Agnostic among Atheists

[TheHuxleyAgnostic]

So, I don't consider myself atheist, but the agnostic label fits me perfectly well.

That's a perfectly acceptable label, all on its own. You don't have to use the "agnostic atheist" stuff a minority of people are pushing. 

Huxley was a scientist, above all else. He saw the scientific method in picking apples at the market. The agnosticism he defined was a belief in that scientific method, and it amounted to a form of demarcation. No objective testable evidence = a subjective unfalsifiable claim. Results: unscientific and inconclusive. No belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim. It is not compatible with atheism, the belief gods do not exist, or theism, the belief gods do exist.

Anyone claiming agnosticism doesn't cover belief, has never read Huxley ...

"I say, strive earnestly to learn something, not only of the results, but of the methods of science, and then apply those methods to all statements which offer themselves for your belief. If they will not stand that test, they are nought, let them come with what authority they may."

"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." 

"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions."

---

"Agnostic atheist" is actually the term that doesn't describe a specific position, by any definition. Someone can have no belief, either way, and someone could believe gods don't exist, but not claim to know, and both be "agnostic atheist". Then you have to add weak/negative/soft or strong/positive/hard qualifiers on top, making the a-theist labelling system a convoluted mess. 

[GrandizerII]

So, I don't consider myself atheist, but the agnostic label fits me perfectly well.

That's a perfectly acceptable label, all on its own. You don't have to use the "agnostic atheist" stuff a minority of people are pushing. 

Huxley was a scientist, above all else. He saw the scientific method in picking apples at the market. The agnosticism he defined was a belief in that scientific method, and it amounted to a form of demarcation. No objective testable evidence = a subjective unfalsifiable claim. Results: unscientific and inconclusive. No belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim. It is not compatible with atheism, the belief gods do not exist, or theism, the belief gods do exist.

Anyone claiming agnosticism doesn't cover belief, has never read Huxley ...

"I say, strive earnestly to learn something, not only of the results, but of the methods of science, and then apply those methods to all statements which offer themselves for your belief. If they will not stand that test, they are nought, let them come with what authority they may."

"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." 

"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions."

---

"Agnostic atheist" is actually the term that doesn't describe a specific position, by any definition. Someone can have no belief, either way, and someone could believe gods don't exist, but not claim to know, and both be "agnostic atheist". Then you have to add weak/negative/soft or strong/positive/hard qualifiers on top, making the a-theist labelling system a convoluted mess. 

I would say an agnostic strong atheist only has a minor burden of proof. All they have to say is for a grand entity like God, there is an utter lack of evidence for his existence.Then it's up to the theist to provide conclusive evidence for God, and this is something they have yet to succeed in doing so.

[brewer]

That's a perfectly acceptable label, all on its own. You don't have to use the "agnostic atheist" stuff a minority of people are pushing. 

Welcome.

Try to read the rules. And how about an introduction thread?

http://atheistforums.org/rules.php

[Primordial Bisque]

Howdy, from a 7.

[Whateverist]

Welcome!

Every atheist is agnostic and every agnostic is atheist, it's just a matter of which label you prefer

And where are you from?

Or they would be if it was up to us.  But in fact there are plenty of atheists on these forums who do not claim the "agnostic" monicker, though they are probably in the minority.  Also I've met theists who do admit to being agnostic but in the absence of certainty still choose to believe.

[Whateverist]

(bold mine)

What?  That's not true...

Doomed, "atheist" and "agnostic" aren't mutually exclusive.  Most here, me included, refer to themselves as agnostic atheists. I don't believe in any gods anyone has offered up, but I don't claim to have knowledge about whether or not they actually exist.

A/gnostic has to do with knowledge, while a/theism has to do with belief.

Welcome!

Every human that exists today and has ever existed has been agnostic and that will remain the case until a God decides to make himself known. So that means every atheist is agnostic - because atheists are humans. As for whether all agnostics are atheists.. well they're definitely not religious.., what do you call someone who isn't religious? Atheist

What a person believes or claims to know is usually deemed to depend on what they themselves think about it.  Can you really step in and say, "I'm sorry but no you don't think that".  Doesn't seem right somehow.

[Whateverist]

Let me explain what I actually believe, please? Well, I don't consider myself atheist because I don't believe that it's impossible for any god exist like many atheists claim, but I can't say that I believe they exist because I don't have any proof of that. So, I don't consider myself atheist, but the agnostic label fits me perfectly well.

I too do not believe it is impossible for any god to exist but I very definitely do not believe any exist anyhow.  Depending on how a god is defined it might actually be the case that gods must exist.

[Edwardo Piet]

Another thing is... 50% belief in X is another way of saying "neither believe nor disbelieve in X". 51% belief in X is another way of saying "Believe in X, but only a tiny tiny bit." 1% belief in X is another way of saying "99% belief in no X". 0% belief in X can either be 100% belief in no X or simply 0% belief in X.

[Whateverist]

DOH! This zombie thread is pulling my strings. Make it stop!

[Whateverist]

So, I don't consider myself atheist, but the agnostic label fits me perfectly well.

That's a perfectly acceptable label, all on its own. You don't have to use the "agnostic atheist" stuff a minority of people are pushing. 

Huxley was a scientist, above all else. He saw the scientific method in picking apples at the market. The agnosticism he defined was a belief in that scientific method, and it amounted to a form of demarcation. No objective testable evidence = a subjective unfalsifiable claim. Results: unscientific and inconclusive. No belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim. It is not compatible with atheism, the belief gods do not exist, or theism, the belief gods do exist.

Anyone claiming agnosticism doesn't cover belief, has never read Huxley ...

Or has read some Huxley but does not find him authoritative on the matter.