Agnosticism is not a logical stance

[honestrosewater]

Change all "Do you believe in god(s)?" to "Do you deny the existence of god(s)?"
Atheist answers yes, agnostic answers no.
In other words, everything said toward separating theists from agnostics can be applied in the same way to separate atheists from agnostics. There are at least three separate options.

Have we now covered all the bases?

 

[Royce]

Change all "Do you believe in god(s)?" to "Do you deny the existence of god(s)?"
Atheist answers yes, agnostic answers no.
In other words, everything said toward separating theists from agnostics can be applied in the same way to separate atheists from agnostics. There are at least three separate options.

Have we now covered all the bases?

God, I hope so; and, I think that you and I are finally on the same page.
The problem now at hand is not the logic and semantics according to Jameson's last post. It is more a matter of belief, what to believe or not believe and what to we call that set of beliefs.

When I was a young man I considered myself an agnostic. As far as the Old Testament and organized Christian religion was concerned ,I thought of myself as a definite non-believer, an atheist, but as far as a God/Creator was concerned, I didn't know and withheld judgment; so, I, therefore, was an agnostic at least in my mind. I didn't believe in God and I didn't belief that God did not exist. I didn't know and I didn't have any firm belief one way or the other. To me that position of no position is agnostic.

A theist believe in God. An agnostic doesn't believe either way and an atheist believes that there is no God. This is how I see and understand it. It of course is a continuum as different people hold different degrees of belief or disbelief. My believe will waver from one extreme to another throughout any given period depending on how I feel or what I am thinking about at the moment.

 

[Zlex]

I am a devout non-aligned secular agnostic theist. It means my faith without certainty or knowledge is restricted to believing in the existence of a God whose existence, nature, wants or desires I do not believe can be known in this life, which also means I have absolutely no faith in any merely man-made religion or man-made church.

It means that any attempts by any man, no matter if he is wearing a chess uniform or not, or how cute he may look in that chess uniform, to claim to insert himself into the personal futile attempt at understanding any of us might or might not be groping for on the concept of God, is an unrecognized and unwelcome projection of a baseless authority.

It means I see man-made religion and man-made churches as residue of dark age mystic politics, unrelated in a fundamental way to the concept of God.

Tammy Faye Baker, Elmer Gantry, the latest Pope in his gilded castle and bullet-proof Popemobile. It's all the same leg-lifting political shtick. The Bible is ancient manmade literature. I mean read it, it literally says, at most, "Some man said that God said..." It is proof, mostly, that The Big Question has festered for thousands of years.


Of course there can be no proof that God does not exist. If you believe that, you believe it without proof. To say, you won't believe it until you see it, like a unicorn or whatever, exposes a shallow understanding of the concept of God.

My understanding of the concept of God takes my devout agnosticism one step further; there can be no 'proof' in this life that God exists, even in the face of a candidate God. I challenge any mere human to devise a test that a candidate God must pass to prove to us that he is God, and not just some massively more capable life form in this universe.

Any test we can imagine, Steven Spielberg has probably already imagined and put on film. My point is, some merely 100 year more advanced life form with 'much better film' could spin us any tale we could imagine, and thus 'pass' out test. Would God need to fly? Go to the Moon? Bring the dead back to life? Transplant a heart? Come back from the dead? SHow us pictures from the beginning of time? Blow up a mountain? Destroy Saturn? Fly us to the next village? The next country? The next solar system? The next galaxy?

And, what of it? Suppose God fails to jump over the ant hurdle or through the ant hoop; does that prove that God is not God?

To ants in an ant hill, we must appear as Gods. Does that mean we are? Do we even ask ants about their God beliefs, and if we could, would we jump over their ant hurdles to prove that we were Gods? This argument is recursive and moot; how would we ants ever get a candidate God to jump over our ant hurdles, to prove to us that God is God?

A fools errand.


If God exists, and if God created the Universe, then He did not have to do it by the prescribed manner--ie, jump over our ant hurdles--to prove that He did. For all we know, if He created the universe, then he must have also designed it. If he designed it, then he imagined every detail. Yet if he imagined it, and designed it, and imagined every detail, then why would there actually be a need to create it? A creator able to imagine and design and build would also be able to simply imagine.

Such a creator would know the punch line to every cosmic joke in this universe; how does such a creator, if He is to create 'surprise' in the Universe, do that? Impossible? Hardly. He could do what any schizo on Earth does; he could divide his conciousness.

Is there conciousness in the universe? Sure. Is there divided conciousness in the Universe? Well, is there 'surprise?' Is any of that proof of anything? No, it is by illustration a demonstration that the whole concept of 'proof' of God is ridiculous and unanswerable. Either way, a matter of pure faith.

Whatever God is or isn't, one thing is for sure; there is exactly zero requirement that any such God jump through any ant hoops or hurdles to prove that He exists. He does not need a beard, he does not need to sit on a throne, He does not even need to be anything other than the entire material Universe that we live in, with all of its rules, surprises, and experiments, whether deliberate or random and chaotic. Whatever He is or isnlt is by definition forever above our pay grade.

Agnostics do not know. Agnostic theists believe that it is probably our job not to know; that is our function in the Universe. To not know, and to live here anyway, to create surprise in the Universe.

 

[Jameson]

If you are saying we are Gods to ants, that means that you are defining God as a being with our qualities, but to a greater degree. This would mean the rules of physics and time apply to him, which would be a contradiction of his definition. (all powerful, all-knowing). God must be different than us.

 

[honestrosewater]

If you are saying we are Gods to ants, that means that you are defining God as a being with our qualities, but to a greater degree. This would mean the rules of physics and time apply to him, which would be a contradiction of his definition. (all powerful, all-knowing). God must be different than us.

How would you change the statement "All laws of physics apply at all instances" to make it true for god? Which "all" would you change, and what would you change it to (some, no)?

Royce,
Yes, we're on the same page I actually said the same thing in my first response in this thread (#5), but the point was lost in the discussion.

 

[Zlex]

If you are saying we are Gods to ants, that means that you are defining God as a being with our qualities, but to a greater degree. This would mean the rules of physics and time apply to him, which would be a contradiction of his definition. (all powerful, all-knowing). God must be different than us.

I thought I made it clear; maybe I did not. As a devout agnostic theist, I believe only in an undefinable God.

I will explain my ant analogy.

By induction.

1] I am not God; I am a finite, human being. (You can argue this point, if you will. I'll wait.)
2] To an ant, I could well appear to be God.
3] To some other life form, I might be an ant.
4] If confronted with such a sufficiently advanced life form(could simply be just 'us' in a short 200 years...), I would be no more able to test it for its Godliness then an ant could test me for mine, as well, convince it to submit to my feeble ant tests, no more than ants are able to convince us to submit to theirs. So, to an ant, I might be God, or I might be a naked ape, or I might be God pretending to be a naked ape and just ****ing with me. As an ant in the natural world of 'proof', I would have no way of proving the truth of the matter, and, please don't tell me that God would not **** with me, because that claim would clearly be an ant hoop. (ie, God would only jump through these hoops, say the ants.)

 

[Jameson]

So months after this thread died out and after more thinking I've decided to try this again.

There are two concrete terms that describe one's belief in a god.
Theism - a belief in a god
Atheism - the lack of a belief in a god

My major point that someone how I poorly expressed last time I wrote was that atheists are not ones who deny the existense of a god, but simply do not have a belief. There is a difference between explicitly denying and simply not believing.

Now some define agnosticism as the middle ground of the latter two. It is not a belief in a god but not a belief in no god. To the best of my knowledge, the term agnostic is used to describe whether one believes that the existense or non-existense of a god can be proven. It is not a stance on a god, it only pertains to whether one can know for certain if a god exists.

The term "agnostic" was coined by Thomas Huxley. He stated that there was just not enough information for either side of "the god" argument that was convincing. Hence, he coined to the term agnostic. This term came out of wanting proof of a god, not believing or not believing in a god. This may seem like an insignificant difference, but to myself, this is a very important one.

So when people claim that he or she is an agnostic theist, what is this saying? By my previous definitions, this would mean a person who believes in a god, but does not think this belief is provable. Same thing goes for an agnostic atheist. That is someone who does not hold the belief in a god but does not think that belief is provable.

I have heard all forms of people thrown into the branding of "agnostics" and I think the lack of clarity to what this term means isn't good. If this argument seems to semantical, then I apologize, but it is the only way to articulate the intricacies that surround this.

Jameson

 

[loseyourname]

So months after this thread died out and after more thinking I've decided to try this again.

There are two concrete terms that describe one's belief in a god.
Theism - a belief in a god
Atheism - the lack of a belief in a god

My major point that someone how I poorly expressed last time I wrote was that atheists are not ones who deny the existense of a god, but simply do not have a belief. There is a difference between explicitly denying and simply not believing.

In contemporary philosophy of religion, the position of holding the belief that there is no God is generally referred to as 'strong' atheism. Simply not holding a belief is referred to as 'weak' atheism. Though these terms are more precise in defining a tripartite categorization of theological stances, I do believe it is still accurate, at least colloquially, to speak of the weak atheist as an agnostic and a strong atheist as an atheist, even though the etymology doesn't quite fit the definition.

 

[Jameson]

Right, but it's important to note that the term "agnostic" does not mean that one "doesn't know if there is a god". This means that the person does hold the belief that the proof of a god is unknowable, and he or she chooses not to believe. This agnostic stance is not a middle ground. That was the point in my original post and my point now.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Right, but it's important to note that the term "agnostic" does not mean that one "doesn't know if there is a god".

Are you sure there isn't a secondary meaning of that? What about someone who says ANY statement about the unknowable ineffable is silly and refuses to make any?

 

[Jameson]

Then I would call that person an agnostic atheist, because he or she lacks the belief in a god and does not believe that this view can be proven.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Then I would call that person an agnostic atheist, because he or she lacks the belief in a god and does not belief that this view can be proven.

I believe you are drawing unwarranted conclusions about the individual in my example. How is refusing to make any statement about "God", on the ground the all such statements are silly, evidence for a lack of belief?

I seems to me that you are like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking-Glass, who made words mean just what he wanted them to mean, neither more nor less.

 

[Jameson]

Hmmm... ok then.

The only reason I am getting picky with words is because when many people use the same word to describe different concepts, the result is confusion. I was simply trying to post what I thought to be the source of all of these words originally and you are free to use them however you want.

I am not manipulating words, I am trying to follow their definition to avoid confusion, but if it pleases you, call that person an agnostic. This thread was simply me posting my thoughts to see if others could see my point.

Jameson

 

[LindaGarrette]

I'm Agnostic and I can answer your question. Do I believe in God? I do not believe in God. I believe in the possibility of God existing. I do not hold it true that God exists but I do believe it is possible. I believe in possibilities. Agnostism is a much more logical faith than Atheism. Atheism is like a scientific theory that is held true - someone illogical denies the small possibility that a theory is wrong. There is not enough logic to discern whether or not God exists.

In a sense, everyone is agnostic because no one knows there is a god. Some people believe there is and they are theists. Others don't believe and they are athiests. Pretty simple.

 

[Tigron-X]

Yeah.. or you can even say that everyone believes in their own personal definition of God. It's all the same thing -- a matter of perspective. And, perspective is individual reality, not reality.

To prove either side would define God. And that's not possible. It's like asking, can logic prove logic?

Well... No, it can't because logic proves alignment of thought with reality. So, we can't prove existence. We can only show the way we currently exist; rather the way we think we currently exist. Thus existence must prove itself. And so far we're lead to believe that it's all relative.

So yes, I do have to agree that in a sense we're all agnostic because no one's belief's are absolute.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

One's beliefs and the validity of one's beliefs are two separate things, otherwise I would say no-one is a theist because God does not exist. This is clearly wrong. The fact that beliefs are not absolute is irrelevant to describing those beliefs.

I've considered this for the last few days and have come to the following conclusions.

There are potentially two types of theist: those that assume God exists, and those that believe God exists. I'm not sure the former actually exist: either the theist is raised to believe in God, in which case the assumption is not their own, or they consider the notion of God and conclude he exists, which is a belief. If someone claims to have been born with an idea of God, then that would prove me wrong (if they were honest).

The traditional definition of an atheist is one who believes God does not exist. The word itself depends on the notion of God in the first place, and so to be an atheist requires that the notion of God is considered and rejected. However, this has a historical basis in that it was once or still is in all theistic civilisations a standard to believe in God - it would be traditionally unusual to believe God does not exist.

This word 'atheist' does not describe me well. I believe I am as I would be had the notion of God never occurred, whether he exist (and kept secret his existence) or not (man never invented him). I have no recollection of ever considering God as a real entity - he has, to me, always been a fictional character in a mythology. It may seem difficult for some theists to conceive of someone in this world never considering the possibility of God's existence, but this is no different to a Christian never having considered the actual existence of Zeus, Thor, Buddha or fairies. My idea of God, whether I choose to believe or not, has never been that of any theist.

Therefore I am not a theist: I have not been born with a belief in God, nor have I been raised to believe in God, nor have I concluded his existence is real. I am not an atheist: I have made no positive action to believe in God - the notion of God espoused by theists has not affected me. I have never considered or rejected the notion of God's existence and I do not require a notion of God to hold my position.

So am I an agnostic (as to God's existence)? No - I can not be said to lack knowledge to determine if God exists or not. I require no further knowledge to make a decision for there is no decision to make. I have a concrete assumption, not a belief, that God does not exist and have done since birth.

So there are theists, agnostics, atheists and those that are none of the above.

 

[Tigron-X]

One's beliefs and the validity of one's beliefs are two separate things, otherwise I would say no-one is a theist because God does not exist. This is clearly wrong. The fact that beliefs are not absolute is irrelevant to describing those beliefs.

In a way, you're expressing my exact point. Each perspective (or belief) is valid in its own right. The wording, "no-one is a theist b/c God does not exist," seems contradictory in itself, however I still see what you're getting at. And, I hope I didn't come off as implying that atheists believe in God or everyone believes in God. I was referring to the notion of God. Something everyone here has explored and reached a conclusion on. Of course the conclusion reached depends on the initial notion expressed in relation to one's own thoughts.

Also before I go on, I want to clarify one other statement. When I mentioned beliefs are not absolute, that didn't necessarily mean a theist will become an atheist one day down the road or vice versa. Our notion of the subject matter at hand is susceptible to change as different thoughts reveal various other perspectives that one may find diserving of consideration. But either way, in the end of a discussion one might find him/her-self strengthening his/her initial position on the matter. I would still consider this a change in one's initial belief because his/her awareness has changed. And to me, that's relevant because in essence it affects the validity of a belief. And I would like to add once again that I in no way find one of the given beliefs to be invalid, agnostic included.

Moving on, I couldn't say whether I was born with the idea of God or not, but I can say I've always been attracted to the ideas of a higher consciousness. So, naturally I seek an understanding of God. Of course I don't limit myself to a thiest's perspective, a single religion, or other ideas that are philosophically similar/related. Needless to say, I throw atheism as well as science in that same boat. If by chance you ask why, it's because they are all subject matters that express thoughts that shed light onto the world we live in and the ideas that form our way of life and that give notion to the existence we're all a part of as one whole being composed of individual dynamics.

To me, the belief in God is a belief in a higher consciousness that is always a thought away. A force that is discovered by seeking wisdom. I find that the various religions and mythologies help us explore the nature of our existence and existence itself. I've always considered God to be life itself. Something we're all a part of individually. Something that is defined and limited by our notions of thought. A notion held true when the perceived force gives a constant and consistent result. If it doesn't, the flaw is in our initial notion, not the system we're a part of and attempt to define with understanding. A higher consciousness is reached only by genuine thought.

In the end, I've come to the conclusion that we live in an existence that's a constant growing perfection. How, you may ask. Well, the system is perfect, but we continue to perfect our understanding of it by exploring various perspectives and seeking a higher consciousness. The unknown always seems chaotic. Furthermore, one can impose or project that higher consciousness as a separate being/entity apart from oneself that an individual being discovers, relates to, defines, and worships as God (or other diety); such as typically associated with theists. Or, one can impose or project that consciousness as knowledge/wisdom/enlightenment that one seeks and defines through math and science; such as typically associtaed with atheists. Just to clarify, an individual, whether atheist or theist, isn't limited to just one of those typical behavior patterns that I just expressed above because each side is defined by his/her belief in God, and not by the way one explores that belief.

However, an agnostic explores both sides, but doesn't allow his/her beliefs to be defined by a single set of the traditional beliefs, even though he/she may lean towards one side of the arguement. It seems agnostics need to explore their own thoughts before they can decide on the existence of God.

On a side note, El Hombre Invisible, I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but a "concrete assumption" is an oxymoron since an assumption implies an unsure thought. And I think it's safe to say that a belief implies the same thing except with more assurance. Either way, you're still accepting a thought that draws a conclusion on the existence of God. Something you can't consider without the notion of God. A thought that gave you awareness of your initial beliefs. A belief you continued and strengthened after giving consideration to someone's thoughts about God. You've always believed God did not exist. Well, you used the words "concrete assumption". But anyhow, how would you know if you've never had your own notion of God to begin with?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

In a way, you're expressing my exact point. Each perspective (or belief) is valid in its own right. The wording, "no-one is a theist b/c God does not exist," seems contradictory in itself, however I still see what you're getting at. And, I hope I didn't come off as implying that atheists believe in God or everyone believes in God. I was referring to the notion of God.

Yes, me too. And my 'no-one is a theist' comment was, I thought, clearly stated as being incorrect.

Something everyone here has explored and reached a conclusion on. Of course the conclusion reached depends on the initial notion expressed in relation to one's own thoughts.

NO - absolutely not. This was the very thing I was trying to say is not true. I have never, ever considered the actual possibility that God exists. I have never reached a conclusion because I have never contemplated it. I would say that one who has contemplated God's existence and as a result rejected the notion is an atheist. This person has arrived at the belief that God does not exist - it is a positive action. Not all people who do not believe in God, but are not agnostic, have considered the possibility that God might actually exist. This is why atheism is a bad term for such people - it relies itself on a notion of God to reject.

However, an agnostic explores both sides, but doesn't allow his/her beliefs to be defined by a single set of the traditional beliefs, even though he/she may lean towards one side of the arguement. It seems agnostics need to explore their own thoughts before they can decide on the existence of God.

I'm not sold on this definition of an agnostic. An agnostic in this capacity, so far as I can tell, is one who considers the idea of God's existence but finds himself unable to conclude - hence agnostic: lacking knowledge.

On a side note, El Hombre Invisible, I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but a "concrete assumption" is an oxymoron since an assumption implies an unsure thought. And I think it's safe to say that a belief implies the same thing except with more assurance.

Yes, but I'm sure you can appreciate it was a tough argument to word. I'll explain the background of my statement. I would have called myself up until a few days ago an atheist. On another thread, Evo and some others were trying to explain that an atheist is someone 'who does not think/care about God'. I thought this was wrong, but after consideration I could see what they were getting at, however the definition did not stick to the word.

It is not enough to say that an atheist does not believe in God, for nor does an agnostic. The logical statement, then, is that an atheist believes God does not exist. Two problems: 1) the definition depends on a notion of God; 2) we are born with no knowledge of God, and so a belief in his non-existence is a belief that must be achieved. These problems don't apply when you consider the example of one who considers then rejects God as a notion. However, I have not considered God in this way. God to me, and I mean no offense to theists as this is my personal philosophy and you know I'm going to hell so what are you complaining about anyway, is nothing more than a fictional character in a book. My parents did not even mention God, Jesus, whatever to me as a child. I was asked by some local mormons once if I said my prayers - I didn't even know what a prayer was. I thought he meant pears (I am not kidding). I knew about Greek mythology before the Bible because of Clash Of The Titans. When we did Bible studies at primary school, I automatically associated it with mythology. As a result, the notion of God as a theist understands him is not one I have ever contemplated. I have argued endlessly the fictional God of my own understanding, but never the real divive creator of a Christian's. That, I hope, explains the difference between an acquired belief in God's on-existence and the autmoatic assumption from birth that there is no such thing (there's just mother). That's not to say I was aware of the fictional God - Iwas just equally ignorant then as I am now of the real one. This assumption (not the best word I could have chosen) is concrete insofar as it has never been dented, eroded, etc. It appears indestructible.

Either way, you're still accepting a thought that draws a conclusion on the existence of God. Something you can't consider without the notion of God. A thought that gave you awareness of your initial beliefs. A belief you continued and strengthened after giving consideration to someone's thoughts about God. You've always believed God did not exist. Well, you used the words "concrete assumption". But anyhow, how would you know if you've never had your own notion of God to begin with?

Like I said, my notion of God has always been one of a fictional character in a book, therefore there has never been any consideration of whether or not he exists, therefore I have never acquired the belief that he does not.

Good chat, though. I'm enjoying it.

 

[hypnagogue]

These points have been covered here before, but an explicit summary might be helpful.

Agnosticism and theism/atheism, strictly speaking, are not positions that lie along a continuum (although they can be taken that way colloquially, as loseyourname has pointed out). Agnosticism is an epistemological view about what we can know about God's existence, and (a)theism is a metaphysical view about whether God does, in fact, exist. For instance, consider the following statement: "God exists." Agnosticism is a position on whether this statement can be justified, and (a)theism is a position on whether this statement is true. These are evaluations of the statement along two independent dimensions. For instance, one might conjecture that Fermat's Last Theorem is true (or false), while simultaneously believing that it cannot (or can) be proven. The matter of belief in the theorem's truth or falsity is separate from beliefs about whether it can be proven (at least while no conclusive proofs have yet been demonstrated).

Thus, whether a person is agnostic or not has no logical consequence upon whether s/he is theist or not. Rather than thinking of theism, atheism, and agnosticism as lying along a continuum, we should think of them as being orthogonal to, or independent from, each other. If we decide to differentiate between strong and weak atheism, then we have six possible views arising from the possible combinations on the metaphysical and epistemological stances. In the following, let b(x) mean "believes that x," and let G be the statement "God exists."

agnostic theist: b(G); believes that neither G nor ~G can be justified.
non-agnostic theist: b(G); believes that either G or ~G can be justified.

agnostic weak atheist: ~b(G); believes that neither G nor ~G can be justified.
non-agnostic weak atheist: ~b(G); believes that either G or ~G can be justified.

agnostic strong atheist: b(~G); believes that neither G nor ~G can be justified.
non-agnostic strong atheist: b(~G); believes that either G or ~G can be justified.

Note that ~b(G) does not imply b(~G) if we allow statements to be evaluated in ways other than "true" (T) or "false" (F). For instance, we might allow a third possibility sitting on the fence between truth and falsity, along the lines of "not enough information to decide" or "no commitment either way" (call this N). Then ~b(G) means that an individual evaluates G as either F or N, but not T. By contrast, b(~G) means that an individual evaluates G as F.

Also note that taking a definite stance on G does not require one to believe that the converse cannot proven. For instance, a non-agnostic strong atheist might firmly believe that God does not exist, but might nonetheless be open to changing his mind upon presentation of what he would consider sufficient evidence that G is true.

 

[Photongod]

Well well--things sure have gotten complicated since I took philosophy. Thank you George Smith for stirring the waters and causing mass confusion to a simple subject.
1. A theist has a belief that divine beings exist. If one is not a theist, he is a "non-believer".
2. An Atheist has a belief that divine beings do not exist.
3. If one is not either one of the above, then he/she could fall into many other catagories--such as ignorant of the idea, appathetic to the idea, agnostic, and so on.
4. The agnostic can fall into one of two types--a or b
a. believes that we can never know the answer to the god question.
b. Claims that he/she does not know for a lack of good evidence either way.
This b. type agnostic is the most logical of all of the above in that he/she is not involved with any belief--just a statement of ignorance.
There is no need for all the flimsy half definitions that cover this topic--it is just very simple. Photongod.

 

[the_truth]

You believe god's existence has been proven, therefore you believe god exists and you are a monotheist.

You believe god's existence has been disproven, therefore you believe god cannot exist and you are an atheist.

You believe god's existence can neither be proven or disproven, therefore you don't know for sure whether god exists or not and you are correct.

You are an agnostic who realizes that there are infinite things that can neither be proven or disproven and so things that can neither be proven or disproven should be assumed not to exist, therefore you are really great and should be revered by all.

 

[hypnagogue]

Well well--things sure have gotten complicated since I took philosophy. Thank you George Smith for stirring the waters and causing mass confusion to a simple subject.

Unfortunately, your simpler definitions are not true to what the words themselves mean. For instance, in a colloquial sense, 'atheism' can be identified with strong atheism as you suggest; but strictly speaking, 'atheism' means 'lack of belief in God,' and so can refer to either the weak or strong variety. One need not profess a belief that God does not exist in order to be an atheist (see above).

You believe god's existence has been proven, therefore you believe god exists and you are a monotheist.

You believe god's existence has been disproven, therefore you believe god cannot exist and you are an atheist.

You are identifying standards for justification with beliefs about truth. The two are typically closely intertwined in practice, especially in scientific or philosphical contexts, but they need not be. One can believe a proposition is true in the absence of sufficient knowledge, or proof, etc. of its veracity-- it's called 'faith.' An agnostic theist, for example, may concede that God's existence cannot be 'proven,' but nonetheless believe that God exists as an article of faith. Likewise for an agnostic strong atheist. Because of this gap between standards of justification for beliefs and actually held beliefs-- because some people may believe things at least partially based on faith-- we must differentiate between what it means to hold a stance about agnosticism and what it means to hold a stance about (a)theism. They are not points along a continuum.

 

[Photongod]

definitions

Unfortunately, your simpler definitions are not true to what the words themselves mean. For instance, in a colloquial sense, 'atheism' can be identified with strong atheism as you suggest; but strictly speaking, 'atheism' means 'lack of belief in God,' and so can refer to either the weak or strong variety. One need not profess a belief that God does not exist in order to be an atheist (see above).---------hypnagogue

Yes--and it is exactly the problem I mentioned in that the Philosopher George Smith has caused a mucking of the waters that were once clear.
The greek root for "atheist" is "a" meaning "No"----and "Theos" meaning "God" ie: "No God". It does not mean "not a Theist" (If one is not a theist, and lacks a belief in God --he is a non-theist, or sometimes non-believer.) An Atheist has a belief that there is no divine beings. Most good reference books and especially philosophy dictionaries give the meanings in this manner.
The simpler definitions are the best definitions in most cases. Photongod

 

[DaveC426913]

It is my understanding that agnostics believe that we CANNOT KNOW if God exists.

In terms of this discussion, when asked if they "believe in God, yes or no", their reponse is:

"Your question is fundamentally flawed. The only answer is that the question is unanswerable."

Note that this is not the same as "I don't know", or "maybe/maybe not". It is we CANNOT KNOW.

 

[Huckleberry]

I think you are correct. I didn't understand that you were asking a logic-semantic question. If you ask someone if they "believe" and they say I don't know, then they don't believe, just as you say.

What about asking the question the other way around, "Do you believe there is no God?" An agnostic would still answer no, which would mean that they do believe in God.

I think when a person claims they are agnostic and that they do not know if there is a God or not, then that is exactly what they mean. They do not believe or disbelieve. They are uncertain.

If X is an impossibly difficult math problem for the person answering the question.
Q. "Do you believe that X is correct?"
A. "I don't know."

Therefore X must be incorrect for the person answering the question? It might be useless to him, but it could be correct.

 

[hypnagogue]

It is my understanding that agnostics believe that we CANNOT KNOW if God exists.

Correct.

In terms of this discussion, when asked if they "believe in God, yes or no", their reponse is:

"Your question is fundamentally flawed. The only answer is that the question is unanswerable."

Not necessarily! You are moving from an epistemological standard for belief (knowledge/justification/proof) to actually held beliefs; while it is arguable that we should reason this way (i.e., that we should only believe those things that we can be said to know to whatever degree of certainty), it is certainly not the case that everyone does reason this way. It is quite possible for one to be an agnostic, and nonetheless believe in God as a matter of faith. As a matter of fact, one such person has already posted in this thread, on page 3:

I am a devout non-aligned secular agnostic theist. It means my faith without certainty or knowledge is restricted to believing in the existence of a God whose existence, nature, wants or desires I do not believe can be known in this life, which also means I have absolutely no faith in any merely man-made religion or man-made church.

Agnostic theism is a perfectly tenable position; there is no logical contradiction in being both agnostic and theist. An agnostic theist would say to the following questions:

"Can we know if God exists?" "No."
"Do you believe that God exists?" "Yes."

 

[hypnagogue]

What about asking the question the other way around, "Do you believe there is no God?" An agnostic would still answer no, which would mean that they do believe in God.

Being an agnostic does not fix the nature of one's belief in God. One can be agnostic and also be theist, or weak atheist, or strong atheist.

What you are describing as agnosticism here is in fact weak atheism-- no commitment on the question of God's existence as either true or false. In essence, you are mistaking agnosticism for a metaphysical positions when, in fact, it is just an epistemic one.

 

[Huckleberry]

What about asking the question the other way around, "Do you believe there is no God?" An agnostic would still answer no, which would mean that they do believe in God.

I think when a person claims they are agnostic and that they do not know if there is a God or not, then that is exactly what they mean. They do not believe or disbelieve. They are uncertain.

The first paragraph was just an example of why asking that question doesn't work. The second paragraph is what I believe. An agnostic doesn't even need a reason to believe what they do. All that is required to fit the general definition is no commitment to belief or disbelief in a God. The more technically accurate definition would be to say that agnosticism is the belief that the existence of a God is unknowable. Either will do.

The definitions you used seem more complicated than necessary and there is no option for someone who can be T or N but not F. Or what if they believe T or F and not N. If they believe God is F then they are atheist, T is theist, and if their mind changes to some form of N then they become agnostic. I don't see a reason for differentiation.

I like the differentiation between either and neither. It fits the standard definitions of agnosticism well. Although, I don't understand why non agnostic is used to define agnostics.
No commitment to belief or disbelief in God = non agnostic
The existence of God is unknowable = agnostic

 

[loseyourname]

The only real confusion I've ever had is this:

How do you classify someone that doesn't think he possesses the necessary case one way or the other, but thinks it is entirely possible that someone else does? That's basically the way I feel. I've never seen a compelling argument or piece of evidence either way, and so I consider myself to be agnostic. That's always been my self-identification. That said, my belief isn't so strong as to wed me to the proposition that it is impossible for any human ever to know whether or not God exists. I used to feel that way, but lately I've felt some sympathy for the possibility that there may be genuinely religious experiences by which some person can come to know God and that I have just never experienced anything of this sort. It's just that it seems untenable for me to draw a conclusion about what someone can or cannot learn from a given experience if I've never had that experience myself.

Anyway, maybe we should actually distinguish between weak and strong agnosticism. Weak agnosticism would be the claim that an individual or group does not and cannot at the time possesses the necessary evidence to make a determination one way or the other. This is still an epistemic claim, but it is a claim about the limits of one's own knowledge or of current human knowledge. Strong agnosticism would make the stronger claim that such evidence will never be and can never be forthcoming.

 

[the_truth]

"You are identifying standards for justification with beliefs about truth. The two are typically closely intertwined in practice, especially in scientific or philosphical contexts, but they need not be."

My standard of justification is based on what is correct or not. Therefore atheists and monotheists have a standard of justification which is based on what is not correct.

Belief is intertwined with everything. If somone believed 1+1=3 and someone believed 1+1=2. It does not mean they are both correct. Belief is irrelevant. Atheists and monotheists have the same intelligence and access to evidence as I do, if their standard of justification was based on correctness they would reach the same conclusion as me as I am correct. As I have just proven.

"One can believe a proposition is true in the absence of sufficient knowledge, or proof, etc. of its veracity-- it's called 'faith.' An agnostic theist, for example, may concede that God's existence cannot be 'proven,' but nonetheless believe that God exists as an article of faith."

There is no proof that there will be proof of god. As I already conclusively proved in order to further my argument, if you cannot prove something it doesn't matter whether you can disprove it or not and it joins the ranks of the conceivably infinite unprovable and undisprovable things.

"Likewise for an agnostic strong atheist. Because of this gap between standards of justification for beliefs and actually held beliefs-- because some people may believe things at least partially based on faith-- we must differentiate between what it means to hold a stance about agnosticism and what it means to hold a stance about (a)theism. They are not points along a continuum."

You cannot be an atheist and an agnostic they are mutually exclusive. It is like saying 1+1=2=3. In this case of someone who is uncertain about god's (partially based on faith) existence then they are an agnostic agnostically strong agnostic weak agnostic agnostic, but in no way can they be an agnostic polytheistic strong monotheial atheist agnostic.

They are not points along a continuum. There is nothing to suggest they are related in any way. They are a description of whether you do one, the other or neither. Or both, if you happen to believe god exists and that god can choose not to exist and has such power over the fabric of reality he can make himself literally non-existant. Though there is no proof to suggest this either.

You either believe in reality or you don't. The only way to change my beliefs would be to prove that I am not believing in reality.

It seems the same applies to DaveC426913. The chances are DaveC426913 believes in something which I don't and I believe in something which DaveC426913 does not. However our beliefs are irrelevant as it seems we have both chosen to determine what reality is and believe in that and if our beliefs were to conflict we would undoubtedly set about finding the truth alike a pair of scientists trying to find the properties of different aluminium alloys as part of a research and development program to improve aircraft fuselages. I don't think there would be any space for a standard of justification based on things which aren't true (for whatever reason a person would not want to believe in things which aren't true) in either occurance.


You may have noticed that my/this flawless argument is not even having to withstand debate, it is so correct, tangible and true that it is sending shockwaves of reason throughout everyone's minds and pulling down a lot of other unreasonable "beliefs" along with it.