Agnosticism is NOT a system of belief.

[Lysah]

You have a very warped definition of what atheism means. Being a theist is taking an active position on religion, there are multiple religious concepts and you have chosen to be a part of one or more of them. Being an atheist is taking no position. Atheism IS the middle position, between multiple forms of theism.

Yes, pretty much this.

Also;

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Being agnostic really has nothing to do with religion. It simply has to do with being able to, or not, prove ideas. Rather, agnostics won't try to pretend something is factual when they cannot prove it. As the OP said, you can be theistic and agnostic at the same time, if you believe that God exists but you don't pretend it is a fact that you can prove. Since this is the case, agnosticism cannot be defined as a middle ground between theism and atheism.

[Deleted]

look, how i learned it is: Theists believe in a god. Atheist believe there is NO god. agnostics don't believe in either, but in fact assume that it's not possible to prove that a god does (not) exist. they can be both theistic or atheistic.

i personally don't believe in a god. i do believe, however, that there is something higher above us. what, that i don't know. the only thing i know (and not even for sure) is that ,somewhere out there, there is something interfering with every day life in a way incomprehensible for any normal human being.

[pzijderv]

Not necessarily. An agnostic is someone who has no knowledge about whether God exists. If you can't make a decision, you're an atheist, because you're not following any form of theism.

so an agnostic does beleive in something (a form of higher power)?

[Lysah]

so an agnostic does beleive in something (a form of higher power)?

Maybe. Maybe not. Refer to the four possible denominations in the OP.

[RabbitPrime]

Not at all. It's an atheism where religion isn't important. These people would rather avoid subjects of religion which they cannot prove, and stick to the world of facts in which there is evidence to support argumentation. Science or not does not matter, "science" is what we call "being able to prove shit."

The difference being is that there is a pursuit for knowledge of life the universe and everything else with the understanding that religion is not to influence any data or ideas or theories. While less intense than a very vehement atheist stance, it is still a stance against religion. Agnostics would not create such a barrier or rejection. Agnosticism can NOT be the rejection of an idea.

You have a very warped definition of what atheism means. Being a theist is taking an active position on religion, there are multiple religious concepts and you have chosen to be a part of one or more of them. Being an atheist is taking no position. Atheism IS the middle position, between multiple forms of theism.

No it's not. Atheism is a clear stance against religion. Just look at your words: theism is clearly for religious beliefs and deities and so something which is atheist will be clearly against those things. Agnosticism exists in the middle to neither accept nor reject but to be unaffected by both.


General confusion about agnosticism comes from human inability to be truly agnostic because human nature is to draw opinions and seek answers. So once there is exposure to ideas it becomes impossible to remain agnostic towards a subject. For some reason people feel the need to call themselves agnostic (I don't know why exactly) and so they create these ridiculous sub-divisions of agnosticism which cannot exist by the definition of agnosticism. What they've actually created is sub-divisions of theism and atheism and titled them incorrectly.

[deevicoos]

The post failed the moment you made the choice binary. It's not binary, it's a sliding scale of certainty. And I suspect most atheists are actually not certain but actually have chosen a hypothesis, making them actually agnostic. However some people are certain either way, and a lot of people are very close to one end.

So if I have some beliefs regarding morality and behavior and I also believe that the existance of a deity does not in itself, directly change the morality of actions, but I don't know if there's a god, but feel it doesn't matter I don't exist? Or I don't have a real opinion. I suspect god is improbable, but not impossible.

I resent being told I am not a person or my beliefs don't count. They are beliefs, I have them, ergo OP is wrong. However the thread title is correct, agnosticism is merely not being sure. Now if you're saying it's "Practical atheism" it doesn't change that I don't know, and that the definition of agnosticism matches my beliefs or lack thereof, in the area of gods. I don't really see the point of this discussion given that. But then I wouldn't because I disagree and consider my existence (and many thousands or millions of others) proof that the first post is wrong. I am none of the four. I just don't know.

[Sarcasm]

so an agnostic does beleive in something (a form of higher power)?

That depends on whether you're an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist.

[Laughriot]

Gnostic the...oh, you were only asking agnostics =(

Very true point, at least. I know a lot of people who claim to be agnostic as a way of saying "I don't believe in God but don't want you to yell at me for it." Pretty cheap method, for every reason you listed. Still, religious topics aren't going to go well, even if they are about not having any. Except a lock forthwith.

Methinks the fact that there is a general expectation of being yelled at by religious people for being "agnostic" indicates a deeper problem in itself, hm?

[Cryostasis]

According to simple dictionary definitions:

Atheist - Does not believe in God

No, it refers to being without currently accepted doctrines regarding "god" - theism.

[barrinmw]

I think it is perfectly legitimate for someone to have the opinion that they neither know nor not know if God exists. They are able to accept the idea that either one maybe just as true as the other. I think you are forcing a false dichotomy between theism and atheism. And just because we can't prove something exists doesn't mean it doesn't. For billions of years, humans were incapable of proving that atoms existed yet that doesn't change the fact that they do. And to the person who said that people with scientific minds can't be religious, that is just plain wrong, it is entirely possible to be religious and be scientific.

Even scientists take a lot of things on faith and are willing to make assumptions based on it. Gravity for example, no scientist knows how it works yet we continue to assume that when we wake up tomorrow it will still be there. Faith in things that have been proven previously is still faith, because it is impossible to prove that it will be the same tomorrow.

[Darkdruidelf]

I like the term Tooth-Fairy Agnostic. There could be a god, but has the same probability as the toothfairy existing (we have no evidence against it so we accept it as fact right?)

Suppose I'd be an Agnostic Atheist. I dont think its up to me to disprove god, but up to you to prove it (thats generally how things work isnt it, you prove a claim, its not about me disproving it).

[Sarcasm]

No it's not. Atheism is a clear stance against religion.

That's antitheism (which, by the way, is still atheism due to the lack of being a theist).

[pzijderv]

hmm im still hella confused, lets try this another way.

i myself am a scientist, everything i have learned about life (im a molecular life scientist) leads me to believe there is no higher power. from that deffinition i would be an atheist. however should there ever come a plausible theory (more plausible then for instance evolution) i would exept that theory and the accompanying higher power. where does that put me on gnostic agnostic scales?

[Lysah]

Want to know what pisses me off? People generalizing. I know very well what I am and what it means, thank you very much.

That might not be true. There are strict definitions on these things, you can't call yourself agnostic just because you don't believe in God. At least, you can't and still be telling the truth. It is very possible to be wrong about what you call your religious beliefs.

A lot of people who DO believe in God are agnostic. They would scream at you if you told them that, too, because they've never taken the time to understand what the definition means.

[xenaros]

I will call myself agnostic or atheist regardless of the actual meanings just so it becomes clear to religious people that I do not care about your god (so don't preach).

[Sarcasm]

I suspect god is improbable, but not impossible.

Which makes you agnostic. But from that, you can still either believe God exists (theist) or not (atheist).

[Cryostasis]

so an agnostic does beleive in something (a form of higher power)?

Well, depending on whether you think that "higher" power interferes in man's life or not, if you think it does, you would be a deist.

If you think it was just a "force" that started it all, you would be a pantheist.

[Herecius]

That might not be true. There are strict definitions on these things, you can't call yourself agnostic just because you don't believe God is a fact. At least, you can't and still be telling the truth. It is very possible to be wrong about what you call your religious beliefs.

I'ma gonna stop you there Lysah and say that I respect you, but I think it's within everybody's right to consider themselves whatever they'd like to when it comes to matters of faith, regardless of the semantic-correctness of their use of any language.

[UunaPriest]

I think your understanding of Greek terms is very poor.
You are attempting to force a dichotomy based on a lack of understanding of the semantics.

[Sarcasm]

hmm im still hella confused, lets try this another way.

i myself am a scientist, everything i have learned about life (im a molecular life scientist) leads me to believe there is no higher power. from that deffinition i would be an atheist. however should there ever come a plausible theory (more plausible then for instance evolution) i would exept that theory and the accompanying higher power. where does that put me on gnostic agnostic scales?

That makes you a very good scientist, and for now, an atheist. Science adjusts its views based on what is observed. If some proof appeared for the existance of God, it would be silly of any atheist to not start believing.