years. You can't. In 200,000 years, is my belief of a flying spaghetti monster the truth? Genuinely calculating it, I'd currently give it a 1/2,589,300,000,000,000,000 chance. That isn't factoring in my objective chances of being right - that is just me factoring objectivity from my subjective position.

But, I didn't say anything about what we might know in the future. I was referring to evidence, or the lack of it, we have now.

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

Only if you trust the current human perception of objective reality. We have limited senses.

Really? There are so many fallacies in this, I don't know where to begin.

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

You seek a debate if you disagree with the semantics of a conversation. Again, I understand you are saying their definitions are incorrect and yours are more objectively true so it isn't your fault.

Strawman. I never said anything about correct or incorrect. I laid out definitions for the purpose of this thread, that's all.

I don't believe the universe is free enough for it to be their fault either though. We can agree to disagree on that if you wish.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[genkaus]

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.

The problem lies not with the definition but the common understanding of it. When people hear the word agnostic, they hear "I don't know whether god exists or not". What they conclude from that is "If you don't know, then you shouldn't believe one way or the other either". The corollary of this position is "If you do believe one way or the other, then you must have some reason to do so" which leads them to "There must be some way that you do know".

Regarding the idea of certain knowledge, if that is required for you to claim gnosticism as opposed to agnosticism, then you would be agnostic about everything. Therefore, what is required for knowledge is not certainty but reasonable justification. If you are able to provide that then you are no longer agnostic. Personally, if asked "how do you know that god does not exist", my reply would be "because every conception of god presented to me so far has been illogical, unrealistic and incompatible with the world we live in".