Agnostics: Get Off the Fence

[Secret Chief]

Taken from our very own RF Agnosticism Overview (which cites Wikipedia as the source):

"Agnosticism has suffered more than most expressions of philosophical position from terminological vagaries. Examples come from attempts to associate agnosticism with atheism. The "freethinking" tradition of atheism calls not adopting any position with regard to the existence of god, "weak atheism" (or "negative atheism"). However, one can still draw a distinction between weak atheism and agnosticism by drawing a distinction between belief and knowledge, leading those who believe knowledge of God is not possible to claim agnosticism is about knowledge, while atheism/theism is about belief."

Perhaps a poll should be run?
Agnostics: Do you consider agnosticism to be a subset within the spectrum of atheism? (Please be aware that if your answer is "No" then your description of yourself is incorrect and you should change it).

 

[Mock Turtle]

To be honest, I couldn't care less how people label me - had enough over the years - and of course I adopt them all. Like the good citizen I am. (Or perhaps I reject them all as being misinformed, and don't even label myself?)

 

[blü 2]

Some here appear to have concluded that one is either a theist or an atheist; that there is no other option. If this is, indeed, the case, in which camp do you fall if you're agnostic?

Agnostics:

Do you consider yourself to be a theist? Why?
Do you consider yourself to be an atheist? Why?

I'm an ignostic.

Does that count?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm an ignostic.

Does that count?

Not really.

"Nothing can be known about the existence of God" is quite a bit different than "the idea of questioning the existence of God is meaningless."

At least in my view.

 

[Secret Chief]

To be honest, I couldn't care less how people label me - had enough over the years - and of course I adopt them all. Like the good citizen I am. (Or perhaps I reject them all as being misinformed, and don't even label myself?)

I preferred it when you were an asininist. I knew where you stood on things then.

 

[blü 2]

Not really.

"Nothing can be known about the existence of God" is quite a bit different than "the idea of questioning the existence of God is meaningless."

At least in my view.

In my case, "the idea of a real God is incoherent".

 

[Revoltingest]

Taken from our very own RF Agnosticism Overview (which cites Wikipedia as the source):

"Agnosticism has suffered more than most expressions of philosophical position from terminological vagaries. Examples come from attempts to associate agnosticism with atheism. The "freethinking" tradition of atheism calls not adopting any position with regard to the existence of god, "weak atheism" (or "negative atheism"). However, one can still draw a distinction between weak atheism and agnosticism by drawing a distinction between belief and knowledge, leading those who believe knowledge of God is not possible to claim agnosticism is about knowledge, while atheism/theism is about belief."

Perhaps a poll should be run?
Agnostics: Do you consider agnosticism to be a subset within the spectrum of atheism? (Please be aware that if your answer is "No" then your description of yourself is incorrect and you should change it).

Weak atheism is indeed about lack of knowledge.
That's why it's at the weak end of the atheism spectrum.
Rex & Wikipedia have spoken.

Arguments are never so vicious as when the stakes are so low.
The atheist spectrum varies between 0 & 1 beliefs. That presents
huge opportunities for disagreement.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm an ignostic.

Does that count?

Yes.
Your perspective is very important.

 

[Secret Chief]

Weak atheism is indeed about lack of knowledge.
That's why it's at the weak end of the atheism spectrum.
Rex & Wikipedia have spoken.

Arguments are never so vicious as when the stakes are so low.
The atheist spectrum varies between 0 & 1 beliefs. That presents
huge opportunities for disagreement.

Does the RF Agnostic Overview need correcting?

Are questions directed at atheists, implicitly including agnostics? I surmise agnostics would think that the question was not directed at them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Does the RF Agnostic Overview need correcting?

I see no need to change it.
That overview is mostly about history, particularly Huxley's views.
But that shouldn't govern our thoughts.
This is 21st century. Huxley wrote in 19th century England, when
the focus of atheism was singularly on the Christian god (God).
Things have changed since then. Rex's description of atheism
reflects modern Ameristanian thought, eg, American Atheists.
Btw, Rex created this forum.

We should also note that in the agnosticism overview, Green Gaia
quoted from Wikipedia, which I've cited as supporting agnosticism
as a subset of atheism.
"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4]"

Are questions directed at atheists, implicitly including agnostics?

That would depend upon the context,
ie, being about denial vs disbelief.

I surmise agnostics would think that the question was not directed at them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In a sense, yes.
You told me I am a theist because I call the reason that there is something, rather than nothing, God. Sometimes.

But the real reason I was annoyed was you telling me I was wrong in my self identification. I don't think I'm a theist. You told me I am wrong.

Meh. Call yourself an ice cream sundae for all I care. In my understanding, someone who believes in something that they consider a god is a theist.

You say you only do this sometimes; if that's true, then I'd consider a theist when you are doing it and an atheist when you aren't.

It's up to you how much you care about my opinion on this, just as the fact that I don't care about whatever definitions you're using is up to me.

It's not a big deal. You aren't the only annoying person on the internet.

You aren't exactly a ray of sunshine yourself, bub.

 

[Revoltingest]

In a sense, yes.
You told me I am a theist because I call the reason that there is something, rather than nothing, God. Sometimes.

But the real reason I was annoyed was you telling me I was wrong in my self identification. I don't think I'm a theist. You told me I am wrong.

It's not a big deal. You aren't the only annoying person on the internet. I find hard atheists annoying more often than not.
Tom

It's wrong to tell you you're wrong (this time).
The definitions of both "deist" & "theist" could apply.
But "deist" appears to be the most applicable, given
that the god you make cry isn't involved in human
affairs, & isn't described in any theology.

 

[Secret Chief]

That would depend upon the context,
ie, being about denial vs disbelief.

I'm so glad I don't describe myself as an agnostic because to be told on that basis that I am an atheist would be most annoying. Both are thought-through positions and should not be conflated.

A theist says that there is a cat inside a closed box. An atheist says that there is no cat inside the box. An agnostic says that, on current knowledge, we cannot say either that there is a cat (the theist assertion) or that there is no cat in the box (the atheist assertion). The agnostic does NOT agree with either the assertion of the theist or the atheist. Agnosticism cannot therefore be a subset of theism or atheism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm so glad I don't describe myself as an agnostic because to be told on that basis that I am an atheist would be most annoying. Both are thought-through positions and should not be conflated.

"Conflation" is the wrong word.

Analogy time should help clarify.....
Canidae is a large family.
It includes both wolves & dogs.
They are subsets of Canidae, & yet they differ from each other.

A theist says that there is a cat inside a closed box. An atheist says that there is no cat inside the box.

That would be a particular kind of atheist, ie, the strong atheist.
The weak atheist says there might or might not be a cat in the box.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm so glad I don't describe myself as an agnostic because to be told on that basis that I am an atheist would be most annoying. Both are thought-through positions and should not be conflated.

A theist says that there is a cat inside a closed box. An atheist says that there is no cat inside the box. An agnostic says that, on current knowledge, we cannot say either that there is a cat (the theist assertion) or that there is no cat in the box (the atheist assertion). The agnostic does NOT agree with either the assertion of the theist or the atheist. Agnosticism cannot therefore be a subset of theism or atheism.

Your analogy seems very monotheism-specific (in addition to mischaracterizing atheists).

 

[columbus]

You aren't exactly a ray of sunshine yourself, bub.

Like I said, you aren't the only annoying person on the internet.

Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Like I said, you aren't the only annoying person on the internet.

Tom

Some are more gifted than others.

 

[Milton Platt]

Some here appear to have concluded that one is either a theist or an atheist; that there is no other option. If this is, indeed, the case, in which camp do you fall if you're agnostic?

Agnostics:

Do you consider yourself to be a theist? Why?
Do you consider yourself to be an atheist? Why?

One can be an agnostic atheist or and agnostic theist. One word is about belief and the other is about knowledge. Many atheists claim agnosticism because they don't want to get into the one millionth useless conversation about 100% certainty, which does not exist and does not matter. Confidence on the factualness of anything is always on a scale according to the claim versus the quality and quantity of evidence.
There are others who are simply acknowledging that the evidence offered does not support the claims, but wish to keep the door open to the possibility, however vanishingly small it might be.

 

[Heyo]

Some here appear to have concluded that one is either a theist or an atheist; that there is no other option. If this is, indeed, the case, in which camp do you fall if you're agnostic?

Agnostics:

Do you consider yourself to be a theist? Why?
Do you consider yourself to be an atheist? Why?

I consider myself to be an atheist because I fit the definition. (The colloquial definition of not believing in any gods).
I call myself an Agnostic (capital A for the philosophical definition, not the colloquial one) and that is not a weaker position than my atheism but a stronger one. The atheists only makes a statement about himself. I don't believe. The Agnostic makes a general statement. I don't know what a god is - and neither do you (or anyone).
Calling Agnostics fence sitters comes from misunderstanding Agnosticism.

 

[Secret Chief]

and neither do you (or anyone)

Personally, I find that claim to be fantastically arrogant and presumptious.