Desert Snake
Veteran Member
What are your thoughts on the term agnostic, is it problematic, does it imply wishy-washiness?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The term "Agnostic", is it viable? Problematic?
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
It is a fair term, and fulfills a necessary role.
It is also greatly abused IMO. I have a distinct feeling that it is used often when "atheist" would be a better, more accurate and more honest choice, solely because there is still such reluctance to accept atheism.
It is also greatly abused IMO. I have a distinct feeling that it is used often when "atheist" would be a better, more accurate and more honest choice, solely because there is still such reluctance to accept atheism.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Yes that's probably right...'atheist' has baggage it seems, but agnostic is a little odd perhaps?? hmm
Agnosticism is fine. I would not quite say that it is to be expected of all honest people, but I sure feel tempted to.
However, I don't know whether it is even possible for one to be "purely" agnostic. In practice, all or most agnostics are also either theists or (more often) atheists.
When I hear someone declare himself or herself an agnostic, I can't help but feel that it is in fact atheism what is meant. Not a big deal, but that is how I feel.
However, I don't know whether it is even possible for one to be "purely" agnostic. In practice, all or most agnostics are also either theists or (more often) atheists.
When I hear someone declare himself or herself an agnostic, I can't help but feel that it is in fact atheism what is meant. Not a big deal, but that is how I feel.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Hmm I see. I don't question theists personally...but as to the definitions of the terms agnostic and atheistic, not sure what the general 'inferred' definition is. Just like there is inferred definition of Christian , Jewish etc.
Last edited:
"Agnostic" is useful. I am one. It's a subset of atheism.
I don't think it implies "wishy-washy" at all. Agnostics can be theistic (acceptance of gods), atheistic (denial of gods), or neither, and can often be related to apatheism and ignosticism as well. Agnosticism in the context of theology is a position on knowledge about gods, not so much their existence.
I'm fairly certain that agnostic theists exist.
Agnostism for is the only viable representation of God. God is neither provable or unprovable no matter what anyone tells you. The choice of atheism or theism is a belief.
A theist typically represents only one God not all Gods.
An Atheist may know about 3 or 4 Gods or know none and claim because of this all definitions are bad.
Both claims can be proven false. An agnostic admits this an makes an honest choice based on his/her experiences and knowledge. The agnostic then defends his/her choice as it is a choice.
Atheism and Theism are the beliefs that are problematic for the above and the fact that they can't accept the other. How often do you hear of an agnostic causing problems for atheists or theists. They are 2 sides of the same coin.
A theist typically represents only one God not all Gods.
An Atheist may know about 3 or 4 Gods or know none and claim because of this all definitions are bad.
Both claims can be proven false. An agnostic admits this an makes an honest choice based on his/her experiences and knowledge. The agnostic then defends his/her choice as it is a choice.
Atheism and Theism are the beliefs that are problematic for the above and the fact that they can't accept the other. How often do you hear of an agnostic causing problems for atheists or theists. They are 2 sides of the same coin.
They do; I used to identify as one. But as I dived deeper into the realm of contemporary Paganism, I couldn't justify that label after a time given a big part of our practice is direct experience of, and therefore knowledge of, the gods. A part of me wants to hold onto that label as a way of saying "I believe humans only ever know maps of territories; there is no knowing Truth Absolute," but I'm not certain that is a good term to use to describe that stance.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
I'd agree with this other than perhaps the honesty/reluctance part. I think people more commonly describe themselves as Agnostic (in this case meaning Agnostic Atheist) out of ignorance than out of dishonesty or fear. On this forum the assumption/hope is that most people who've been here a while have cleared up any confusion they might have had about these terms. In day to day life though, most people I meet who describe themselves as Agnostic in this manner tend to assume that Atheism implies a position of certainty.
In their minds they aren't Atheists since they don't exclude the possibility of gods existing. It's confusion or ignorance on their part rather than a matter of honesty if you follow? That said, I live in the UK where for the most part Atheism is pretty well accepted. I don't know a great deal about Brazil, but I would assume this isn't the case there?
HexBomb
Member
I don't think agnosticism necessarily implies atheism at all. I consider myself agnostic, but that depends entirely on the definition of god one is using. More than one person has 'informed' me that I am an atheist, and more than one person has 'informed' me that I'm a pagan.
I don't know is a stance. I don't know doesn't necessarily necessitate disbelief.
I don't know is a stance. I don't know doesn't necessarily necessitate disbelief.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I find both "atheist" and "agnostic" to be increasingly useless labels, as they have such varied and numerous connotations and intepretations. Unless you know that the person you're conversing with has the exact same interpretation of these words, there is too much danger of semantical variance leading to unproductive and confusing discussion.
In real life, I've always tended to actually say what it is that I do believe and what my worldview actually is, rather than rely on such shaky labels. I used to use these terms more in online discussions. However, I find that they are becoming rather useless in this regard too, even when you supply your exact intended definitions, as people tend to fill in their own interpretations of these labels even when you make it clear that you mean something different.
In general, I guess people seem to put more effort into attempting to make the world semantically consistent for themselves, than into trying to understand what it is that someone else actually means.
In real life, I've always tended to actually say what it is that I do believe and what my worldview actually is, rather than rely on such shaky labels. I used to use these terms more in online discussions. However, I find that they are becoming rather useless in this regard too, even when you supply your exact intended definitions, as people tend to fill in their own interpretations of these labels even when you make it clear that you mean something different.
In general, I guess people seem to put more effort into attempting to make the world semantically consistent for themselves, than into trying to understand what it is that someone else actually means.
By itself it doesn't imply anything. It states either wishy-washiness or, alternatively, those people who have an understanding that god is unknowable.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
This is correct. What me and LuisDantas were referring to was people who are in fact Agnostic Atheists (they don't actually believe in a god themselves, but accept that god/s could exist) but who refer to themselves just as Agnostic.
True, but "I don't know" is typically followed by a leaning more one way than the other regarding the question "does a god/s exist?" In my experience people who self-identify solely as Agnostic tend to lean more towards answering "No".
I think an absolute middle ground, leaning neither way at all is actually possible. However I suspect that upon introspection such people will eventually shift towards an answer one way or the other, even if that answer is only an infinitesimal fraction towards one side.
Or theism.
*** Mod Post ***
By staff consensus this thread has been moved to Religious Debates.
By staff consensus this thread has been moved to Religious Debates.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
The term 'agnostic' is not problematic. It precisely describes reality; and therfore also the rational system of thought that I apply to life, death, philosophy, etc....
I have used the same sig for my posts here since my first week of finding this forum.
-- I don't know, and neither do you. --
It is honest. And for most, it takes more courage and understanding than they can muster.
Regardless of how utterly devout your faith is...there is no proof what-so-ever of any ghosts or spirits; of any magic; or of any divine beings; let alone a singular omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent one.
Converesly (and this has been debated od nauseum) in opposition to several posters here, it is the people claiming that they are 'atheists' who are usually using the wrong word to describe themselves. Most that I have communicated with will go on to describe a truly agnostic belief system.....as (here it comes) 'atheism' does entail a willful disbelief in any divine entity.
No. I am not contradicting myself. Lack of evidence of a thing, does not prove a lack of its existence; particularly when we are speaking of things far beyond our finite ability to fathom.
Lack of proof of the Loch Ness monster is convincing that she doesn't exist. Lack of sighting of elves, fairies, and pegasi is also a solid foundation for their lack of existence, at least on this lonely planet.
But if an infinite God doesn't want you to find It, then what chance do you think you have? Really?
I am agnostic. I have chosen this precise and appropriate title, because I am (like you are) truly agnostic.
I have used the same sig for my posts here since my first week of finding this forum.
-- I don't know, and neither do you. --
It is honest. And for most, it takes more courage and understanding than they can muster.
Regardless of how utterly devout your faith is...there is no proof what-so-ever of any ghosts or spirits; of any magic; or of any divine beings; let alone a singular omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent one.
Converesly (and this has been debated od nauseum) in opposition to several posters here, it is the people claiming that they are 'atheists' who are usually using the wrong word to describe themselves. Most that I have communicated with will go on to describe a truly agnostic belief system.....as (here it comes) 'atheism' does entail a willful disbelief in any divine entity.
No. I am not contradicting myself. Lack of evidence of a thing, does not prove a lack of its existence; particularly when we are speaking of things far beyond our finite ability to fathom.
Lack of proof of the Loch Ness monster is convincing that she doesn't exist. Lack of sighting of elves, fairies, and pegasi is also a solid foundation for their lack of existence, at least on this lonely planet.
But if an infinite God doesn't want you to find It, then what chance do you think you have? Really?
I am agnostic. I have chosen this precise and appropriate title, because I am (like you are) truly agnostic.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
In that case I can absolutely see why what you suggested could be the case too. I confess that I myself will refer to myself as an Agnostic rather than a Demonolater purely to make things easier for myself. I forget sometimes that Atheist as a label carries the same problems in places.