No. It's only the brief movement between one state and the other.
Agnosticism should remain what it has always been and indeed why the word was created, i.e. it is the opposite of gnosticism (note not gnostic as used to describe some of the earlier Christian religions). An agnostic is not saying they "don't know" if god/s exist or not (such a person is an atheist since they don't hold a belief in god/s) they are saying that as humans we can never have the knowledge of god/s existence. It is possible to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.
A little confusing for me.
The difference between an atheist and a theist is whether you believe in a god. An agnostic (as you are using the term) says "well i really don't know", but that's not the question. The question is if you *do* believe in a god. An agnostic does not. An agnostic is an atheist that keeps the door open. S/he hasn't taken that binary step to belief. This is one of those rare binary things, with no sea of gray. Theist: you believe in a god. Atheist: you do not believe in a god (importantly, distinct from saying "there is no god").
Strictly, yes, but agnosticism, in the god sense, has broadened its meaning beyond that a bit.
But the question "are you a theist?" has no ambiguity. That's why we usually don't ask it you are a "not-something". It can be ambiguous.
So does an invisible space whale that shoots laser out of its eyes and eats asteroids.
Could you clarify your meaning please?
Russel's Teapot. Just because something unevidenced might theoretically exist, it doesn't mean you have to take the possibility seriously.
The universe creating itself is evidenced?
A universe created by a God presents a paradox.
The agnostic concept that the existence of God is unknowable can be applied to every other phenomena that lacks supporting evidence. And yet, most people don't think the existence of invisible magical creatures is a possibility worth considering, except when it comes to God.
Coming into existence is a better phrase - I should have used it.
'I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains on a beautiful fall afternoon. I turned the corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it — also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me. And it was a great sense of relief. The next morning, in the dewy grass in the shadow of the Cascades, I fell on my knees and accepted this truth — that God is God, that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to that belief.'
www.premierchristianity.com
I don’t think professed agnostics always express a deep thought about their position. Often it is simply a statement that atheism seems too strong, and agnosticism seems more in between.
Sort of. An agnostic says "I neither believe nor disbelieve". Which is fine, but doesn't address the question of whether or not they actually belive in a God. "I don't know if there is one" is functionally "I do not believe in a god", whether or not they are still open to evidence and persuasion.
Sagan is pretty dope on that point. He will not say there is no God, because he knows of no persuasive evidence against it (unlike the teapot orbiting Saturn), so he calls himself agnostic. He is also very likely showing deference and respect to his very religious colleagues in doing so.
For someone who says they are an atheist, you sure lean on a lot of Christian apologetics.
