Agnostics

[robvalue]

That is what I'd call the ignostic position, which I personally hold. The question is incoherent, basically. It requires total clarification.

[Excited Penguin]

What does that mean, exactly?

"atheism" is composed of three parts: a (not) + theos (god) + ism (doctrine or system of belief)

It can be compounded in two ways:
1) a (not) + theism (belief in god) = lacking a belief in God
2) atheos (not god) + ism (belief) = belief that there isn't a God

I dislike the first compound, which is called "weak" atheism, because I'm not in the habit of declaring the things I do not believe in.  My beagle meets this definition, as he lacks a formal belief in God.  My big toe also lacks this belief.

I prefer the latter, which is called "strong" atheism.  Someone says, "There's a God," and you say, "Nope.  That's a dumb idea.  Go sell crazy somewhere else, because I believe that God doesn't exist."  This is a hard position to take in a general sense, because God is such an ambiguous term.  But I CAN say that I'm atheist about the Christian God of the Bible, since that's an incoherent collection of contrary ideas.

Yet you think it's useful to declare you lack a certain sort of beliefs in general? How is that any different?

Implicit to this kind of forum is a question about God.  Most people seem to be answering the question: "Do you believe in God?" and they lack that belief.  I am interested in the existential question: IS there a God, and the answer to that question is that I don't know.

Since I know my views to be different than most here, I find it convenient to demonstrate this perceived difference in declaring as agnostic rather than as atheist.

Do you mean atheism? 

That's right.  "Atheism" is a triadic term, and is intrinsically ambiguous.

So, what you're telling me is, you are in the same boat as the rest of us atheists you just declared dumb for "disagreeing" with the concept that defines them (respectfully, of course), but you just choose to be pretentious about a bunch of words everyone else agrees with for no particular reason I can see either than a possible desire to stand out. Not that you provided any legitimate reason I could see.

Not sure about the hostility, but if this how you want to talk, it's going to be a very short conversation.  There's a thread about people who call themselves agnostic.  I'm one of them, and I came here to explain why I prefer that term.

Again, this is something pretty much every atheist in the world would agree with. You just like to pretend you're somehow special, when you're not, by using a bunch of words very few use. Not to mention you're confusing the shit out of everyone involved, which is a very bad thing indeed, and not commendable at all.

You are projecting too much.  I know what the words mean, have thought about which I prefer, and have chosen the word "agnostic," because I think it most accurately represents my position.

As for that second paragraph, simply saying I don't know makes you an atheist. Why? Because your agnosticism on the issue directly points to a lack of belief. I lack a belief in aliens as well as in God, does that mean that I think there are no aliens in the Universe? No, it simply means I don't believe there are aliens in the Universe, since I don't have any reason to believe so(it's pretty much impossible to believe something as true or real without any reason).

I do not lack a belief, however, in the human brain, even though I've never seen one in real life.

See the difference?

I know the difference, and have addressed it.  If people want to declare as atheist by the "weak" definition, then that's their right, and I fully understand that.  I'm saying that that meaning isn't my preferred meaning, and that I would only use the term "atheist" if I had an active belief that there was nothing in existence which we could reasonably call "God."

--edit--
I noticed your second post saying you were going to back off and chill, so I deleted the part where I accused you of jizzing in my hair.

Benny, I'll be nice, but just let me say this. You've repeatedly now pronounced your dislike for a concept and gave that as a reason why you don't use it.

Benny, that is not how logic works. That is not how intelligent people act and think. That is a childish tantrum to throw.

You don't "dislike" concepts. You prove them wrong if you can and then you say, here, this concept is no longer useful for the following reasons, and so I won't use it. But you're saying, I don't like it, so please don't use it on me either. Or, if you do, I'll still pretend I have nothing to do with it, because I just choose to identify differently. -- You sound an awful lot like the crazier PC crowd in colleges, in other words.

Here's what, bennie. You go on calling yourself an agnostic(atheist). That's perfectly fine, since you are one. You are an agnostic atheist. Just like most everyone else here. Your thinking on the matter, isn't any different than a lot of folks who call themselves atheists. They just, apparently, are more literate than you are.

If you don't like my calling you an atheist, then tough luck, language isn't there for you to like it, and if you think weak atheism isn't useful or doesn't make sense, you are yet to provide a reason for that, let alone have some linguists or other kinds of experts back your statement up. But in the meanwhile, you perfectly satisfy the definition of a weak atheist, and that is what you are.

[Excited Penguin]

I believe everyone on the forum is an agnostic atheist, of the non-believers I mean.

I can't say as I know. I think there are a couple of gnostic atheists here, and they're surely qualified to speak for themselves. I only speak about my own views, no matter the topic.

I didn't declare it so, I merely expressed my belief that it is so. I would be pretty surprised to meet an atheist, who even after some questioning, would declare no possible meaning of God can ever or has ever had its equivalent in reality.

That can be proven to be false right at the start. As we all know, there are those who identify God with the Universe, and so, in some sense, at least, a God is real.

[GrandizerII]

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know if any gods exist or not, but I haven't found any I believe exist.

I believe everyone on the forum is an agnostic atheist, of the non-believers I mean.

I label myself as agnostic strong atheist. I believe God, in the deistic sense, doesn't exist because:

1) No evidence,

2) The concept of the traditional deist God, upon which is based the Abrahamic god, is illogical.

[Excited Penguin]

The only agnostic who posted in this thread until now has told us he just doesn't like the word atheist. - I think that's a pretty accurate description of what he said, by and large. Oh, what a surprise. Didn't I already know agnostics hated language because it projected a negative light on them in the face of theists, and so they would rather be disingenuous about their beliefs.

If that is the extent of the "agnostic" logic, I don't want anything to do with it. This is very irrational, and we already know you can't talk irrational people out of their beliefs. That's too bad that some choose to disregard language because of some sort of personal preference, it seems they have yet to understand how it all works.

[Whateverist]

Here are some god related questions and the isms to which each gives rise if the answer is no:

1. Do you believe in the existence of God/gods? No = atheism

2. Do you know if God/gods exist? No = agnosticism

3. Do you understand what "God"/"gods" refers to? No = ignosticism

4. Do you care if God/gods exist? No = apatheism


For me it is no across the board. I believe you must answer yes to the third question in order answer the first question definitively thereby accepting the burden of proof in the bargain. Because of my position on the third question, I feel no more able to back up the general statement that no God/gods exist than I would be to argue in favor of the existence of gods. For that reason hard atheists come off looking as foolish gnostic theists when they try to say something definitive about gods.

[GrandizerII]

Here are some god related questions and the isms to which each gives rise if the answer is no:

1. Do you believe in the existence of God/gods?  No = atheism

2. Do you know if God/gods exist?  No = agnosticism

3. Do you understand what "God"/"gods" refers to?  No = ignosticism

4. Do you care if God/gods exist?  No = apatheism


For me it is no across the board.  I believe you must answer yes to the third question in order answer the first question definitively thereby accepting the burden of proof in the bargain.  Because of my position on the third question, I feel no more able to back up the general statement that no God/gods exist than I would be to argue in favor of the existence of gods.  For that reason hard atheists come off looking as foolish gnostic theists when they try to say something definitive about gods.

For question 3, you leave that to the theist to answer, and then you respond accordingly. There is nothing foolish about saying a certain god cannot exist if it is clear what god is being referred to and a logical argument is provided showing that such an entity is illogical.

[robvalue]

I get them to respond, and then I'm generally none the wiser. I still can't have an opinion about it, because it's gibberish. I can only default to the idea that it's their own private fantasy.

[brewer]

Bunch of fence sitters. Shit or get off the pot. Hoping that there are splinters. AAAAAAAAAAhahahahaha

[Excited Penguin]

Here are some god related questions and the isms to which each gives rise if the answer is no:

1. Do you believe in the existence of God/gods?  No = atheism

2. Do you know if God/gods exist?  No = agnosticism

3. Do you understand what "God"/"gods" refers to?  No = ignosticism

4. Do you care if God/gods exist?  No = apatheism


For me it is no across the board.  I believe you must answer yes to the third question in order answer the first question definitively thereby accepting the burden of proof in the bargain.  Because of my position on the third question, I feel no more able to back up the general statement that no God/gods exist than I would be to argue in favor of the existence of gods.  For that reason hard atheists come off looking as foolish gnostic theists when they try to say something definitive about gods.

Emphasis mine

See, there you go. It follows from that if you do believe in the existent of gods, you are a theist, if you don't, you're an atheist. There is no position in between. Agnostic is merely an additional description of the two.