Agnosticism

[Inevitable Droid]

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?  

I don't think there's a better word for me than atheist.  I certainly don't believe there's a God.  The only interesting thing about me is my reason why.  I don't believe there's a God because I refuse to consider the question as to whether there is or not, because God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.  I agree that comes close to apatheist, but it doesn't quite go all the way there.  I'm not apathetic.  I'm militantly opposed to considering unfalsifiable hypotheses.  I strongly assert that considering them is epistemological treason.  I could call myself a scientarian atheist.

[Stevil]

Atheists and Theists, in my opinion are similar in that they all hold onto a religious belief and do not require any proof what so ever to substantiate that belief.

Agnostics don't make a hard claim unless there is substantial proof.
If a scientist puts forward a new interesting theory then generally lots of people rush around trying to prove or disprove that theory. I feel science gets into trouble and reaches dead-ends with regards to progression when they start to hold onto these theories as beliefs and never doubt them.

In essence there may not be a huge difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic, Agnostics aren't likely to live their lives based on rules made up as part of an unproven theory. Unless they have a huge fear of eternal damnation and are willing to live up to rules based on the unlikely eventuality that the theory was correct after all. But Agnostics won't make bold statements and ridicule or try to convert others into the opinion that there is no god as they know they cannot present substantial proof of that.

With regards to Santa, Toothfairy etc, has anyone heard statements from surprised and bewildered parents with regards to presents or toothfairy money appearing without it coming from the parents? I am sure if this happened there would be a great fuss otherwise it is one of the worlds best kept secrets.

[Whitney]

But Agnostics won't make bold statements and ridicule or try to convert others into the opinion that there is no god as they know they cannot present substantial proof of that.

Someone can be atheist and agnostic...

Since atheist means without belief in god as long as you stay away from the gnostic definition all agnostics default to atheist since they do not have a belief.  Atheist doesn't mean someone who knows there isn't a god.

[Stevil]

My bad.  I'm new to all these labels, just trying to make sense of them myself. Your post now makes me wonder what the difference is between agnostic and atheism?

[Whitney]

My bad.  I'm new to all these labels, just trying to make sense of them myself. Your post now makes me wonder what the difference is between agnostic and atheism?

Agnostic is without knowledge ( a meaning without, gnostic meaning knowledge)...so an agnostic is someone who doesn't think it is possible to know if a god exists or not.

atheist is the opposite of theist...so atheist is someone without a belief in god.

atheist/theist: belief (or lack of)
agnostic/gnostic: knowledge

while I did say before that agnostics default to atheist I was being a bit too general, it's possible for a theist to be agnostic too.  My previous comment was more towards agnostics who think they are neither atheist nor theist.

[Stevil]

Agnostic is without knowledge ( a meaning without, gnostic meaning knowledge)...so an agnostic is someone who doesn't think it is possible to know if a god exists or not.

atheist is the opposite of theist...so atheist is someone without a belief in god.

atheist/theist: belief (or lack of)
agnostic/gnostic: knowledge

while I did say before that agnostics default to atheist I was being a bit too general, it's possible for a theist to be agnostic too.  My previous comment was more towards agnostics who think they are neither atheist nor theist.

Hmmm.  I struggle to comprehend how a person can think it is not possible to know if a god exists but also believe that a god exists.
Probably because I equate belief with a personal "unproven" knowledge.
e.g. If you asked me if I believe in extra terrestrial life. I would say that it is most likely, given the amount of stars and planets in our galaxy and the universe and having the possibility that there are many other universes (I consider a Universe to be the result of one big bang, if there was one). But I would say that I don't have a belief for or against extra terrestrial life as it hasn't been proven either way. For me, the same goes for god/s.
How can a person say that they believe in God but don't think that it is possible to know that God exists?
How can a person say that they believe there is no God but don't think it is possible to know that God doesn't exist?

If you are looking for the swing vote then I guess it depends which way the wind is blowing

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

Yes, if there is motion in the system.

What about something like a singularity?

Cygnus X-1

Gravity..? Or, for that matter, anything at all that can not be fully explained by a combination of 3D coordinates and vectors..?

The attraction of masses has physical evidence.  The square root of -1 does not, to my knowledge, have any analog in space.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

The action of gravity -- to wit, the motion of masses towards each other -- is explicable precisely in terms of co-ordinates and vectors.

[TinkerBelle]

My bad.  I'm new to all these labels, just trying to make sense of them myself. Your post now makes me wonder what the difference is between agnostic and atheism?

Agnostic is without knowledge ( a meaning without, gnostic meaning knowledge)...so an agnostic is someone who doesn't think it is possible to know if a god exists or not.

atheist is the opposite of theist...so atheist is someone without a belief in god.

atheist/theist: belief (or lack of)
agnostic/gnostic: knowledge

while I did say before that agnostics default to atheist I was being a bit too general, it's possible for a theist to be agnostic too.  My previous comment was more towards agnostics who think they are neither atheist nor theist.

Okay, here goes. (should've had that cup of coffee first)
Correct me if I'm wrong: Agnostic is someone who doesn't know if god exists.
You stated "Someone who doesn't think it's possible to know if a god exists or not."
I don't know if god exists... period. I think anything is possible, although sometimes highly unlikely. You are over-complicating things, IMHO. What I think is possible is not quite the same as "I don't know". Agnostic simply means without knowledge, yes/no? I stand by the fact that I don't know, and neither does anyone else. No one has that "knowledge".

I concur with Stevil in a way. It seems contradictory to say "I don't know if god exists, but I believe god exists."

Granted, I don't have the mind-boggling mathematical equations laid out to make any argument of importance, but I still stand by the one thing I know... "I don't know." To me, it's the only true answer.

Maybe there should be subcategories to the subcategories of Atheist, Theist, Agnostic, and so forth.

Cheers,
Holly (maybe I would know more if I'd had that cup of coffee)  

Edit: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic
I stand corrected on the actual definition of agnostic. (knew I should've had that coffee) Still stand by my previous statements.

[Stevil]

Belief is a contradictory term.

If someone asked me the question "Do you believe in trees?", i would likely respond by saying something like "I know they exist, that was a bloody strange question buddy"

But if you ask a theist if they believe in God the answer would be "Yes"

So in my mind the Theist knows that their conviction on whether God exists is only as strong as a belief and not a fact. Therefore they know there is no proof. Which would mean they don't know that God exists.

Given the above they are saying "I don't know that God exists however I believe that God exists", which as we have postulated is a contradiction in its own right.

[Inevitable Droid]

Given the above they are saying "I don't know that God exists however I believe that God exists", which as we have postulated is a contradiction in its own right.

Some theists, the more sophisticated ones, will say, "I don't know that God exists, but based on what I know of the universe, I think the probability of God's existence is higher than the probability of God non-existence."

It would be hard to find a Deist, for example, who disagrees with the above as stated.

Probe that position and what you inevitably find is the intuition that organisms are too complex to have arisen without prior planning.  Staunch Darwinists will claim that natural selection and time are sufficient explanations, but the Deist's intuition still balks.  My response to the Deist at that point would be, "Fine, then don't accept the natural selection plus time hypothesis.  Replace it with a more comprehensive proto-hypothesis, namely, that the laws of physics constrain chemistry, and chemistry constrains mutation, and then natural selection constrains perpetuation.  And then start doing science to explore your proto-hypothesis, in the hope of gathering data that will suggest a serious, testable hypothesis, or more than one.  Do science!  Not theology."

[Thumpalumpacus]

You stated "Someone who doesn't think it's possible to know if a god exists or not."

There are some agnostics who hold to this belief.  I reject it.  History is full of things once thought "impossible" and yet are now commonplace.

In short, such a position can only be one of faith, because knowing the future is not possible with our current technology.

[Stevil]

You stated "Someone who doesn't think it's possible to know if a god exists or not."

There are some agnostics who hold to this belief.

In short, such a position can only be one of faith

I feel Agnostics hold their position because they want to hold onto proof and if there isn't proof they are willing to stay open minded until such proof comes along, hence they do not take upon themselves any belief. With this in mind it doesn't make sense that an Agnostic would ruin their stance by taking on a belief that there will never be proof.

However in saying that I myself struggle to see how you can ever get proof that there is no God simply due to the theory that God can do anything and hence there are no boundaries to test. If you disprove every single sentence of the bible does this prove that God doesn't exist? I think not. Why would God be bound to the words in the edited compilation of various peoples literature called the Bible? The Bible is pure Here-say which has been tainted by the editor and the various translators and the various interpreters. However I do actually believe that one day there might be proof that God exists. Maybe God will all of a sudden configure a huge group of clouds in the sky to form the shape of his/her/its face and move the lips in synch with the message that it is saying. Oh and also simultaneously make all blind people see and all deaf people hear and all mental people coherent and reasonable enough to be able to see, hear and understand this proof. That would be pretty amazing, I certainly would become a believer.
Post edit: Actually not a believer but instead I would then know that there is a God like intelligence capable of performing miracles

[Stevil]

Some theists, the more sophisticated ones, will say, "I don't know that God exists, but based on what I know of the universe, I think the probability of God's existence is higher than the probability of God non-existence."

It would be hard to find a Deist, for example, who disagrees with the above as stated.

So would a more accurate term for these people be Agnostic Theists or Agnostic Deists, just as I am feeling comfortable terming myself as an Agnostic Atheist?

[Asmodean]

The square root of -1 does not, to my knowledge, have any analog in space.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

Not exactly wrong, no. The dimension added to one by square rooting its negative is not a geometric one. Oh, a complex number may well have a geometric part, but that is only a part of the whole.

The action of gravity -- to wit, the motion of masses towards each other -- is explicable precisely in terms of co-ordinates and vectors.

"What is gravity" can indeed be explained by a number of vectors. However, it is not a full explanation. A full explanation would require adding extra dimensions, such as mass and/or time. However, both are something a human can easily contemplate since both are something we are very used to.

[Thumpalumpacus]

With this in mind it doesn't make sense that an Agnostic would ruin their stance by taking on a belief that there will never be proof.

I agree.  The fact remains that there are indeed agnostics who hold this untenable position.

However in saying that I myself struggle to see how you can ever get proof that there is no God simply due to the theory that God can do anything and hence there are no boundaries to test.

Pardon me for saying so, but your bias is showing.  Agnostics of the sor described above believe that there can be no knowing one way or the other, i.e., they believe that they can be no evidence at all, either positive or negative.  "No boundaries" does not mean no testing is available.  I can think of several tests which may shed light on the question, although they cannot provide defintive answers.

My point is that anything that interacts with our reality can be subject to analysis, given the proper conditions, and that is why this "hard agnosticism" is to my mind a faith-based position.