The term "Agnostic", is it viable? Problematic?

[John Doe]

Types of 'agnostics':

Agnostic atheism
The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.[21][22][23]
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.[21]
Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.[24][25]

More homework.

I don't know how you expect us to stop thinking and know only THAT when you give us so much to think about

Now that you've got me thinking again, what do you call a person who is agnostic about THAT ? They would need to know what THAT is, before they knew if they were agnostic or not. And since we cannot really say what THAT is, is it even possible to be agnostic about it ?

 

[zenzero]

Friend John Doe,

Why not use the label 'neutral/middle' not THIS nor THAT??

Love & rgds

 

[John Doe]

Friend John Doe,

Why not use the label 'neutral/middle' not THIS nor THAT??

Love & rgds

Even more to think about ! And it will take you longer to type that than 'THAT'.

I prefer to just demonstrate IT. But people think I'm just sitting there doing nothing.

 

[zenzero]

Friend John Doe,

I prefer to just demonstrate IT. But people think I'm just sitting there doing nothing.

That's what all wise men do, but here you left your sitting post to get caught up with a thought?

Love & rgds

 

[gnostic]

What are your thoughts on the term agnostic, is it problematic, does it imply wishy-washiness?

I do "washy", but I don't do "wishy". I believed that an agnostic that bathe daily is a healthy agnostic...and certainly less stinky one. :foot:

 

[Falvlun]

Because the question has multiple definitions. My very first thread on this board was trying to nail down a definition of what it would take for something to be a 'god.' Guess what? There was no final answer. If you don't have a concrete definition, then you can't have a concrete answer.

Could you give me a concrete definition for "life", or "consciousness", or even "animal"?

Definitions are not meant to completely delineate a concept. That doesn't meant that the concept doesn't exist, or that we cannot understand what is meant when the concept is evoked, or that we cannot assess the concept.

 

[Willamena]

It's fine. It's just a knowledge claim. I would say that everyone is truthfully an agnostic because we don't have facts about the existence or non-existence or gods, just beliefs and interpretations of experiences.

I would say that everyone is an agnostic because some of us make a knowledge claim (such as Nowhere Man did in #51) about our limitations.

 

[Falvlun]

Amazing - you can tolerate two senses of the word agnostic but not the word atheist. WoW! I do not think you are being consistent.

The two senses of the word "agnostic" are not mutually exclusive. I also do not see any strange implications resulting from either sense.

I think the "lack of" definition is a bad definition for various reasons, hence why I reject it as a good, viable definition.

Also, if "atheism" is defined in a more narrow sense, as I think it should, then that means the "lack of" definition couldn't be accepted as well-- the one precludes the other.

My logic is consistent, in that, I have reasons for accepting two senses of one word and rejecting various senses of other words.

Just like, I suspect, you accept that there are multiple senses to some words, but not others.

 

[Willamena]

I think the "lack of" definition is a bad definition for various reasons, hence why I reject it as a good, viable definition.

It's not bad, per se, just abused by being taken too literally.

 

[Falvlun]

It's not bad, per se, just abused by being taken too literally.

Yeah, I was being sloppy there.

I also wanted to clarify that I understand that the "lack of" definition of atheism is in fact one of the senses of the word. People use the word "atheism" to mean it, so therefore, it exists as a legitimate sense of the word atheism.

I just want to lure people back to the dark side (by which I mean agree with me wholeheartedly and maybe serve me chocolate covered strawberries every now and then.)

 

[bobhikes]

Dictionary.com
belief. a mental attitude of acceptance or assent toward a proposition without the full intellectual knowledge required to guarantee its truth.

My version of agnosticism requires full intellectual knowledge of something. I have heard of God and researched it fully without conclusion. I will continue to research it as needed. I can not say I believe in God because I don't have a conclusion. I can not say I do not know of God because I researched God. I can not say I don't believe in God because because I don't have a conclusion.

Dictionary.com
opinion is a belief or judgment that falls short of absolute conviction.

An opinion is all that I can have about God based on my intellectual knowledge which is why I am Agnostic.

 

[TheGunShoj]

But agnosticism isn't rejecting belief in theism,,,that's...atheism, I think.

What I am interested in is why is it only Atheists that have a problem with agnosticism. They want to show it as not valid. In all these agnostic threads it is atheists that want to make agnosticism atheism. Its never the theists. They actually seem to prefer agnosticism over atheism.

Why are atheists so concerned about agnostics. Why can't we live as we want pure agnostics.

Can someone please explain the difference between weak atheism and agnosticism for me?

From what I understand, weak atheism rejects theist claims because they haven't met their burden of proof. Weak atheism does not claim that no god can exist because there is no way to disprove it. So its not making the opposite claim, it's just not accepting the theistic claim.

It seems to me that Agnostics hold the same position. they say "I don't know one way or the other" So they are not accepting the theistic claim either (I assume due to lack of evidence, otherwise they would accept it, right?), and they aren't positing a claim that no god exists.

This seems like an identical position. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Desert Snake]

Can someone please explain the difference between weak atheism and agnosticism for me?

From what I understand, weak atheism rejects theist claims because they haven't met their burden of proof. Weak atheism does not claim that no god can exist because there is no way to disprove it. So its not making the opposite claim, it's just not accepting the theistic claim.

It seems to me that Agnostics hold the same position. they say "I don't know one way or the other" So they are not accepting the theistic claim either (I assume due to lack of evidence, otherwise they would accept it, right?), and they aren't positing a claim that no god exists.

This seems like an identical position. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you can have agnostic-theist, but not atheist-theist, that's the difference, probably.

 

[bobhikes]

Can someone please explain the difference between weak atheism and agnosticism for me?

From what I understand, weak atheism rejects theist claims because they haven't met their burden of proof. Weak atheism does not claim that no god can exist because there is no way to disprove it. So its not making the opposite claim, it's just not accepting the theistic claim.

It seems to me that Agnostics hold the same position. they say "I don't know one way or the other" So they are not accepting the theistic claim either (I assume due to lack of evidence, otherwise they would accept it, right?), and they aren't positing a claim that no god exists.

This seems like an identical position. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Agnostic's accept the theistic or atheistic claim as potentially valid. Agnostic's can be either atheistic or theistic. Agnostics do not claim that you can't disprove god but that there is no conclusion or solution to the claim at all.

 

[zenzero]

Friend bobhikes,

Agnostic's accept the theistic or atheistic claim as potentially valid. Agnostic's can be either atheistic or theistic. Agnostics do not claim that you can't disprove god but that there is no conclusion or solution to the claim at all.

and so prefer to label it 'NEUTRAL' or 'MIDDLE PATH' like it is not This nor That!. Its both or None!

Cheers! am an agnostic too.:yes:
:beach:
Love & rgds

 

[John Doe]

Friend John Doe,


That's what all wise men do, but here you left your sitting post to get caught up with a thought?

Love & rgds

Yeah, the post gives me a sore *** after a while. Maybe I need a wider post.

 

[Alceste]

What are your thoughts on the term agnostic, is it problematic, does it imply wishy-washiness?

Agnostics have the backbone to admit that the existence or non existence of God is a question that can never be proven.

Belief despite the absence of evidence is a catastrophic weakness, not a strength, IMO.

 

[Desert Snake]

Agnostics have the backbone to admit that the existence or non existence of God is a question that can never be proven.

I used to think that that was even a tenet of certain Theistic religions, though it may not be, with textual analysis.

 

[zenzero]

Friend John Doe,

Yeah, the post gives me a sore *** after a while. Maybe I need a wider post.

Now you blame the post?? What wrong has he done?? You must ask his pardon before even 'thinking' of divorcing him for a new post!

:beach:
Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friend Alceste,

Agnostics have the backbone to admit that the existence or non existence of God is a question that can never be proven.

They do not have it rather they ARE the BACKBONE for others to be different!

Love & rgds