I'm fine with billions of people deriving succour from religious belief or being a tad solipsistic and saying well I really can't decide but if I was a-gnostic then given my indecision about what some say is putatively the most preposterous set of propositions ever promulgated how would I manage to believe in anything at all or otherwise dismiss things as piffle?
[allaboutphilosophy.org]
I am an atheist. But I am an agnostic atheist. Both components of the term are valid and concern separate but related questions. When people slam users of the agnostic label, they seem usually to be equating it with agnostic theists, which is an entirely diferent position from an agnostic atheist. (There are also gnostic theists and gnostic atheists, who both pretend to have absolute proof of their belief/nonbelief being factually accurate.
The problem with that is the concept(s) of god/deity. They are shifting targets. God can even be metaphor for the power that runs the cosmos. And whether that power has consciousness begs the question of what ultimately defines consciousness.
As for the Christian and Muslim conceptions of God, I am a hard atheist, because the paradigms contradict and therefore disprove themselves.
But to dismiss the agnostic label entirely is to eliminate a valuable tool for reaching people trapped by fear in religious belief. They need to doubt before they can let go of belief.
What a useless word agnostic is. One can be agnostic, yet believe, as I presume is the case with most Christians were they to be candid. One can also be agnostic, yet not believe, as are many atheists. And as you implied, one can be agnostic about literally EVERYTHING. I hate the word. So I guess it comes down to probabilities and significance. I have no beliefs in any gods, nor do I care much if one might exist who remains hidden and has not revealed any doctrine. So call me an apatheist in the regard, because while interesting, it's not of real significance. But I'm damned convinced that the God of the Bible and the other religions I've encountered are false, the question of which does have real significance. But until the argument over the word atheist(merely lack of belief vs something more declarative than that?) is settled, I suppose the next best word is non-theist?
I don't hate the word agnostic, though I do consider it a problematic position. However, I prefer to focus on the fact that agnostics and atheists are, or should be, on the same side: the non religious.
@David1955 - I think for the most part, atheists and agnostics are on the same side. More often than I would have thought, when an athieist defines his atheism, it appears to agree more closely with definitions of agnosticism. I won't say that atheists are confused as I often hear atheists say of agnostics, I think it has more to do with perspective and perception of the terms which provide a great deal of overlap.
@RussRAB I sometimes wonder whether the culture we have arisen out of, which has privileged belief over non-belief, simply lacks for an adequate word to describe simple "lack of belief" in any gods, while not implying dogmatism on one hand, and uncertainty on the other.. Neither atheist nor agnostic truly fits.
No and NO Why? I'm an ex Christian with a 99% sure that there is no God, no Easter bunny that lay eggs, NO tooth fairy who pays for every tooth a child loose or NO man with a santa Claus costume is real. The other percent is for "ask me if I care?"
Yep, they have the same likelihood as God.
I'll give it that.
If you aren't convinced there is a God you are by definition atheist.
All agnostics are atheist in denial.
Provide falsifiability and it'll be science, until then it's all poetry.
Like Dr. Zeus
Not again!
I counter, atheists are really Agnostics in denial.
So there!
I've given this a lot of thought, and as a veteran of the atheist-agnostic wars, I'm left with this as my personal stance:
I'm atheist when it comes to a supernatural entity, agnostic about some kind of 'god' by an entirely different definition...I just don't know what that definition might be. In that sense I'm IGnostic, because I have no idea what I'm talking about and neither does anybody else.
Does that work for you?
@Storm1752 - Thank-you for that definition. I had similar feelings about the issue presented but couldn't find words to express my feeling. You did a great job.
The online dictionary defines agnstic as "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." By contrast, the character and nature of the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are known, have never been seen, and evidence reveals that their functions have been carried out by adults wishing to bring wonder and magic into a child's life. Evidence provides plenty of reason to disbelieve the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, as it does for disbelief in many specifically defined deities of world religions. However, this does not rule out some form or definition of an entity (or perhaps an undefinable one) which might be a God.
Here we go again. You fail, perhaps intentionally, to understand agnosticism. It really has nothing to do with mixed feelings of wanting to believe in deity. So your entire question is falsely premised.
...but enjoy your game anyway.
EEB and TF On two conditions
There is evidence based belief, sir.
Ergo, not by religious faith, but based on prior evidence; I may reasonably believe the ground will be beneath my feet when I get out of bed. Simply because it was there when I went to sleep, and when I woke up every other day previous to that.
But what if it isn't?
Astonishingly abstruse application of alliteration ... awesome!