Agnostic: a pointless term?

[robvalue]

Holy frigging shit on a rope.

[bennyboy]

I have a question: I'm agnostic about many things, and so is my Beagle, Victor.

But would victor be classified as an agnostic atheist? I mean, he does lack a belief in God. How about my sock? Is it atheist?

[robvalue]

It's a bit of a gray area.

Personally, I would say that to be an atheist you have to actually understand the claim that you are rejecting. So I would say your sock is neither an atheist nor a theist. It is not aware of the claim to pass comment. Your doggy is probably not an atheist or theist either, although we're not entirely privy to what goes on in their cute little heads They may believe in some dog god, who knows? I'd say unlikely though.

The thing is, agnostic means "I don't know for sure". So it has to be accompanied by what the claims is you don't know for sure, such as agnostic atheist. Or agnostic soulist. Or something. Otherwise you haven't answered the question, "Do you believe the claim that a god exists". You're either convinced by the claim, and you believe it is true (theist) or you're not (atheist). There is no middle ground. That is the general consensus as I understand it, anyhow. Of course people are free to use words however they like, but I try to recommend what words most likely mean when someone says them. To use them in a different way is going to cause confusion, or requires defining words with every person you speak to.

[Dystopia]

It's a bit of a gray area.

Personally, I would say that to be an atheist you have to actually understand the claim that you are rejecting. So I would say your sock is neither an atheist nor a theist. It is not aware of the claim to pass comment. Your doggy is probably not an atheist or theist either, although we're not entirely privy to what goes on in their cute little heads They may believe in some dog god, who knows? I'd say unlikely though.

The thing is, agnostic means "I don't know for sure". So it has to be accompanied by what the claims is you don't know for sure, such as agnostic atheist. Or agnostic soulist. Or something. Otherwise you haven't answered the question, "Do you believe the claim that a god exists". You're either convinced by the claim, and you believe it is true (theist) or you're not (atheist). There is no middle ground. That is the general consensus as I understand it, anyhow. Of course people are free to use words however they like, but I try to recommend what words most likely mean when someone says them. To use them in a different way is going to cause confusion, or requires defining words with every person you speak to.

I disagree - Imagine someone who was raised without being introduced to the god concept or belief in god - Someone who has never heard of what god or religion is. That person is probably an implicit atheist - He/she has never thought about supreme beings due to lack of information, but still doesn't hold any belief. In this case, the person doesn't even know the claim or understand what is being rejected, she/he simply doesn't hold any belief due to lack of knowledge and information. If you've never thought about god and religion, you are an implicit agnostic atheist, even if you don't realize it

[Tonus]

I find it odd how agnostic atheists see so much logic in staying neutral regarding God's existence but when it comes to the possibility of knowing he exists, outright deny as possible more often then not.

That's how people deal with a great many things that we cannot disprove. How many people claim to be agnostic about the Tooth Fairy? Bigfoot? Zeus? Marduk? Brahma? Allah? Yahweh?

I live my life as if each of those do not exist, and believe that they do not. I cannot prove that any of them do not exist. I'm betting that most people who believe in one of those treat the rest exactly the same way I do, but draw a distinction when it comes to the one(s) they do believe, even though they seem to have as much trouble proving they do exist as I have proving they don't.

[ManMachine]

[bennyboy]

--edit--

oops, already said what I was going to say, and forgot about it.

[Whateverist]

Agnosticism is the only scientifically valid position you can arrive at. It is a fallacy that asserting gods do not exist is somehow better than asserting they do as there is an absence of evidence either way.

Personally I am happy to acknowledge that my assertion there is no god is a leap of faith, I am content that scientific endeavour is my system of belief, I have no problem with that at all. I find it really odd and counter intuitive that other people do have a problem with it.

MM

Agreed. I'm also happy to acknowledge that any hunch I may communicate regarding the existence of god, is not up to my highest standards of knowledge claims. I may exclaim that there is no way I get dealt a straight flush in the next hand of poker, but I realize there actually is a very, very small chance it will happen. Nonetheless I'm folding my shitty starting cards without a worry.

The situation with god claims is much, much worse than for being dealt a straight flush. With the latter, we all understand what a straight flush will look like, and its probability is not zero. If anyone ever turns one over, we'd all recognize it. No one knows what a god would look like, and there is little or no agreement between those few who do claim to know. I'm fine with dismissing god claims without careful examination. However that doesn't mean I believe no gods exist, and I know full well I have no argument for their non-existence. I just carry on as if that were true as a practical matter as I have better things to do, no expectation of that a good case for god's existence will ever be found, and no interest.

[robvalue]

I think I might be an ugh-gnostic. It means, "Ugh, fucking grow up already!"

[AFTT47]

Agnosticism is the only scientifically valid position you can arrive at. It is a fallacy that asserting gods do not exist is somehow better than asserting they do as there is an absence of evidence either way.

Personally I am happy to acknowledge that my assertion there is no god is a leap of faith, I am content that scientific endeavour is my system of belief, I have no problem with that at all. I find it really odd and counter intuitive that other people do have a problem with it.

MM

Agreed. I'm also happy to acknowledge that any hunch I may communicate regarding the existence of god, is not up to my highest standards of knowledge claims. I may exclaim that there is no way I get dealt a straight flush in the next hand of poker, but I realize there actually is a very, very small chance it will happen. Nonetheless I'm folding my shitty starting cards without a worry.

The situation with god claims is much, much worse than for being dealt a straight flush. With the latter, we all understand what a straight flush will look like, and its probability is not zero. If anyone ever turns one over, we'd all recognize it. No one knows what a god would look like, and there is little or no agreement between those few who do claim to know. I'm fine with dismissing god claims without careful examination. However that doesn't mean I believe no gods exist, and I know full well I have no argument for their non-existence. I just carry on as if that were true as a practical matter as I have better things to do, no expectation of that a good case for god's existence will ever be found, and no interest.

Practical strong-atheism. This is the same thing Christians do with every other God concept out there.

The thing that galls me is that none of these fine variations on disbelief amount to squat in the real world. Regarding how he or she carries on with his or her life, a non-believer is a non-believer. Our morals, our political stances, our philosophies are not changed the slightest by it. Whether we are strong-atheist or traditional agnostic, we carry on as if God does not exist. No practical difference.