This is a question that seems to cause perpetual controversy based on various definitions, conceptions, and intents. I recently watched a video by Aron Ra that IMO seems to clarify the debate. AR points out that agnosticism deals with “knowledge”, so an agnostic claims a lack of knowledge. OTOH, atheism refers to a lack of belief: atheism is “non theist”. ... and since theists assert a belief in god, then a non theist would simply be saying that they have no belief in a deity. I think it is near universally true that all agnostics agree that they have no belief in a deity. So, by definition—-if you are an agnostic, you are also an atheist. Agnosticism deals with a question that is beyond whether a person believes in god: can we prove that “god does not exist?” This question raises further levels of debate and misunderstanding. The most militant “atheist” evangelists would assert that: there is no scientific evidence of god; and that god is not necessary. These claims go far beyond the basic claim of atheism: lack of belief in god. The militant atheists can seem almost irritatingly strident. And, i suspect, many people claim to be agnostic in order to distance themselves from such confrontations. I can relate to that. OTOH, evangelical theists are quite adamant that there IS clear evidence of god and that, ultimately, god IS NECESSARY. And, to the extent that such assertions are not confronted, theism itself is indirectly established. But there is an issue beyond the indirect acceptance of theism that is incorporated into consent to arguments of “evidence and necessity.” Latent within E&N is the rejection of science. Arguments of evidence are arguments of supernatural causation. Acceptance of supernatural causation presupposes a rejection of natural (scientific) causes. Likewise, theistic necessity rules out the possibility that natural processes could be sufficient. Seemingly innocuous arguments of E&N inevitably proceed to provide a basis for incremental erosion of scientific inquiry. The “big bang” implies a necessity for a beginning, which implies a creator, which implies a designer, who contrived all the universe, which means that the role of science is merely to elucidate what we know about gods design, which he told us about in the Bible. Further, we know that evolution could not be true since it is contradicted by the bible. And from there we go on to questioning biology, archeology, paleontology, and basically all science that might contradict any idiosyncratic theistic interpretation of the bible.
False for some strange reason people today, usually evangelizing neoatheists always without fail leave 1/2 the equation out. No knowledge applies to BOTH: 1) is there a G/god (theist): I dont know 2) is there not a G/god (atheist): I dont know Therefore what do agnostics believe? Agnostics do not disbelieve, AND do not believe in G/god. They take NEITHER SIDE! Atheists take the side of do not believe Theists take the side of do believe Agnostic takes NEITHIER SIDE If you read through several of the threads neoatheists think that they can willy nilly be atheist-agno-theists because they fail to make the required distinctions to get it right.
Why do you make it so difficult for yourself? Agnostics don't know. They're uncertain. Atheists aren't uncertain. They know. BOOM
Why do you try to put words in my mouth? Agnostics DO know. They know that there is insufficient evidence and facts to claim either religious position, theist or atheist. Agnostics use pure reason and pure logic. Not FAITH like atheists and theists use. Atheists claim to know but cant prove a damn thing, its all smoke and mirrors word games and ducking reality I have the facts and I am certain, I know for a fact there is insufficient evidence therefore refuse to make a claim on either side based on faith like atheists and theists do.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but I am trying to explain to you that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. If there's insufficient evidence to tell you whether someone turned left or right you would not be wrong to say "YOU DON'T KNOW". Get over it.
sorting out your misrepresentation of agnostic is not making a mountain out of a molehill, its educating you. Most atheology I have seen is patently ridiculous. I will explain. Atheists have NO FACTS to prove out their BELIEFS Theists have NO FACTS to prove out their BELIEFS NEITHER KNOW, nor can they KNOW therefore; EVERYONE is AGNOSTIC, because agnostics can PROVE both atheists and theists have no proof Same as I dont know, left or right is not a religious position, meaning an expression of belief that takes an affirmative position. Agnostics express NEITHER belief NOR disbelief, your example is not applicable on any level used in the context you used it.
The mistake you're making is you're using the word FACTS when the proper word is FAITH. Christians believe in god, agnostics don't know if there's a god or not and atheist do not believe there is a god. You're taking something that's quite simple and attempting to make it difficult.
Dont tell me, another neoatheist that cant read a dictionary? agnostic noun 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such 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. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic Its right out of the dictionary ffs please try to read my posts for comprehension it sux to have to crayola everything all the time. I used the word facts correctly, your post makes no sense. BOTH atheists and theists believe what they believe using FAITH NOT FACTS. this is the way you should have your sentence, "agnostics don't know": 'therefore agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve either proposition' Hope that helps
The first step is an actual concrete definition of what is a god. And pretending their is not a continuum between athiest and agnostic is plain silly.
One can be both Atheist (Not believing in the Gods of men), and Agnostic (Accepting the possibility of something else). The issue here seems to be that some theists are so defensive and angry for some reason that they must attack the concept rather than spend 30 seconds to ponder and understand.
So far nobody babbling on this subject seems willing to define “ god”. You do realise without an adequate definition the entire discussion is just self flagilation. . .
