Agnosticism

[Asmodean]

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

LOL! ME? No, I have proved nothing.  

And if by our space, you mean the three geometric dimensions, then does time exist in our space? What about something like a singularity? Gravity..? Or, for that matter, anything at all that can not be fully explained by a combination of 3D coordinates and vectors..?

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

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.

We are all familiar with the definitions of the words, but that is not the point of this thread. I will repost the key points from my OP:

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.

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

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.

The bolded bit is the point of this thread. I'm sure agnostics would have no trouble agreeing with the bolded sentence. But replace the tooth fairy with an almost infinitely more ridiculous story, god, and they find themselves compelled to qualify their lack of belief with the word "agnostic".

Why?

[Inevitable Droid]

But replace the tooth fairy with an almost infinitely more ridiculous story, god, and they find themselves compelled to qualify their lack of belief with the word "agnostic".

Why?

I think most agnostics view Deism as plausible but unverifiable, so they claim agnosticism toward Deism.  Ask them if Christianity or Islam are plausible and they will generally say no, I think, and so they reject those creeds outright.  I welcome correction by any agnostic who disagrees.  Meanwhile, what I'm describing is an epistemological stance.  The plausible but unverifiable is retained in a "pending verification" category.  No sane adult views the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or Santa Claus as plausible, so the agnostic rejects them outright.

I'm not agnostic.  I reject the unverifiable as readily as the implausible or the demonstrably false.  I have a "pending verification" category, but nothing gets placed there unless a path to verification is feasible.  That which must forever elude empiricism and logic is deemed non-existent and promptly jettisoned.

[Sophus]

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.

Just a side note, that is definitely not always the case.

[LegendarySandwich]

It's my view that atheism and agnosticism is largely the same thing most of the time -- really, it's a matter of what you want to call yourself.

[elliebean]

We are all familiar with the definitions of the words, but that is not the point of this thread. I will repost the key points from my OP:

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.

Why even have the term 'atheism', for that matter?

*points at 'worldview' tag* ------------------------------------------------------------>

[LegendarySandwich]

We are all familiar with the definitions of the words, but that is not the point of this thread. I will repost the key points from my OP:

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.

Why even have the term 'atheism', for that matter?

*points at 'worldview' tag* ------------------------------------------------------------>

How dare you not believe in smurfs! Look at all the evidence for them! Haven't you seen "The Smurfs"?

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

But replace the tooth fairy with an almost infinitely more ridiculous story, god, and they find themselves compelled to qualify their lack of belief with the word "agnostic".

Why?

I think most agnostics view Deism as plausible but unverifiable, so they claim agnosticism toward Deism.  Ask them if Christianity or Islam are plausible and they will generally say no, I think, and so they reject those creeds outright.  I welcome correction by any agnostic who disagrees.  Meanwhile, what I'm describing is an epistemological stance.  The plausible but unverifiable is retained in a "pending verification" category.  No sane adult views the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or Santa Claus as plausible, so the agnostic rejects them outright.

If some agnostics do indeed view deism as plausible, but not the tooth fairy, I would love to hear their reasoning.

If I had two stories presented to me, one of which involved a fairy exchanging money for teeth on one tiny little planet, and the other involving a different fairy who zapped up a universe with a magic wand, and I had to describe one of them as plausible, then my money is on the tooth fairy.

[Sophus]

It's my view that atheism and agnosticism is largely the same thing most of the time -- really, it's a matter of what you want to call yourself.

Yes I agree. I think Dawkins' new religious scale is much more useful now. How many agnostics like this do we see?  

[Inevitable Droid]

I think Dawkins' new religious scale is much more useful now.

His scale doesn't work for me, unfortunately.  Here's his scale, according to Wikipedia - source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability#Dawkins.27_formulation -

1.Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2.Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3.Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4.Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5.Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
6.Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7.Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

The above doesn't fit me because I refuse to even consider the question of whether God exists, on the grounds that, since in discussions of this sort I think I'd have to define God as, "that which, not of nature, is nature's author," the hypothesis of God's existence is unfalsifiable.

[Gawen]

Why even have the term 'atheism', for that matter?

*points at 'worldview' tag* ------------------------------------------------------------>

Because "worldview" could mean anything.

[elliebean]

Why even have the term 'atheism', for that matter?

*points at 'worldview' tag* ------------------------------------------------------------>

Because "worldview" could mean anything.

Not sure I follow, Gawen.  

[Gawen]

Not sure I follow, Gawen.  

Well, you said:
Why even have the term 'atheism', for that matter?
*points at 'worldview' tag* ------------------------------------------------------------>

Then I said:
Because "worldview" could mean anything.

I was going to say...So I'm not following why you're not following...*chucklin*

But now I get it. I was the one not following...sheesh...sorry.

[Sophus]

The above doesn't fit me because I refuse to even consider the question of whether God exists, on the grounds that, since in discussions of this sort I think I'd have to define God as, "that which, not of nature, is nature's author," the hypothesis of God's existence is unfalsifiable.

How would that differ from a living as an atheist de facto though (number 6)? Or do you mean to say you are an apatheist?