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

[JillSwift]

You're an atheist.

Seriously.

Belief is one of those few black-n-white things in life. Like being pregnant, it's an is or isn't thing.

I know you prefer to think you're neutral on the subject of god, and you are - as a position of knowledge, not belief. It is possible to be unsure, and for most subject being less that 100% certain is the best position to have. It leaves you able to change your opinion when new facts are discovered, able to question your own world-view and the world-view of others in a constructive, healthy way.

However, as a matter of belief, you're an atheist. (EDIT replacing the struck-out paragraph below:) I can say this with a high degree of certainty, because it is common for those who claim to be "agnostic" to be atheists who don't want to be seen as "closed-minded", or to wish to avoid using the term "atheist", or - in it's worst form - someone who is being intellectually dishonest and choosing this make-believe null position.

[strike:1s3msaz4]I can say this with a high degree of certainty, because were you to believe in god, you'd not be agnostic about it. You can't believe in anything if you .. well, if you don't believe in it. In not being sure about something, in being agnostic about something, is to not believe in it. You can still be open to believing in it, of course, but still not believe.[/strike:1s3msaz4]

Of course, the reason I say "high degree of certainty" is because it is perfectly possible for someone to believe  - that is, to be a theist - without taking a gnostic stance about it. To believe without saying that you know. (EDIT clarifying my reason for certainty:)  It's just rare to see theists bothering with agnosticism/gnosticism, as it often just doesn't make a difference once a person has a belief as the belief often obscures that side of the issue.

Similarly, it is possible to not believe - that is, to be an atheist - without taking a gnostic stance about it. That is, to not believe without saying that you know.

I bother to bring this up because it is a common misconception that agnosticism is somehow this middle ground between belief and non-belief when in fact it has nothing whatever to do with the belief itself, but (as its root word "gnosis" suggests) is about knowledge.

[joeactor]

Hey Jill,

I'm afraid I am proof that you are incorrect in your assumption.

It is very possible to be an Agnostic Theist...

Belief and Knowledge are two different realms.
In fact, if you have evidence that backs up your beliefs, they cease being beliefs and become knowledge.
... and if you claim to have knowledge, but have no evidence to back it up, what you have is a belief.

Where's that handy 4 quadrant graphic someone posted for this?

I Believe I Don't Know,
JoeActor

[Whitney]

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:

    * Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")
    â€"the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

    * Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
    â€"the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out."

    * Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)
    â€"the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed]

    * Agnostic atheism
    â€"the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.[9]

    * Agnostic theism (also called "spiritual agnosticism")
    â€"the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.)

    * Ignosticism
    â€"the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.[10][dubious â€" discuss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

For the last 'definition' ignostic would still not believe in a god due to one not being defined to believe in.  Drange seems to have forgotten that if you don't believe something due to the definition being incoherent that you still don't believe in that something and would be an agnostic atheist.  You wouldn't claim to have knowledge and don't believe.  Ignostic is a nice word to use if you want to throw around terms most people haven't heard of

[Heretical Rants]

I dunno; when I still labeled myself "agnostic" I often made appeals to the patriarchal sky-god.

Now that I'm Christian, it's all I do!

[Whitney]

Where's that handy 4 quadrant graphic someone posted for this?

Were you thinking of one of these?

[attachment=1:1o7g2uwc]atheist_chart.gif[/attachment:1o7g2uwc]
[attachment=0:1o7g2uwc]atheisttheistagnosticgnyh5.jpg[/attachment:1o7g2uwc]

[joeactor]

Yes!  Those are them (they?)

Thanks Whit!

[JillSwift]

Hey Jill,

I'm afraid I am proof that you are incorrect in your assumption.

It is very possible to be an Agnostic Theist...

Belief and Knowledge are two different realms.
In fact, if you have evidence that backs up your beliefs, they cease being beliefs and become knowledge.
... and if you claim to have knowledge, but have no evidence to back it up, what you have is a belief.

Where's that handy 4 quadrant graphic someone posted for this?

I Believe I Don't Know,
JoeActor

Crispy crackers! Do please read what I wrote, this time with some care:

it is perfectly possible for someone to believe - that is, to be a theist - without taking a gnostic stance about it.

See, this message was aimed at people who misuse "agnostic" as being some sort of middle ground between belief and non-belief.

[joeactor]

Uh... I did read what you said:

You're an atheist.

Seriously.

... and ...

However, as a matter of belief, you're an atheist. I can say this with a high degree of certainty, because were you to believe in god, you'd not be agnostic about it. You can't believe in anything if you .. well, if you don't believe in it. In not being sure about something, in being agnostic about something, is to not believe in it. You can still be open to believing in it, of course, but still not believe.

... but I'm not an atheist.

When you start out with a statement, then refute it by stating the opposite, you've said both everything, and nothing.

So.  See.  (Sigh)

[JillSwift]

Uh... I did read what you said:

You're an atheist.

Seriously.

That's because the post is aimed at those who think "agnostic" is a middle-ground. (You're not an agnostic. You're an agnostic theist. See?)

However, as a matter of belief, you're an atheist. I can say this with a high degree of certainty, because were you to believe in god, you'd not be agnostic about it. You can't believe in anything if you .. well, if you don't believe in it. In not being sure about something, in being agnostic about something, is to not believe in it. You can still be open to believing in it, of course, but still not believe.

... but I'm not an atheist.

When you start out with a statement, then refute it by stating the opposite, you've said both everything, and nothing.

So.  See.  (Sigh)

Ok, there's the real problem. Most of that paragraph is left over from my first (and particularly awful) draft of the message. I can't say how I managed to let that stand, as it's obviously total tripe. I guess I need a copy editor. I've corrected my original post and tried to make it more clear.

[Sophus]

I see what Jill is saying. There are a lot of folks who identify as Agnostics simply because they mistake atheism as being certain in disbelief. While some certainly are, I am certainly not. Yet I don't identify as Agnostic simply because an Atheist is simply one who does not accept any gods. In this sense, some Agnostics would be considered Atheists, but I wouldn't go as far to say that all of them are.

Here's Dawkins Belief Scale:

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

[JillSwift]

4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.

I disagree that this state can exist. Where it is possible that to come to the conclusion of equiprobability and therefore not know, it fails to answer the question "do you believe?"

If a person who claims pure agnosticism is asked "do you believe", and they say "I don't know" - they haven't answered the question. We know that an agnostic doesn't know, that's what the word means.

The answer of "yes" or "no" leaves us with obvious results. There we have weak theists and weak atheists.

Does any other answer actually satisfy the question? I don't think so. Most attempts at answering neutrally are essentially non-belief. They are atheists. Which is how I come to the conclusion that most - and I stretch that to "almost all" with only minor trepidation - "pure agnostics" are really agnostic atheists. Which is the point I so poorly tried to make in my OP.

I'd love to hear an answer that challenges that. Until and unless one comes along, however, I still conclude that "pure agnostics" are really agnostic atheists.

[joeactor]

I see your point... Ok, how about this:

A "Pure Agnostic" does not believe in believing, where the question of god is concerned.
For them, the question itself makes no sense.
You might as well ask "What sound is wood?" or "How long is purple?"

Does "Do you believe in god?" constitute a valid question if the person claims no knowledge one way or the other?

Maybe.

Is belief always required?
If not, then one can be neutral on belief as well as knowledge.

Lost in thought,
JoeActor

[JillSwift]

I see your point... Ok, how about this:

A "Pure Agnostic" does not believe in believing, where the question of god is concerned.
For them, the question itself makes no sense.
You might as well ask "What sound is wood?" or "How long is purple?"

Does "Do you believe in god?" constitute a valid question if the person claims no knowledge one way or the other?

Maybe.

Is belief always required?
If not, then one can be neutral on belief as well as knowledge.

Lost in thought,
JoeActor

If the person in question finds that the question makes no sense, then he or she does not believe and is thus an atheist.

The problem is that the words "theist" and "atheist" exist based on the assumption that there is a god to believe in. We don't have words like "leprechaunist" and "aleprechaunist" because no one takes the idea of leprechauns very seriously. This generates an illusion making atheism seem like a positive belief itself, when - like the word "cold" describes a lack of thermal energy - it describes the lack of belief.

That's what I mean when i say that belief is black-n-white. Belief is the positive state - it entails something specific. Without that specificity you then have non-belief even if you can claim no knowledge about it at all.

[Sophus]

I think a pure agnostic could exist especially if the individual doesn't think about it much or it's not an important question to them in their life. An apatheist could be a pure agnostic as well. It's just a state where you don't claim a negative or positive stance which is certainly possible with anything else.

Imagine yourself as someone in the early 20th century listening to Alfred Wegener's claim of Pangaea. There was a substantial amount of evidence for it yet because he couldn't explain how the continental drift happened the theory was not accepted. But I would imagine their were a fair amount of people giving the super-continent idea an equal amount of potential as it just being coincidence that the geographic feature and fossils aligned.

If anybody can fall between 1 and 7 on the belief scale based on their level of certainty I see no reason why it can't fall 50/50.

[JillSwift]

I think a pure agnostic could exist especially if the individual doesn't think about it much or it's not an important question to them in their life. An apatheist could be a pure agnostic as well. It's just a state where you don't claim a negative or positive stance which is certainly possible with anything else.

Imagine yourself as someone in the early 20th century listening to Alfred Wegener's claim of Pangaea. There was a substantial amount of evidence for it yet because he couldn't explain how the continental drift happened the theory was not accepted. But I would imagine their were a fair amount of people giving the super-continent idea an equal amount of potential as it just being coincidence that the geographic feature and fossils aligned.

If anybody can fall between 1 and 7 on the belief scale based on their level of certainty I see no reason why it can't fall 50/50.

Because belief is a positive descriptive thing, like I said above. You have it (to whatever degree) or, you don't.

In your example - It's possible to be "perfectly unsure" and to give equal weight to two or more possibilities. But that still leaves the question: Which possibility do you believe is true?

An "apatheist" is just an agnostic who doesn't care to give it any thought. "I don't know because I don't care." It still leaves open the question "do you believe?" I suspect most apatheists are atheists as well - they just don't care enough about the question to bother to label themselves. But, whether you care or not, if the belief is absent, atheist it is.

It's like a light switch. There's really an infinite number of positions the switch can be in, but in the continuum of switch positions there are only two clear sets: A set where the electricity is not flowing and putting the light on and the set where the electricity is not.