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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Even with the "agnostic means I'm not 100% sure" definition (which I don't think is correct), I'd say that applying the label "agnostic" implies a higher level of uncertainty than all the other cases when you don't apply the label.
That's right: a claim about something else, which they use to justify their position about the existence of a god.
But that's precisely what anyone who claims that the existence of gods is unknowable is doing. They're saying that every claim that could be used to demonstrate the existence of a god must be false.
I'm not sure I agree with you, but I do note that there have been probably millions of miracle claims by theists of various types, and agnostics still claim that the existence of gods is unknowable... and thereby claim that every one of those claimed miracles either didn't happen or don't point to any gods.
First of all, I'd propose that we could talk about something else rather than God, since we are having a discussion about believing in a thing, not necessarily religious faith. Bertrand Russel used the example of a teapot in orbit near Mars, and that will suffice. I think that will make it easier to have a discussion about believing things and why we believe them without introducing religious faith into the mix. So, I'll use the teapot.
Secondly, I disagree with your definitions. I find the following diagram much closer to how I would phrase things.
With this, I would be somewhere in the bottom right section. I lack belief in God, and I'm very confident of my position, but I wouldn't say 100% confident.
As such, it seems to me that agnostic atheism is a fairly strong position. It doesn't accept anything for which there is little to no reliable evidence, yet it does not rule it out. It remains open to the possibility, but it would require some pretty strong evidence to be convinced.
Going back to the earlier teapot analogy, I'm sure you aren't going around saying, "I absolutely INSIST that there is no teapot near Mars! I am absolutely convinced that such a thing is utterly impossible!!!" Such a position is analogous to what would be held by a gnostic atheist. The far more rational thing to say would be, "I don't believe that there is a teapot near Mars, since there's no explanation that I've been told of that holds up to scrutiny. However, I can't deny that there could be some explanation that I'm unaware of, and so I can't claim for certain that the teapot doesn't exist." That is the position of the agnostic atheist.
To continue the analogy, the gnostic theist would claim that there can't be any doubt at all that the teapot is there, it absolutely MUST be there, and anyone who can't see that is a fool. This is clearly a ridiculous position. And the agnostic theist would claim that even though there is no indisputable proof, it is clearly more likely that the teapot is there than not, so we should believe that the teapot is there, even without sufficient evidence.
However, assuming that you disagree with my criticisms of your definitions, I still don't see how atheism is the weakest in your original argument. If you are claiming that it is weakest because it is making an argument of certain knowledge, then theism must be just as weak.
As others have already pointed out, one can be both agnostic and atheist, but your OP either ignorantly or dishonestly paints all atheism as "gnostic atheism". I'd really like to know which is driving you in the OP - ignorance or dishonesty. I really don't see any other option. You're either ignorant-of or ignoring the fact that theism/atheism speaks to belief, and gnostic/agnostic speaks to knowledge, or you understand that but are trying to pigeonhole all atheists into the somewhat less defensible position of declaring that god doesn't exist. You've been around on this site for quite some time, and so I am inclined to believe that this has been pointed out to you, or you've read threads in which it was pointed out to others probably dozens of times. And that would take the "ignorance" option off the table... leaving you with "dishonesty." I don't suppose you'll reply to me though. Why would you? It is likely too scary a thought, isn't it?
Another point here:
You are applying your own rigid definition to the word "unknowable" and assuming that most agnostics irrationally think that way.
Millions of anecdotal claims are not evidence of existence but they are evidence of the possibility. That's one reason why agnostics allow the possible existence that atheists deny. It's the atheist who logically denies that any of those anecdotal claims might be true not the agnostic.
Of course not. I thought I cleared that up earlier when I noted that one might believe in the possibility of a Creator but deny the existence of the gods claimed by religion.
Strawman.
Do we?
The definition I'm using is "impossible to be known." Do you have a different one?
Atheists don't necessarily deny anything. They can, but "I'm not convinced" (or "what's a god?") is firmly within the scope of atheism.
