Agnosticism

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

I am curious as to why agnostics label themselves as such, or as agnostic atheists.

With regard to the tooth fairy, would a (theistic) agnostic describe their position as an agnostic afairyist or simply as an afairyist?

With regard to the easter bunny, would a (theistic) agnostic describe their position as an agnostic abunnyist or simply as an abunnyist?

With regard to every other fictional character ever invented in the history of homo sapiens, do (theistic) agnostics qualify their unbelief with the prefix "agnostic"- afictionalcharacterist?

I suspect that they do not. And this makes me wonder why they make an exception in the case of the most absurd work of fiction in history.

As I see it, the use of the word agnostic in relation to god, but not in relation to every other fictional creation ever invented, confers a slight credibility to the god story. The agnostic seems to be leaving the door slightly ajar to the possibility, however I'm sure that the door is not ajar in the mind of the agnostic with regard to the tooth fairy.

I would be interested to hear from agnostics as to why they choose to save this term exclusively for describing their stance on matters religious.

[Stevil]

Now here's an interesting topic worth exploring.

I have never believed in god or gods. Not really, maybe a bit when I was 7 or 8 and they taught a little about God at school. Back then I didn't realise that teachers lied or told untruths or told theory as if it were fact.

Up until a week ago or so I had heard the term Atheist before and I had heard the term Agnostic before, but never really knew or cared what distinguished these terms. My own beliefs were mine and I didn't need to put a label on them.

This new pope has made a recent statement that condoms are OK for male prostitutes. This bizzare revelation made it into my country's national newspaper and hence into my awareness. So religion became top of mind again for me.

I was motivated now and searched for the terms. I now think that I could probably be given the religious label of agnostic atheist. I am not an atheist because I don't have an unproven belief that there is no God. I am kind of an agnostic because I know there is currently no conclusive proof one way or the other. But then again I am very close to being Atheist because instead of simply sitting on the fence and saying I don't know, I actually put the proof of burdon onto the theory side of the argument.

Without any theories there is no God, we just all exist and get on about our business. There are many theories about god or gods all with fantastical stories and no proof, nothing to suggest how the theoriest reasonably came up with the theory. With the boundaries put on to a god creature being able to pretty much do anything, i.e. no boundaries, I don't think it would be reasonable to suggest that there will ever be conclusive proof that there is no God. Sure you could pick apart the Bible, the Koran and all such scriptures and although the majority of these books could be proven wrong given logic and boundaries that science puts on known things in the universe, if you take the logic that a God can do anything then who is to say that a God did not bend or even break these boundaries of known things in the universe. I really think that it is extremely unlikely that any of these unproven unfounded unreasonable theories of a God creature are correct. But maybe it is true, I can't absolutely say for sure. Maybe what they term as God is the programmer that created the simulation that we all exist within, may be God is the Architect that instructed the programmers what they needed to develop, maybe God is the University lecturer who suggested to a Doctorate student to create an AI similation of a civilisation just to see if they would come up with theories of a god or gods that were similar to the theories of god or gods in the real world in an attempt to prove if there really is a God. There are an infinite possibilities and maybe one of them is correct.

With regards to Santa, Toothfairy, Easter bunny, just because I am agnostic atheist with regards to God creature/s does this mean I have to be agnostic atheist with regards to these other creatures too? Is Santa a god?, Can Santa break the boundaries of the known universe? Why did Santa stop giving me presents once I found out that my parents had been posing as Santa? With regards to Toothfairy, I have instructed my wife not to pose as the toothfairy when my daughter looses her baby teeth. So the truth will be known soon here, me thinks. I will keep you guys posted as events unfold.

[Gawen]

An agnostic atheists is someone who lacks a belief (atheist) in god/s and yet unsure (agnostic) about the existence of god/s.
Another definition is a person is atheistic toward certain god/s/religions/spiritual philosophies and agnostic towards other god/s/religions/spiritual philosophies.
Some of these people claim to be open minded. But atheists are also open minded. Even the most staunch hard atheist, when presented with 'absolute' proof of a god would have to admit that that god exists. If given incontrovertible proof of the existence of a god, it would be delusional of one to say that that god does not exist in the same way that no good evidence for the existence of a god is worthy of belief. IMO, open minded is good. But Sagan, I think said, don't be so open minded that your brain falls out....or something like that.

Agnostics are fence sitters, waiting to fall to one side or the other. As Stephen Colbert says: Agnostics are just atheists without balls. On the other hand, there are theists without balls.

[Cycel]

I am curious as to why agnostics label themselves as such, or as agnostic atheists.

Good question, I've wondered this as well.

[The Magic Pudding]

Agnostics are fence sitters, waiting to fall to one side or the other. As Stephen Colbert says: Agnostics are just atheists without balls. On the other hand, they are theists without balls.

If in doubt consult your balls, if you don't posses them, thank Jeebus for small mercies.

[Cycel]

I now think that I could probably be given the religious label of agnostic atheist. I am not an atheist because I don't have an unproven belief that there is no God.

I don't think absolute proof is required.  It is often said that one cannot prove a negative.  How do you prove, after all, that something which does not exist, does not exist?

I am kind of an agnostic because I know there is currently no conclusive proof one way or the other.

Put aside, for the moment, the lack of conclusive proof and ask yourself if you think God is likely, or unlikely.  On Dawkins' 7 point scale he says this of agnostics: 4. Exactly 50 per cent (probability of God).  Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

Do you stand by the philosophical view that God is as likely as not to exist?  If you do then you are an agnostic.

But then again I am very close to being Atheist because instead of simply sitting on the fence and saying I don't know, I actually put the proof of burdon onto the theory side of the argument.

Ah, then you may be a five on the Dawkins scale: 5. Lower than 50 per cent (probability of God) but not very low.  Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'  Does that sound like you?  Then perhaps you are an agnostic-like atheist (am I defeating my own argument? Perhaps 'agnostic atheist' is a useful term.  

[Cycel]

An agnostic atheists is someone who lacks a belief (atheist) in god/s and yet unsure (agnostic) about the existence of god/s.

Or is unsure of the existence of Hell?  

[Cycel]

I have instructed my wife not to pose as the toothfairy when my daughter looses her baby teeth. So the truth will be known soon here, me thinks. I will keep you guys posted as events unfold.

I feel sorry for your daughter.  The tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa are among the joys of childhood.  I taught my children to believe in all three and today they are grown, fully committed atheists.  They can't imagine how I ever could have believed in God.  You already know the tooth fairy doesn't exist, and even if she has that pleasant little deception played on her she will never resent having been permitted the fun of believing.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I am curious as to why agnostics label themselves as such, or as agnostic atheists.

Because honesty demands as much.

Long story short:  Atheism/theism regard belief.  Gnosticism/agnosticism concern knowledge.

I am an agnostic atheist because while I cannot say that I have eliminated every possibility that a god or gods may exist, the evidence that god(s) exist is absent, and I therefore lend such claims no credence.

Agnostics are fence sitters, waiting to fall to one side or the other. As Stephen Colbert says: Agnostics are just atheists without balls. On the other hand, they are theists without balls.

That's a pretty stupid quote.  I've got 'nads to beat the band.

[Thumpalumpacus]

How do you prove, after all, that something which does not exist, does not exist?

√-2

[Asmodean]

I've always looked at agnosticism as a shade of grey between theism and atheism. Granted, an agnostic does not actively believe in a deity, which also equates to atheism, that being the lack of a belief in god(s). I think it boils down to something like this:

Theist: Reasonably certain there is a god
Agnostic theist: Don't know for sure, but methink there is a god (Technically a believer, thus theist)
Agnostic: Don't know. (technically, not a believer, thus atheist)
Apatheist: Don't know. Don't care/don't wanna know. (I'd say that one deserves its own cathegory, although technically an atheist as well)
Agnostic atheist: Don't know whether god(s) exist(s), but I doubt it (Technically an atheist)
Atheist: Reasonably certain there are no such things as gods.

So, depending on what descriptor comes after the word, agnostics are either technically theists or atheists, only not as strongly, yes..?

[Asmodean]

√-2

...Does, indeed, exist.

It's √2i, since it can be written as √2√-1

[Thumpalumpacus]

√-2

...Does, indeed, exist.

It's √2i, since it can be written as √2√-1

And 2*<imaginary number> = real number?

Very well:  âˆš-1.

[Asmodean]

And 2*<imaginary number> = real number?

Very well:  âˆš-1.

That exists as well. As I stated in another thread somewhere, this is not ye basic algebraic number within real (Geometric 3D) value. This is a complex number, having coordinates in more than the three geometric dimentions.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And 2*<imaginary number> = real number?

Very well:  âˆš-1.

That exists as well. As I stated in another thread somewhere, this is not ye basic algebraic number within real (Geometric 3D) value. This is a complex number, having coordinates in more than the three geometric dimentions.

So you've proved that it doesn't exist in our space?