Enlightened [Elitist] Agnosticism

[wiploc]

Technically an agnostic is either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Most of us atheists simply don't feel the need to specify that we're agnostic atheists because we feel that is already obvious. So if someone is saying they're just agnostic than they're not really saying anything at all.

The reverse argument would be just as strong: "Technically an atheist is either a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist; so if someone says she's an atheist, she's not really saying anything at all."

I'm both an atheist and an agnostic. I choose to self-identify as an atheist, but I don't see any reason to belittle people who self-identify as agnostic.

[One Above All]

The reverse argument would be just as strong: "Technically an atheist is either a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist; so if someone says she's an atheist, she's not really saying anything at all."

It wouldn't, actually. An atheist is stating plainly they don't believe. An agnostic is saying they're not sure deities exist. When you're asking someone about whether or not they believe, most of the time, you might actually be trying to find out whether or not they believe.

I'm both an atheist and an agnostic. I choose to self-identify as an atheist, but I don't see any reason to belittle people who self-identify as agnostic.

I do. Plenty of reasons, in fact, one of which is the elitist attitude ("Oh, you're an atheist? So you're sure god doesn't exist? Can you prove it? Now me, I'm an 'agnostic'; I'm much more open minded than you!"), another is the intellectual dishonesty/double standards ("I can't prove there is no god. What's that? You have a dragon in your garage? I don't believe you!"), and then there's the fact that they aren't answering the question that was asked of them. If you asked me about my graphics card, and I said my computer ran Windows 7, would you be satisfied with that answer? Would it even be an answer? You didn't ask the question, so my guess is "no" to both things.
EDIT: Self-proclaimed "agnostics" are like the idiots who, out of options A (theism - they believe) and B (atheism - they don't believe), made up an option C (they don't believe, but they also "don't don't believe"), chose it, and insist it makes sense, even though it's not an option to begin with. Two options: belief or non-belief. You can't have both, but you also can't have neither. Saying you're not sure whether or not the thing you believe or disbelieve exists is meaningless in this context.

[robvalue]

I don't care about someone wanting to self identify as just agnostic, as long as they aren't trying to use it as some sort of advantage over "closed minded atheists". I just assume they are using different definitions to the standard, and don't realize they are saying they are the same as me.

So many people, including many atheists, don't understand what atheism actually is (the currently accepted definition) so that's why I don't make a big point of going further than that in most conversations.

[Whateverist]

Hey, like it or lump it, it is up to everyone to decide how they will self-identify. Then we can decide how we feel about it.

If someone wants to identify as agnostic, but neither atheist or theist, then most likely they simply don't choose to respond to the belief question. No, no one has got to take a stand on gods any more than they have to take a stand on a thousand and one other fanciful things. One can simply declare their disinterest in the question or declare it incoherent, both entirely coherent positions.

Their motives? Why not ask them? Isn't that what we prefer to having theists tell us what it is we must believe?

As for me, I am content to claim atheism as well as agnosticism. But for me, the agnosticism is both more informative about who I am and more influential in my life. My atheism is in response to a question that doesn't much interest me regarding something that is poorly defined. My agnosticism informs the way I comport myself toward people who believe things I don't. C'est la vie.

[Delysid]

The reverse argument would be just as strong: "Technically an atheist is either a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist; so if someone says she's an atheist, she's not really saying anything at all."

I'm both an atheist and an agnostic. I choose to self-identify as an atheist, but I don't see any reason to belittle people who self-identify as agnostic.

Eh, not necessarily. It really depends on which definition of the word agnostic you choose to use. If you're going by the actual definition of agnostic which is to not have knowledge of or to be unsure about something, then saying you're just an agnostic means nothing. You're agnostic to what? Cars? Bicycles? Cheesecake? What are you lacking knowledge of?

Atheist simply means one who is not a theist, or one who lacks belief in god. So it is obvious, by the base word theist, that ones lack of belief is pertaining to the word theist or theism. One is an A-THEIST which means they are not a theist, or they lack belief or have disbelief in god. One who is gnostic means they have knowledge of something. One who is agnostic is one who has no knowledge of or is unsure of.

It is only recently, and through common usage alone, that the term agnostic has become a way to describe a position on the idea of god, as much of a misconception that it may be. But if you want to be technical, theist or atheist would describe ones position on god. You either believe in god or you don't. Technically theists and atheists are both agnostic, since no one can technically know whether or not there is a god. So agnostic alone, unless you are going by the more modern, common usage definition of the word, really answers nothing.

However we're arguing semantics and I see the point you're attempting to make. But the idea here is you're either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist, or maybe even an agnostic deist I suppose.

But the point I'm attempting to make is that to me, and to many other agnostic atheists or, atheists, claiming you're agnostic does not really mean anything. You're agnostic to WHAT? So many people who simply go by the common usage definition seem to think that they're elite or smarter by claiming agnosticism because who can REALLY KNOW, right? Well I call bullshit, because obviously no one really knows and no one is really claiming to know besides many of the theists. So to consider atheism an arrogant position because we can't really know, all the while having this air of snobbishness while calling yourself, "just an agnostic" is the real arrogant position. Almost more arrogant than claiming to be a Christian who KNOWS there is a god. Almost.

[robvalue]

The thing is, if someone wants to have just "agnostic" as a position, that is fine. They are using different definitions of words to the standard, that is all. And by their definitions, I'm just agnostic too. It's pointless argueing about whose definitions are better, you just need to pick one or the other so you're on the same page.

It's like a "just an agnostic" is standing on exactly the same floor of the belief building as me, but instead of calling it floor 4 they want to call it floor Special K. That's fine. But we're still on the same floor.

[One Above All]

The thing is, if someone wants to have just "agnostic" as a position, that is fine. They are using different definitions of words to the standard, that is all. And by their definitions, I'm just agnostic too. It's pointless argueing about whose definitions are better, you just need to pick one or the other so you're on the same page.

It's like a "just an agnostic" is standing on exactly the same floor of the belief building as me, but instead of calling it floor 4 they want to call it floor Special K. That's fine. But we're still on the same floor.

Now try to get it through their thick skulls. I dare you. I've explained time and time again to self-proclaimed agnostics that "agnostic" is meaningless as an answer to the question of whether or not they believe. They keep calling themselves agnostics - which is "fine", I don't expect intellectual honesty from them - and still don't/won't answer the question.

[robvalue]

Hehe Right. Technically it's a refusal to answer the question, and instead answer another question I didn't ask. If you "don't know if you believe a statement" then most likely you don't believe the statement, as you are clearly not convinced. But if you genuinely don't know what your own beliefs are, that suggests some sort of mental problem to me.

By refusing to give a clear answer, you have answered "no" by default. Anything other than "yes" to the question "do you accept the claim that there is a god" is a no. You can pretend that there's a third answer if you like. But I don't see the point.

I thinks this all stems from the confusion that thinking rejecting a claim means you accept the opposite claim. You don't have to. You don't have to say, "I reject that claim, and I have several of my own to make as well."

---

I guess the third answer to the question is, "I'm not going to answer / I don't care". Which is fair enough. It just seems odd to feel the need to answer a separate question if so. But like I said, it's all just a confusion about definitions in the end.

---

You know what I think it is... people don't understand the question.

I reckon they think we're asking:

"Do you believe there is a god, or there isn't a god?"

And they reply, "I don't know!"

That's not the question being addressed, hence the confusion. Amiright!!!?

[Delysid]

The thing is, if someone wants to have just "agnostic" as a position, that is fine. They are using different definitions of words to the standard, that is all. And by their definitions, I'm just agnostic too. It's pointless argueing about whose definitions are better, you just need to pick one or the other so you're on the same page.

It's like a "just an agnostic" is standing on exactly the same floor of the belief building as me, but instead of calling it floor 4 they want to call it floor Special K. That's fine. But we're still on the same floor.

Well, that's sort of the issue. When one person is going by one definition, and another person is going by the other it is sort of tough for them to find common ground if they cannot agree on the definition of the word.

It is like someone else said earlier in the thread...

I ask: Do you believe in god?
They say: I am an agnostic.

Is exactly like this example...

I ask: What make and model is your car?
They say: I have a red car.

Sure you're ALLOWED to give that answer if it tickles your pickle but it really tells me nothing about the question which I have asked you. So if someone says they're JUST agnostic that tells me they don't KNOW if there is a god or not, which is great, that's fine and dandy, but the issue here is NO ONE KNOWS. So all you're telling me then is that you're just like everyone else in that NO ONE KNOWS. But what do you BELIEVE to be true? Do you have a belief in a god? OR do you lack belief in a god?

Saying you're just agnostic is fine if that's how you wish to self-identify... but that's like saying...

"I'm agnostic to fairies."
"Right but do you believe they exist?"
"I CANNOT KNOW!"

I mean if that's how you wish to self-identify, then so be it, but it's a bit silly if you ask me.

[Whateverist]

By refusing to give a clear answer, you have answered "no" by default. Anything other than "yes" to the question "do you accept the claim that there is a god" is a no.

So Rob, have you then finally stopped beating your wife?