Hey, "agnostics", I have news for you.

[Sophus]

Have to disagree with you there. I don't see why one must choose between two options. There can be equal doubt for both positions in one individual, although I agree that more often than not people do lean toward one or the other even when taking an Agnostic stance. I think the options should read: "I believe there is most likely (or certainly) a God", "I believe there is most likely (or certainly) not a God", or "I believe God may exist or may not exist." Of course this doesn't define the God or Creator so if you technically this individual could be an atheist in regards to many of the gods humanity has ever created. The problem is a pure agnostic might say "I don't believe in God" which would make them an atheist, until they may also claim "I don't not believe in God either." If I had lived in the days of Wegener's super-continent theory I probably would have said "I don't believe in his theory since there is no explanation. But there is an awful lot of evidence for it as well, so I don't discredit it either."

[Dragon_Of_Heavon]

I am not quite sure that I agree Jill. Agnostic means that we know that we don't believe. When a person states that they are an atheist it is equivalent to the statement: I know what I do not believe and I understand what I will and will not expect in order to create belief. Agnosticism on the other hand is to an atheist as training wheels are to a bike. Agnostics are in limbo between having and understanding of what they believe and disbelieve. It is a time for them to question and really discern if they can live without the crutch of a God. Lets face it some people have lived under it so long that they are dependent upon their old dude in the sky. It is easy for them and so they continue. Agnosticism is an important step. For some of us it can take a long time, for others it happens almost instantaneously it depends upon the person. At least that is what I think.

[JillSwift]

Have to disagree with you there. I don't see why one must choose between two options. There can be equal doubt for both positions in one individual, although I agree that more often than not people do lean toward one or the other even when taking an Agnostic stance. I think the options should read: "I believe there is most likely (or certainly) a God", "I believe there is most likely (or certainly) not a God", or "I believe God may exist or may not exist." Of course this doesn't define the God or Creator so if you technically this individual could be an atheist in regards to many of the gods humanity has ever created. The problem is a pure agnostic might say "I don't believe in God" which would make them an atheist, until they may also claim "I don't not believe in God either." If I had lived in the days of Wegener's super-continent theory I probably would have said "I don't believe in his theory since there is no explanation. But there is an awful lot of evidence for it as well, so I don't discredit it either."

"He may or may not exist" is an atheist position. Like i said, without belief ("he exists") you have no belief - doesn't change that you believe it's possible, just that you don't have a belief that he does.

Again, it's an illusion of language that "disbelief" is an opposing state. It's not a two-position thing, there is belief in a god thing, or no belief in this god thing, or belief in any of a vast number of things that are contradictory to the god thing... whatever those may be.

Not discrediting an idea does not entail belief in it. Your last example there, replacing "supercontinent" with "god' and you have an agnostic atheist, not a pure agnostic.


Dragon: No, agnostic means "without knowledge" and does not address belief.

[Sophus]

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. And it's a very good observation. But I don't discredit the idea of someone being completely in the middle. At one point in my life I was. It was a time of breaking psychological barriers, a journey from theism to atheism. There was a time in my teens when you could have asked me "Do you believe in God?" and I would have responded "I don't know". Merely because I was undecided. There seemed reasons for it, and reasons against it. Until I thought through other reasons for God and saw the flaws. So I concede my previous statement defining an agnostic's stance. Perhaps a pure agnostic is one who simply hasn't discovered their position. If they are undecided as to their position I don't think we are to judge for them what it is. Although, as I mentioned before, there's a good chance this person would not be considering some sort of omni-theism, thus they would indeed be considered agnostic atheists when questioned about their beliefs toward a less popular religion or deity.

But I do want to emphasize that you are absolutely right in most cases. People tend to lean one way or the other and often one will identify as agnostic simply because they acknowledge they don't take a stance of certainty.

[JillSwift]

Someone who's in the position of perfect uncertainty does not believe, but is considering belief. Or, they do believe and are considering abandoning that belief. No matter the level of certainty or doubt in a belief, the belief itself is either on or off. It can't be any other way, as belief is a positive position.

At the level of human experience, any positive position has two states: True or false. There are no degrees of pregnancy, for instance. There are no degrees of existence. A circuit is either energized or null.

It isn't until we start looking at a broader picture that we start having continuums form. Is the pregnancy likely to come to term? How long will the object exist in that state? How much energy is in the circuit?

Similarly, belief in anything is true or false. Then you start expanding on that: How certain are you of the belief? How much knowledge/evidence do you have for the belief? Are you doubting the belief?

Just because the emotions surrounding god belief and doubts about the safety of abandoning that kind of belief can obscure your own knowledge of self and keep you from being able to easily answer the question doesn't mean you stand on some middle ground between the two poles.

[liveyoungdiefast]

I would guess half of agnostics are true agnostics, a very small part of them are doubtful theists/deists, and the rest are atheists who don't find the word aesthetically pleasing.

I was an 'agnostic' who took awhile to want to say 'atheist'. Now I don't mind it at all, I realize it is an accurate description and it reflects who I am. Though I still prefer the term freethinker. Though if someone asked me if I was an atheist I would say yes.

Agnostics still are almost all generally allies in the fight for a secular, free world. Very, very few agnostics would choose the side of the theocrats.

[joeactor]

... there are two types of people in the world:
Those who divide the world into two types, and ...

I've gotta disagree with the whole "On/Off" model for the human mind.
It's entirely possible that neurons, and the mind as a whole, operate more like quantum mechanics.
Instead of a pure "True" or "False", there may be a superposition of both states at the same time.

Viola!  Agnostic.

Running on Fuzzy Logic,
JoeActor

[JillSwift]

Joe, it's not a model of the human mind; straw man.

Quantum theory? The Copenhagen interpretation says that once observed the superposition state collapses into a single possibility. Thus perfect agnosticism can only exist with perfect ignorance of the subject... which would be what the word "agnostic" means: no knowledge. But... if they don't know about the idea, then... hey! They don't believe in it! You can't believe in an idea unless you are aware of the idea.

My position is a recognition that a basic, positive position is really a true/false situation. Certainty of the belief is a continuum, knowledge backing the belief is a continuum, ideas stemming from the belief is a continuum. The belief itself is a positive position.

In short, y'all are conflating belief with certainty and knowledge.

[Sophus]

Someone who's in the position of perfect uncertainty does not believe, but is considering belief. Or, they do believe and are considering abandoning that belief.

The previous state of belief does not dictate what one must currently believe. As one could grow highly skeptical of the beliefs they held dear a few weeks ago they could be just as skeptical at the new opinions being presented toward them.

From experience I can say I was once equally skeptical of theism and atheism.

No matter the level of certainty or doubt in a belief, the belief itself is either on or off. It can't be any other way, as belief is a positive position.

Belief is indeed between a positive and a negative. No argument there (even though I could play devil's advocate )But there then must be a third position if those are a given: neutral. Let's have a hypothetical man who has just now heard of the idea of god. He hears a debate between an Atheist and Theist. During the argument our hypothetical thinker credits each side with 7 well-made valid arguments. A +7 - 7 comes out to a zero. Our poor bloke has yet to come to a decision. (It's corny I know, but I think it gets the point across). Does he take a positive stance of believing in God? No. Does he take a negative stance by believing there likely is no God? Nope. This situation is probably rare and wouldn't last long but I think a state of complete uncertainty is plausible.
Another example may be a person of a positive or negative stance caught off guard by a surprisingly strong argument from the opposition. If they're completely honest they may say, 'Wait until I figure out if I believe this argument is true and then I'll let you know my stance on the big picture.'

Quantum theory? The Copenhagen interpretation says that once observed the superposition state collapses into a single possibility. Thus perfect agnosticism can only exist with perfect ignorance of the subject...

Quantum theory is full of interpretations. I think that's the point Joe was making. Predicting sub-atomic behavior you can have equally plausible arguments from separate positions.

[curiosityandthecat]

[Tanker]

That's probably the first cat I ever actually literaly laughed out loud at. But I kinda like the hig brow humor hiding a low brow humor thing from the pic. Sorry that's it for my digression


(I didn't put the smily there aparently it's automatic when you write L O L together. I don't like that personally I dislike emoticons and smilelies aso I don't use them...well EXTREMLY rarely)

[joeactor]

Quantum theory? The Copenhagen interpretation says that once observed the superposition state collapses into a single possibility. Thus perfect agnosticism can only exist with perfect ignorance of the subject...

Quantum theory is full of interpretations. I think that's the point Joe was making. Predicting sub-atomic behavior you can have equally plausible arguments from separate positions.

Absolutely.  And though the "observer" phenomenon has been tested, it's never rung true for me.  Besides, where neurons and the human mind are concerned, who would be the "observer"???



KITTY: NONE?
JoeActor

[Miss Anthrope]

Semantics aside, this is why, to a certain degree, I don't agree with the OP:

My personal, simplistic interpretations of the three "main" labels:

Theist - a person who believes
Agnostic - a person who could go either way if presented with the "right" knowledge, thus, the "middle ground"
Atheist - a person who doesn't believe

It seems you're intellectualizing the whole thing, and don't get me wrong, I have nothing against that, this world needs deep, intellectual thought. But the labels are there primarily so that we can distinguish ourselves in a general way. To tell a bunch of agnostics that they're actually atheists because of the way you interpet the concept of belief (as an on/off function) is, in the end, a sisyphean task. Technicalities aside, I see the term agnostic as a term for someone who wants to easily communicate, with a label, that they don't necessarily not believe in a god. If I fully explained my belief system in detail, I would probably fall under a few different categories "across the board", so to speak, so "agnostic" is a simple way to communicate that. In general, if you use the word "atheist", a lot of people automatically think that you believe that there isn't a god. As far as the ancient ideas of god, I could say I'm an atheist, but I tend towards the belief that some wilder notion of a "deity" might exist, so if I label myself an atheist it would be misleading. I think you're right, to a degree, about there having to be some sort of belief, so if someone believes that there could be "something else", than doesn't that qualify as being in at least approximately the "middle ground"?