• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is agnosticism a tenable position, if so how?

F

free_think

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
79
Reaction score
44
Location
East TN
Gender
Male
For this discussion, to avoid getting tangled up in definitions, let's use the relevant Marion Webster definitions of the two terms.

Atheism: 2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Agnosticism: 1 : a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not.

full: 1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

Atheism | Definition of Atheism by Merriam-Webster
Agnostic | Definition of Agnostic by Merriam-Webster

What I'm wondering is why we insist on separating these two terms, and why and to whom this separation matters.

To put it very simply, how is "not committed to believing" any different than "disbelief"?

From the point of view of the traditional theist, both parties are equally damned as unbelievers.

From the point of view of the agnostic or the atheist, both of them are unbelievers as opposed to the theist.

Why the need to separate two sides of an argument into three when the practical results of doing so do not fundamentally change the results on any side.

If you think they do change the results, how?

I have further clarifications on this thought, but perhaps they'll get fleshed out in discussion.
 
Agnostics tend to be far more pleasant company than atheists. :D





Agnostics, at least, acknowledge there is no way to prove the matter scientifically, and typically don't feel compelled to argue with or insult theists. Those who rock "Atheist!" as their label tend to be loud, rude and pushy about it.
 
Agnostics do not deny the existence of deity. They simply do not believe current religious groups know of, or represent the truth. They often ask why else wouldn't there be a universal acceptance rather than this multitude of differing belief systems?

They believe that something may be there, but that we either don't know the truth of it, or are incapable of recognizing it. They are often very spiritual, but don't see the need to adhere to any organized belief system.

Atheists categorically deny deity, believing that there is nothing more to life than the simple fact of existence.
 
Last edited:
Agnosticism is not some middle ground between atheism and theism. It is an entirely different position. Everyone, whether they like it or not, is either an atheist or a theist. It is a binary proposition. If you believe in a god, you are a theist. Anything else and you are an atheist. Atheism is the lack of theism.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has no clue what they are talking about.
 
Ok, so we're talking in matter of degrees. It might be fair to say that many people that call themselves Agnostic are less critical of theism in practice than many of those that call themselves atheist.

Even that though seems like a vague way to separate the position, as both are still basically saying "I don't believe".

To clarify a bit more on the definition presented of atheism, "the doctrine that there is no deity" does not imply certainty that there is no deity. Though I'm sure specific examples can be sited, I'm not aware of any prominent atheist movements that asserts positively to prove that deity do not exist. To do so definitively would be to claim absolute knowledge, which would nullify the position on its own grounds.

Only that the chances of deity existing, or being actively involved in human affairs, is so low as to be inconsequential to the development of secular "doctrine".
 
Religious people believe they "know"
Atheist people believe they "know"
Agnostic people are willing to say "I don't know"
 
There are religious atheists who follow the 2nd definition-definitively believe that in "the doctrine that there is no deity". These people tend to proselytize, preach, and do all those religion things that other religionists do.
Usually when I get into a discussion with atheist they eventually fall back to the 1st definition-" a disbelief in the existence of deity". To me, that is the traditional definition of agnostic but I guess so many atheists gave up their dogma about there positively being no deity that they took that definition as well.
 
Winchester said:
Religious people believe they "know"
Atheist people believe they "know"
Agnostic people are willing to say "I don't know"
Click to expand...

See? it doesn't have to be any more difficult than this.
 
free_think said:
What I'm wondering is why we insist on separating these two terms, and why and to whom this separation matters.

To put it very simply, how is "not committed to believing" any different than "disbelief"?

From the point of view of the traditional theist, both parties are equally damned as unbelievers.

From the point of view of the agnostic or the atheist, both of them are unbelievers as opposed to the theist.

Why the need to separate two sides of an argument into three when the practical results of doing so do not fundamentally change the results on any side.

If you think they do change the results, how?
Click to expand...

Because it is dishonest to merge Agnosticism with Atheism (and your definition of Agnosticism is wrong anyway.)

Atheism is a disbelief, or lack of, belief in the existence of God or gods. Either way a decision has been made. Agnosticism is another decision, but one that is suggests it is impossible to know anything about God or gods and therefor does not claim existence of them or not. That is not "not committed to believing," that is making a decision that we cannot know.

When you mix up definitions to make a point you end up clouding the entire point of Philosophy.
 
Winchester said:
Religious people believe they "know"
Atheist people believe they "know"
Agnostic people are willing to say "I don't know"
Click to expand...

I don't know there are no gods. I see no reason to believe that there are. That's why I'm an atheist. Also an agnostic. Agnosticism answers an entirely different question from atheism.
 
Winchester said:
Religious people believe they "know"
Atheist people believe they "know"
Agnostic people are willing to say "I don't know"
Click to expand...
...Have the courage to say I don't know. To say I don't know, one absolutely has no agenda or ideology.
 
Last edited:
Winchester said:
Religious people believe they "know"
Atheist people believe they "know"
Agnostic people are willing to say "I don't know"
Click to expand...



I can at least respect that, even if I disagree. :)
 
Cephus said:
I don't know there are no gods. I see no reason to believe that there are. That's why I'm an atheist. Also an agnostic. Agnosticism answers an entirely different question from atheism.
Click to expand...
Cephus, if this is correct, you are an atheist because you "have no reason to believe there are <gods>." You have an anti-god agenda.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
Agnosticism is not some middle ground between atheism and theism. It is an entirely different position. Everyone, whether they like it or not, is either an atheist or a theist. It is a binary proposition. If you believe in a god, you are a theist. Anything else and you are an atheist. Atheism is the lack of theism.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has no clue what they are talking about.
Click to expand...



I don't see how you can say that when clearly the majority of peeps who self-label "agnostic" define it as neither theism nor atheism, but a state of believing that neither is provable so "they don't know".


It is entirely different from both theism and atheism, but it does clearly exist.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Agnostics do not deny the existence of deity. They simply do not believe current religious groups know of, or represent the truth. They often ask why else wouldn't there be a universal acceptance rather than this multitude of differing belief systems?

They believe that something may be there, but that we either don't know the truth of it, or are incapable of recognizing it. They are often very spiritual, but don't see the need to adhere to any organized belief system.

Atheists categorically deny deity, believing that there is nothing more to life than the simple fact of existence.
Click to expand...


Incorrect. Agnostic means you do not KNOW. One can be an agnostic atheist, another could be an agnostic theist, and then one can be just totally confused.
 
Agnostic

Agnostic - A person who believes that, at our present level of knowledge, we cannot know whether or not a God exists. Some Agnostics believe that we can never know whether a deity exists.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims, particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods or deities, are either unknown or inherently unknowable. The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion. (wikipedia)

An Agnostic [1] [noun] [OW] embraces a worldview in which the existence of deity is unknown or unknowable. Derives from the Greek agnostos, a = without, gnostos = known or knowledge. "Agnostic[ism] [CE] was coined by Professor TH Huxley in 1869 to describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas." (AOL)

Agnostic one who believes that the evidence for and against the existence of God is inconclusive. (summit)
Click to expand...

This sums it up quite well for me. It seems the theists and ant-theists want to make it so much more complicated. I find the zealots on both sides so puzzling.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Because it is dishonest to merge Agnosticism with Atheism (and your definition of Agnosticism is wrong anyway.)

Atheism is a disbelief, or lack of, belief in the existence of God or gods. Either way a decision has been made. Agnosticism is another decision, but one that is suggests it is impossible to know anything about God or gods and therefor does not claim existence of them or not. That is not "not committed to believing," that is making a decision that we cannot know.

When you mix up definitions to make a point you end up clouding the entire point of Philosophy.
Click to expand...

Ok, do you mean the Webster's definition is wrong or something I implied?

Seems to me a decision to not believe has been made either way, it's just a question of emphasis. How is that not true?
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that many people want to pigeonhole those that discard the possibility of deity as so remote as to be almost unthinkable, as saying empirically that such a thing can't possibly exist.

If we want to define atheism as dogmatically presenting factual representations of the world, as I know some dictionaries and many theists, want to then I see the distinction.

I would argue that there is a difference in this perception and the real world atheist movements out there.

From that, it's only a matter of degree. Neither group "believes" in the idea of deity on insufficient evidence.
 
Goshin said:
I don't see how you can say that when clearly the majority of peeps who self-label "agnostic" define it as neither theism nor atheism, but a state of believing that neither is provable so "they don't know".


It is entirely different from both theism and atheism, but it does clearly exist.
Click to expand...

It also has to do with 'certainty'. One can not KNOW for certain if there is a god, but believe there is a God. One can not KNOW there is not a god, but not believe in a god. One can also hold that if there is a god or not is not knowable at all. Then, there are those that say 'One can know if there is a god or not, but we don't at the moment'.
 
azgreg said:
Agnostic



This sums it up quite well for me. It seems the theists and ant-theists want to make it so much more complicated. I find the zealots on both sides so puzzling.
Click to expand...

So how is the definition in your link saying anything other than "one who doesn't believe in deity"?

Is saying 'I don't believe but I can't really know, really different than just saying 'I don't believe?

Also, theist/ anti-theist is a different idea all together. One could be a strident 'I don't know' agnostic and still think theism is destructive to humanity. While one could be a strident atheist and still think religion was good for mankind.
 
free_think said:
Ok, do you mean the Webster's definition is wrong or something I implied?

Seems to me a decision to not believe has been made either way, it's just a question of emphasis. How is that not true?
Click to expand...

I mean what I said, Atheism has nothing to do with Agnosticism. We can argue all day about what is "belief," but that does not mean that merging terms solves some problem.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with "a decision not to believe," it has to do with what we can and cannot know. Again you are bending meanings without at least giving us the benefit of knowing why you need Agnosticism and Atheism related.

What is the point of your argument?
 
free_think said:
So how is the definition in your link saying anything other than "one who doesn't believe in deity"?

Is saying 'I don't believe but I can't really know, really different than just saying 'I don't believe?

Also, theist/ anti-theist is a different idea all together. One could be a strident 'I don't know' agnostic and still think theism is destructive to humanity. While one could be a strident atheist and still think religion was good for mankind.
Click to expand...

For me it comes down to the term 'unknowable'. I've seen no evidence to support or deny a deity or god, and doubt I ever will.
 
azgreg said:
Not for me. Sorry to disappoint.
Click to expand...

Reality is reality. Everyone doesn't get their own personal reality. Sorry to disappoint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom