Agnostic Atheists

[Dao Hao Now]

I think the difference between the two of us is you define knowledge as something that can be proven as fact, where as I see knowledge as something you 100% believe without any doubt.

Yes…
The difference between these two positions is that I see “knowledge” as that subset of belief which can be demonstrated to be justified and true; while you see “knowledge” as what someone is certain to be true. (presumably without necessity to be able to objectively confirm it and demonstrate it to be true)

This corresponds directly to at what point someone claims to be gnostic.
I don’t claim to be gnostic about something until I can objectively demonstrate it to be true.

Remember, once again, just because someone says something or believes something (no matter how certain about it they are) doesn’t make it correct.
The only way they could convince me….
Is if they can objectively demonstrate that it is true.
Gnosticism isn’t the declaration of objective truth; it is a subjective claim about one’s certainty of belief.

I think going by your discription, it is difficult to know anything because a scenario can be presented that can put nearly anything into question.

Correct.
I reserve “knowledge” for only what is justified by objectively demonstrated information that doesn’t leave unresolved questions about it’s validity.

Also going by your definition, theists are actually agnostic theists because they can't factually prove the claims they make about what they call God, their belief is based on faith.

It’s important to remember that
“gnostic/agnostic” are self reported statements about certainty.
I don’t proclaim them to be agnostic theists or gnostic theists; this is what they describe themselves as.
Gnosticism is a statement of certainty about a claim; nothing more.

I don’t make judgments concerning their gnosticism, nor do I give it any heed when evaluating the validity of their claims about their god/s.

“because they can't factually prove the claims they make about what they call God, their belief is based on faith.”
This is part of why I don’t accept their claims…..
that they can’t factually prove what it is they believe about what they call God.

Yes, faith (self reportedly by many theists) is the basis for many’s beliefs.
This is, in my opinion among many other factors, the reason for their belief.
Some others have different reason for their beliefs.
The reasons for their claims is not the issue for me; it’s whether the claims are correct.

Since I’ve yet to come across any claim of a god/s that can be objectively demonstrated, is why I am an atheist.
The fact that I can’t objectively demonstrate that the impossibility of a god/s existing is why I describe myself as agnostic atheist.

In the case of the possible deception about your conditions of birth……
If your parents, family and everyone you knew had reported your birth and perhaps you had seen your birth certificate (a forgery?) and institution had accepted it your entire life….
It would be a justified belief.
If you were shown information later that contradicted all the previous data, the first task would be to determine which set of data was demonstrably accurate.
If it could be demonstrated that your parents and family had deceived you and the new information that had since come to light was in fact correct….
Might I presume that you would then have a new understanding of your true identity and would update what it is that you “believe”?

This is why all beliefs including the subset of knowledge should always be subject to revision should more accurate information become available.
This is part of why I claim agnosticism.
Because I acknowledge that possibility.

 

[Kfox]

Oh, yes, and now you'll tell me that you have uncovered a grand conspiracy you know is true but you can't prove it as the conspirators have destroyed all the evidence.
(Please don't do that because I'd have to report you. I can't show you for obvious reasons but I'm working for the conspirators who faked your birth certificate.)

I got my birth certificate from my parents. It wouldn't take much to create a fake document that I would find convincing.

 

[Kfox]

It’s important to remember that
“gnostic/agnostic” are self reported statements about certainty.
I don’t proclaim them to be agnostic theists or gnostic theists; this is what they describe themselves as.
Gnosticism is a statement of certainty about a claim; nothing more.

I don’t make judgments concerning their gnosticism, nor do I give it any heed when evaluating the validity of their claims about their god/s.

Gnostic is about knowledge. If the ability to objectively demonstrate as true is required for knowledge, then such a demonstration must also be required for Gnostic.

 

[Valjean]

Oh, yes, and now you'll tell me that you have uncovered a grand conspiracy you know is true but you can't prove it as the conspirators have destroyed all the evidence.
(Please don't do that because I'd have to report you. I can't show you for obvious reasons but I'm working for the conspirators who faked your birth certificate.)

Perhaps Kfox is reprising Kant and contending that reality is constructed -- perceptible only through the structures of our minds.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes
And that is why the agnostic label in my opinion.
While I am conditionally “certain” of things, I can’t claim to have “knowledge” of anything that I can’t in fact prove.
That conditional certainty is open to revision if any of conditions (available verifiable information)
change.

But here's the thing: if you refer to yourself as agnostic with regard to the existence of gods but you don't call yourselfan agnostic about everything else (the existence of your local grocery store, Kazakhstan, or leprechauns, for instance), then the implication is that you see some special level or type of uncertainty around the question of gods that you don't see about anything else.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

But here's the thing: if you refer to yourself as agnostic with regard to the existence of gods but you don't call yourselfan agnostic about everything else (the existence of your local grocery store, Kazakhstan, or leprechauns, for instance), then the implication is that you see some special level or type of uncertainty around the question of gods that you don't see about anything else.

Probably because I am not agnostic on the question of the existence of Kazakhstan or my local grocery store….their existence is falsifiable and objectively demonstrable.
As result I am gnostic on their existence.
I believe they exist and I’m certain of it.

On the question of leprechauns… I’m not often asked to describe my position on the existence of leprechauns.
If I were; due to the fact they have not objectively been demonstrated to exist (when speaking of the Irish fairies of folktales) I would describe myself as an agnostic a-leprechaunist, since I can’t demonstrate (prove) they don’t in fact exist, but I don’t believe they do.


I don’t give the questions of gods any special pleading.
I don’t “see some special level or type of uncertainty around the question of gods that you don't see about anything else”,
I give all non-falsifiable undemonstrated claim/declaration/beliefs the same consideration.
If I have no means of confirming the
non-existence of something (proving a negative) I’m honest enough to admit it and therefore adopt an agnostic adjective to my position of belief.
The fact that nobody presses me on such trivial matters is why it’s not seen as worthy of mentioning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Probably because I am not agnostic on the question of the existence of Kazakhstan or my local grocery store….their existence is falsifiable and objectively demonstrable.
As result I am gnostic on their existence.
I believe they exist and I’m certain of it.

Why on Earth would you be certain of the existence of your local grocery store?

Aside from all the "what if you're a brain in a vat?"-type uncertainty that applies to all empirical knowledge, grocery stores sometimes cease to exist. I know it's happened to me twice:

- when I was a kid, a strip plaza in my town blew up in a natural gas explosion. There were a few hours when I thought that the grocery store existed but it didn't.

- in my 30s, a grocery store near me closed... business decision by the company, I guess. I found out when I went to buy bread and saw the notice on the door. Apparently, it was a solid week from when the store was cleared out until I realized it was gone.

On the question of leprechauns… I’m not often asked to describe my position on the existence of leprechauns.
If I were; due to the fact they have not objectively been demonstrated to exist (when speaking of the Irish fairies of folktales) I would describe myself as an agnostic a-leprechaunist, since I can’t demonstrate (prove) they don’t in fact exist, but I don’t believe they do.

Leprechauns are just one example. We run into - and dismiss - unfalsifiable claims all the time.

I don’t give the questions of gods any special pleading.
I don’t “see some special level or type of uncertainty around the question of gods that you don't see about anything else”,
I give all non-falsifiable undemonstrated claim/declaration/beliefs the same consideration.
If I have no means of confirming the
non-existence of something (proving a negative) I’m honest enough to admit it and therefore adopt an agnostic adjective to my position of belief.
The fact that nobody presses me on such trivial matters is why it’s not seen as worthy of mentioning.

But if someone asks you your opinion about God and you just reply with "I'm agnostic," they'll get an impression that you have a special level of uncertainty about God.

Personally, I think it's better to put the God-claim in context of other beliefs. For instance, if someone asked me my opinion about God, I'd probably say that I find God less plausible than leprechauns.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Why on Earth would you be certain of the existence of your local grocery store?

Aside from all the "what if you're a brain in a vat?"-type uncertainty that applies to all empirical knowledge, grocery stores sometimes cease to exist. I know it's happened to me twice:

- when I was a kid, a strip plaza in my town blew up in a natural gas explosion. There were a few hours when I thought that the grocery store existed but it didn't.

- in my 30s, a grocery store near me closed... business decision by the company, I guess. I found out when I went to buy bread and saw the notice on the door. Apparently, it was a solid week from when the store was cleared out until I realized it was gone.

My certainty would be based on objectively demonstrable evidence…I drive by it everyday, I shop in it regularly, others I know “run down to the store” and return with goods from the store often and repeatedly.
The fact I’m certain of it doesn’t mean that it will last into perpetuity, everything is subject to change.
If I had been absent from the neighborhood for an extended length of time, I may become agnostic about it’s existence.
It may blow up tonight and come the morning as I drive to it for morning coffee my position on it’s existence would be gnostic…..until I arrive at a pile of smoldering rubble…at which point my position would be updated, due to new information, to being gnostic on it’s no longer existing. Again, objectively demonstrable.

Leprechauns are just one example. We run into - and dismiss - unfalsifiable claims all the time.

Exactly….leprechauns, gods, etc.
Again unfalsifiable and not objectively demonstrable.

But if someone asks you your opinion about God and you just reply with "I'm agnostic," they'll get an impression that you have a special level of uncertainty about God.

I don’t reply with “I’m agnostic”.
If I have made that statement please link it for me.
I have explained exhaustively on this thread and others I am an agnostic atheist.
Atheist being the noun, agnostic being the qualifying adjective.