Proud Agnostics here?

[Damien Evans]

I'm an apathetic agnostic.

I don't know and I don't care.

 

[Big Les]

I admit to not really understanding the agnostic position. The idea that we can't know whether there is a god or not surely applies to just about everything. "Nothing is real" and similar gange-induced claptrap. Insofar as we can know anything, or be sure of anything, there is no god. For learned peers such as I encounter here, isn't it just a philosophical position as Capeldodger has said?

Having drawn that distinction, I most often come across the term in real life used as prevaricatively; by people who don't believe in a god but either haven't really thought much about it, or are on some level scared that if they die and there was one all along, they might not have to go to hell. Or because they're afraid of using the word atheist, out of fear of offence. Atheism is well-tolerated here in the UK, but it still will raise eyebrows if you up-front tell people that you are one. Whereas "agnostic" has connotations (to the religious/pseudo-religious) of "lost lamb" who might one day return to the fold, or at least of some deeper spirituality than the empty existence that atheism is still perceived by many to be.

In other words, self-styled agnostics get more chicks.

 

[Jimbo07]

Easily. Because the sort of evidence that would prove something can be proven not to exist.

For example, no amount of evidence could prove that there are no extrasolar teapots; you'd have to look everywhere in the universe that any possible teapot could hide -- and your travel budget isn't that large.

Oh, I see where this was going. It's related to the whole unable to prove a universal negative thing.

I thought it had something to do with denying that there could ever be consistent and compelling physical evidence that something sufficiently "God-like," was directly acting in the universe. My interest would be at least piqued if every day for a year, say, a new message (visible to everyone) was written in the stars.

I don't consider my practice of agnosticism to waste valuable time considering whether-or-not an objective physical universe even exists!

Agnosticism is for people who haven't yet recognised that Philosophy has no clothes. It's enough to observe that superstition emerges from and serves the human mind to dismiss it observationally. There's no need to wait for results to turn in from everywhere that nothing else has yet been observed. Superstition emerges and has influence strictly between one human ear and its partner.

This was the sort of strong atheism for which I admired Piggy. He at least had the courage of his convictions. There are a lot of atheists here who are spending a lot of time posting that atheism is really all about holding beliefs provisionally, and are upset that I've seemed to imply that they are mistaken/self-deceptive or lazy (I didn't meant to be insulting).

Maybe I'm the who's been badly wrong, not about atheism, but about agnosticism. Maybe agnosticism is a philosophical humbug. I've just used it as a practical working label for, "I don't know, and I don't know what standard of evidence would be necessary for a proof of a first cause, but I do accept that there is some sufficient evidence to reject specific claims about certain Gods."

ETA: Actually keeping my labels straight in my own head seems to be a day-to-day problem. Previously, I would have said that philosophically I'm an agnostic, but practically, I'm an atheist. I guess that still stands, with the admission that any "philosophy" involved is only appropriate when drunk at 2 a.m...

 

[bignickel]

I must say I'm completely puzzled by some of these posts. I'm beginning to think this is what people's brains see when they read my posts:
Bignickel said "Agnosticism is
<SNIP>Definition I don't agree with</SNIP>
and because of that,
<SNIP>idea I don't understand because I snipped out the earlier definition</SNIP>

Followup posters: What's with all those agnostics? Why are they so wimpy they can't just come out and say they're atheists?!

 

[SynapticDancer]

Let me make an analogy:
Take two propositions:
1) Unicorns exist.
2) Some undiscovered species of animal exists.
I can have a much higher degree of certainty that the first proposition is false than that the second one is.

I see the point you are making, the problem is a distinction in evidence gathering, specifically when that collection takes place. If a being (such as the unicorn) is hypothesized to exist and yet no evidence or evidence that is later discovered to not support the unicorn hypothesis is found, you cannot determine say for certain that unicorns exist. However, the collection of evidence occurred after the hypothesis of the unicorns existence. Actually, many unicorns myths might be based on discoveries of fossils that have since been found to be other animals (such as the narwhal).

The second example, that some as of yet undiscovered species might exist is certainly true but ambiguous, and vague enough that it is not a hypothesis. New species are discovered all the time whether they are sought or not. When you say "undiscoverd species of animals" you are not giving it enough definitional characteristics to every truly verify or dismiss your claim, therefore it is not truly a hypothesis that can be tested.

The idea of god has some specific definitional characteristics even when it is not defined in biblical terms. People who are "spiritual" or believe there is, or is a possibility of, a higher power are still evidence gathering after the fact, or hypothesis testing. God in that sense fits the analogy of a unicorn in that it is a mythological being of certain characteristics hypothesized to exist.

 

[Slimething]

I admit to not really understanding the agnostic position. The idea that we can't know whether there is a god or not surely applies to just about everything. "Nothing is real" and similar gange-induced claptrap.

Yeah, I hate that rot, too, but that's not what I mean when I call myself an agnostic. I haven't met every god so I can't believe or disbelieve in something I haven't met yet. Call it Fair Play for Deities, if you want. Prejudice is a terrible thing.

I've never met one but I have heard there are people who believe they are god. If so, they've defined god as themselves and I can prove they exist. More power to them. God is a word with an amazingly malleable definition. Do I believe in the supernatural kind? No. But, a person who thinks they're god would be something completely different.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Followup posters: What's with all those agnostics? Why are they so wimpy they can't just come out and say they're atheists?!

In the words of John Ronson to Daid Shayler, "Oh **** off".

 

[bignickel]

In the words of John Ronson to Daid Shayler, "Oh **** off".

Umm, I thought my post made it clear that I typed up a post, and the 'followup posters' are a bunch of posters who posted after me. Ignoring my post.

And since my own posts make it clear I'm an agnostic...

I dunno. Maybe I should have typed "Followup posters said" or something else.