Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[Mister Agenda]

I figure agnostics come in three basic flavors: agnostic atheist (doesn't know, doesn't believe), agnostic theist (doesn't know, believes anyway), and agnostic agnostic (doesn't know what they believe).

I think just agnostic is fine for people who are really on the fence about whether God is real or not.

You ask them which god(s) they believe in. If they don't believe in one, then they're atheist.

And if they say they're not sure if they believe or not, or sometimes believe and sometimes don't, they're a....

And of course, there's the Dawkins Scale, where an agnostic is someone who puts the probability of God close to 50/50.

[Confused Ape]

what he means is that if you say "nothing" you are claiming to know more bullshit than if you say "this type of thing".

Agnostics understand the use of the scientific method in the context of science, while others can just spit the definition out their asshole.
.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Did you watch the video (it's only 2.22 minutes)? Ramachandran is describing the results of a communication experiment with a split brain patient. He then makes a light hearted comment about how the way the patient's left and right hemispheres operate poses a bit of a problem when it comes to Christian theology.

[Mister Agenda]

Like theist and agnostic atheist have sects. Its the loud mouth sickoes that give us a bad name. The you that mock, belittle, and otherwise dehumanize people that don't think like them.

Mocking and belittling seems to constitute the entirety of your 'contribution' to this forum.

---

When it comes to religious position, I am asking for the truth about them; specifically, what they believe in. Agnosticism is not saying "I do/do not believe", therefore it is meaningless as a term to describe belief. Agnosticism (and its counterpart, gnosticism) are used to describe certainty. What self-proclaimed agnostics are trying to do is say "I don't believe, but I don't not believe either", which is utter bullshit. You can't "not believe" but also "not not believe". It's meaningless and makes no sense.

What self-proclaimed agnostics are saying is that they don't know, because that is what the word means. Belief is a separate dimension, and there's no reason an agnostic couldn't be a believer anyway. As far as neither believing nor not believing, isn't that pretty much the same as not having an opinion on whether something is actually true or not? That doesn't seem obviously self-contradictory to me.

Abstention from making an opinion? Are "agnostics" brain-dead or something?
Everything that can form an opinion does. It's just how our brains are wired. If you've heard or thought about it, you've formed an opinion. At first, it will most likely be a flimsy opinion and subject to rapid and seemingly random change, like when I first heard that, just because something is 100% probable, doesn't mean it will happen, and, inversely, that just because something has a probability of occurring equal to 0%, doesn't mean it won't happen. This still fucks my brain every time I think of it. Anyway, the only way an "agnostic" could exist, and that would be allowing for several light-years worth of leeway here, is if he/she had never heard or even thought about the concept of deities.

Or hasn't come to a conclusion about them.

---

Because those groups aren't like this one. And no, belief has 3 groups: belief, lack of or abstention from belief, disbelief (or contrary belief). You're doing exactly what I said you were doing, and something you've refused to address. "Atheist" is a term whose 'meaning' has been culturally developed (like all words) to convey the concept of people who believe no gods exist. What you're doing is essentially changing what people most often mean by "atheist" such that you can say that "agnostics are bullshitters". But to do so, you are equivocating on the terms people use.

The inclusive 'lack of belief' definition, which includes negative as well as positive atheists, has been used by atheist writers for centuries. It's true that nonatheists have not listened to atheist sources historically in formulating their definitions for 'atheist' and 'atheism'.

---

---

And I don't actually think agnostic atheism is necessarily even a coherent position.

It's not. "I don't know, therefore God doesn't exist" is no more coherent than "I don't know, therefore God exists."

I would really love to see an example of an agnostic atheist making that claim, but since that claim really has nothing to do with the position of agnostic atheism (don't know and don't believe), you probably shouldn't put yourself out looking for one.

[Whateverist]

It's not. "I don't know, therefore God doesn't exist" is no more coherent than "I don't know, therefore God exists."

I would really love to see an example of an agnostic atheist making that claim, but since that claim really has nothing to do with the position of agnostic atheism (don't know and don't believe), you probably shouldn't put yourself out looking for one.

Agreed. What's up with the gratuitous insertion of "therefore"? Neither the belief nor the knowledge question is dependent on one's answer to the other.

[Rampant.A.I.]

It's unanswerable by nature of the question.

Not necessarily. One could construct an argument that does the following:

-Takes a leaf outta of the philosophy of mind's book and lays the groundwork for what constitutes the minimum attributes required for godhood (as philosophers of mind do for the concept of personhood), which would exclude a good many supposed god concepts (many of which really just amount to a worshipped superhuman). Then you proceed with counter-apologetics regarding what is left.

Most of the rest (at least the passage in the spoiler tag) seemed too much like a New Atheist anti-religion rant.

Exactly what in "there is zero contradiction between that which is wholly imaginary and the definition of the supernatural" is anti-religion? I'm a ranting anti-religion new atheist, and have been for 25 years? Compared to who, KC or Taq?

Even if you take a wholly mystic doctrine like Enlightenment Gnosticism that says "Look, this is just a system of metaphor and allegory for reality; we're not saying any of it is literal." Which is why the church found them heretical: they contended God was a concept, not a literal entity.

You can believe whatever you like: I'm telling you I don't have any religious beliefs, and I think the disagreement between theists and most theists boils down to the vocabulary they're using to describe their experiences within the framework they've been handed to to impose order on their reality.

It's more than a little amusing to be told it's impossible to abstain from forming irrational beliefs by people who were once indoctrinated believers and went to the other end of the scale, proclaim they don't believe what they once did, and anyone who still does is an idiot -- because that line of rhetoric ignores the similarity to a theist telling an atheist they secretly know god exists and deny it because they want to sin.

It's not unlike being told atheism is a religion, because it's impossible to not hold religious beliefs. In fact, It's the Jeremy Walker approach to atheism.

"I don't believe one way or the other."

"No you don't, you're an atheist."

Thanks for clearing that up for me; anything else you want to tell me about my mindset?

[MindForgedManacle]

Exactly what in "there is zero contradiction between that which is wholly imaginary and the definition of the supernatural" is anti-religion? I'm a ranting anti-religion new atheist, and have been for 25 years? Compared to who, KC or Taq?

I thought it was well known that "New Atheist" is a term generally used to refer to atheists who's discussion of religion tends to amount to an angry rant about it?

Even if you take a wholly mystic doctrine like Enlightenment Gnosticism that says "Look, this is just a system of metaphor and allegory for reality; we're not saying any of it is literal." Which is why the church found them heretical: they contended God was a concept, not a literal entity.

What are you talking about? I'm not an agnostic, nor have I stated anything resembling the above.

You can believe whatever you like: I'm telling you I don't have any religious beliefs, and I think the disagreement between theists and most theists boils down to the vocabulary they're using to describe their experiences within the framework they've been handed to to impose order on their reality.

I didn't say you had religious beliefs...

It's more than a little amusing to be told it's impossible to abstain from forming irrational beliefs by people who were once indoctrinated believers and went to the other end of the scale, proclaim they don't believe what they once did, and anyone who still does is an idiot -- because that line of rhetoric ignores the similarity to a theist telling an atheist they secretly know god exists and deny it because they want to sin.

I can't tell if you're saying I did (or do) do this.

It's not unlike being told atheism is a religion, because it's impossible to not hold religious beliefs. In fact, It's the Jeremy Walker approach to atheism.

"I don't believe one way or the other."

"No you don't, you're an atheist."

Thanks for clearing that up for me; anything else you want to tell me about my mindset?

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't tell you anything about your mindset. The only thing I've said (not even to you, I think) is that atheists who define atheism as merely being the "lack of belief in gods" are being silly, and potentially dishonest on a few levels.

[max-greece]

I believe an HTC One 8c is a better phone than a Samsung S5. There are 3 possible reactions:

Agree (Theist)
Disagree (Atheist)
No opinion (Agnostic)


Actually there's a fourth which contains the sentiment "Get a life."

[jesus_wept]

I believe an HTC One 8c is a better phone than a Samsung S5. There are 3 possible reactions:

Agree (Theist)
Disagree (Atheist)
No opinion (Agnostic)


Actually there's a fourth which contains the sentiment "Get a life."

what about "no opinion, therefore I disagree because I obviously don't agree that the HTC is better than the s5"?

[Confused Ape]

The only thing I've said (not even to you, I think) is that atheists who define atheism as merely being the "lack of belief in gods" are being silly, and potentially dishonest on a few levels.

That's all atheism is.

Atheism is not rational thinking because not all atheists are rational thinkers. There's nothing stopping an atheist from believing in ridiculous conspiracy theories or alien abductions because these don't involve deities.

Atheism isn't about understanding evolution because people can accept evolution while only having a vague idea how it works.

Atheism has nothing to do with superior intelligence. Many religious people are highly intelligent.

Atheism doesn't involve rules and regulations about what atheists should and shouldn't do. When I was on another forum a few years ago there were some atheists insisting that atheists shouldn't celebrate Christmas. I was very amused when Richard Dawkins said he's a cultural Christian.

Atheism doesn't mean people can't do meditation if they feel like it. Susan Blackmore explores the nature of consciousness using Zen meditation. Sam Harris also meditates much to the horror of some atheists who regarded him as a heretic.

Once people start attaching ideas such as these to atheism they're inventing an ideology of atheism.

[Whateverist]

I believe an HTC One 8c is a better phone than a Samsung S5. There are 3 possible reactions:

Agree (Theist)
Disagree (Atheist)
No opinion (Agnostic)


Actually there's a fourth which contains the sentiment "Get a life."

what about "no opinion, therefore I disagree because I obviously don't agree that the HTC is better than the s5"?

Do you actually know if those are actual phones or just made up hypotheticals? Because I really don't. Therefore I really have no opinion (am agnostic) regarding Max's belief.

Why do you think I should "therefore disagree" with his belief? It doesn't at all follow that I don't agree. Rather, I can't agree. But it is equally true that I can't disagree. I simply have no basis for forming an opinion in either direction.



Of course a major difference between Max's example and the god question is that I am aware that actual phones exist, I just don't stay current on what models are available. I don't know if any gods exist. But I suspect the whole god question is nonsense, something I don't feel in regard to the phone question.

Being a phone is a meaningful category for me; I have a reasonable chance of identifying a phone when I see one. Being a god is more problematic because I've never seen one. Worse, there is little agreement as to what the nature of such a thing would be.

Since I have a working category into which I would sort many fanciful creatures and human-like beings from folklore and mythology, I suspect that the xtian god is one of these. I fully understand that such beings were or are more than that to the people for whom the bible is more than folklore. But that would have also been the case at other times for those who believed in the Norse gods or the Greek gods.