Hey, idiots. If you believe something, you can’t agnostic about it!
Actually you can. The definition of a theistic agnostic is one who believes a higher power or deity exists but does not claim to know what.
Db: That's not commonly understood as a subset of agnosticism, though, but rather as a subset of theism. I stand by what I said.
I do not know what you mean that "it is not commonly understood" but most people I've discussed are aware of this subset of agnosticism and it is also included in the common definition.
If you go around calling people idiots because they declare themselves agnostic but still believe that a deity exists, then you are in the wrong and they can prove it by definition.
I still see "theistic" as the governing word. It's a subset of theism, and thence being agnostic about details within theism.
It is not a subset of agnosticism, not if properly defined.
You do not get to make your own definitions SG. The way people understand Theism, is belief in a God. The way people understand agnosticism, is as "knowledge of X is unattainable". Thus a Theistic Agnostic is both a Theist and an Agnostic.
Indeed, most of the time when I said that I was agnostic people assumed that I was a theistic agnostic. I eventually had to explain my irreligion as "Atheist" to avoid misconceptions. Then if people need a more detailed explanation, I explain that I am an Atheistic Agnostic.
Look, I don't really care to fight you on this. Just keep what I said in mind before you go around calling people idiots.
I'm NOT making definitions. I'm simply saying the "agnosticism" you're talking about is governed as a subset of theism.
You have these three main ideas: atheism, agnosticism, and theism. Theistic agnosticism is PART OF THEISM NOT AGNOSTICISM.
There, how fucking hard is that?
Most people would reject your hairsplitting, I charge.
I know I would, and it's my blog.
You're a theist, and on the edge, if not past it, of being a theist troll.
You're being an idiot. Just because I defend this definition of agnosticism does not mean I espouse it.
You're claiming that "agnosticism" I'm talking about is governed as theim. Says who? You? Well, by definition of the dictionary and by popular understanding you're wrong.
It does not matter how many CAPS you use to assert your opinion, unless you can prove it somehow. On my behald I've got a few places backing me up.
Look, here in Dallas, I had a college philosophy professor claim to be an atheist, then talk about praying in the same breath.
I didn't put up with his bullshit, and I'm not putting up with yours either.
Second, you're lying, to me and to yourself, when you claim you don't want to argue about this. You do.
Third, if I clearly presented your metaphysical self-definition to 100 people on the street, 99 would call you a theist.
Your Wiki link? It's agnostic THEISM, you troll. It supports ME, not you.
Finally, it's my blog, and I get the last word. Capiche?
If you don't understand that, understand this: I just banned your IP, as you've gone past the edge of being a theist troll.
Just because one is agnostic about the empirical support for one's beliefs can't hide that one is a theist.
Contra Wiki, I would simply call a Fideist a Christian, for example. Mr. Divided by Zero, IMO, wants to camouflage the anti-empirical, anti-scientific nature of his theistic metaphysical belief system with an intellectual gloss of agnosticism.
Gadfly that attitude is unbelievable. I'm considering removing your link from my site because you seem to have lost all common sense. Anyone who knows db0 or reads his blog knows he is an atheist and in fact helped with an article featuring on the same carnival as yours (http://www.antichristian-phenomenon.com/
bluelinchpin/an-anti-religionatheist-movement/).
I'm an agnostic atheist, meaning that I don't believe in God, but I don't claim knowledge of its non-existence.
It takes only a simple look in a dictionary to see that the definition doesn't apply to either theism or atheism, but sadly you resort to petty bickering, lowering yourself to creationist levels by calling your "opponent" a liar, and then claiming he is a theist troll.
I suppose since I disagree with you and am completely shocked by such an outburst, I must be a theist as well? I don't suppose running the blog atheistblogger.com, a book club for atheists, a student group for atheists / agnostics, and two atheist forums counts for anything though...
I've heard the term "soft atheist" for your agnostic atheism, but I think you're missing the point too.
I would consider you an atheist, not an agnostic.
Just as I consider him a theist, not an agnostic. Read the addendum to my post; the grammar and semantics are clear.
And, I never said you weren't an atheist, Adrian.
That said, if you want to make this your fight, go ahead.
As for db0, he called himself a "theistic agnostic." He has NEVER, not in posting here, called himself an atheist in a metaphyisical sense.
He does admit calling himself "atheist" as a FALSE pseudo-synonym for "irreligious," which is exactly what my post is about.
And, if you do, Adrian, define yourself as "atheist" when you, too, actually mean "irreligious," then by all means, please take offense. It's EXACTLY people like you to whom I'm referring.
In fact, this may give me a good follow-up post for the next CotG.
Ok you've evidently misunderstood db0 completely because here is what he actually said:
"Indeed, most of the time when I said that I was agnostic people assumed that I was a theistic agnostic. I eventually had to explain my irreligion as "Atheist" to avoid misconceptions. Then if people need a more detailed explanation, I explain that I am an Atheistic Agnostic."
Going through that quote (taken out of his 3rd comment here, he says that people assumed he was a theistic agnostic when he said he was agnostic. That doesn't make it true. He later called himself an atheist so people wouldn't assume he was a theist. He is both agnostic and atheist.
I don't want to fight, but your attitude was completely irrational.
I define myself as an atheist. One who doesn't believe in gods. I'm also an agnostic, one who doesn't claim that I know there are no gods.
Gadfly:
db0 is correct. An agnostic theist is not a theist who is merely agnostic about some aspects of their theistic belief system. An agnostic theist is someone who believes, but doesn't claim to know for sure, in the existence of some sort of god.
Your original assertion is flatly incorrect: "If you believe something, you can
’t agnostic about it!" That's wrong, and curiously so given your attacks on others for not knowing grammar. Belief and knowledge are separate things. Related, but separate. To say "if you believe, you cannot be agnostic" is in effect to say "if you believe, you cannot say you don't know for sure." This collapses belief and knowledge into one, for it asserts that the presence of belief is the presence of knowledge.
And that's wrong. It's actually quite common to believe something is true without also being willing to say that you know for sure it's true. It should in fact be much more common than it is! More people should be willing to admit that what they believe to be true they don't actually know for sure to be true. You can believe that your car keys are still on the kitchen table without knowing for sure. You can believe that your boss hates you without knowing for sure. And you can believe that some sort of god exists without feeling that you can claim to know this for sure.
This is the analog of agnostic atheism, which means not believing in any gods but also not being willing to claim for sure that nothing warranting the label "god" could possibly exist. Usually this is just called "weak atheism," but agnostic atheism is a bit more explicit.
Calling someone a troll and banning their IP for disagreeing with you - and especially when they happen to be right - is just petty. Really petty. It's your blog, of course, and you can do what you want, but that's no excuse or justification for high-handed treatment of people who correct your mistakes.
You were correct, though, to note that being irreligious is not the same as being an atheist. There are irreligious theists and atheists who have a religion.
Austin, you're wrong too.
If you're a theist, you believe in a god. Agnosticism as an overarching point of view is agnostic about the existence of God.
As for belief and knowledge, I never conflated the two, myself.
I don't even care if you run About's page.
Now, if you can get Bob Carroll to say I'm wrong, I'll take it under consideration.
OK, I'm going to tackle db0 once again.
First, I apparently did attribute personal belief to him that he did not hold. For that, I apologize.
But, he's still wrong on his definitions.
First comment, he talks about "theistic agnostic." "Agnostic" being the noun there. But, his Wiki link goes to "agnostic theism." "Theism" being the noun there. I stand by my addition to the post itself on the linguistic comments.
Let me explain this once more, in terms of color (or colour).
There's a difference between "reddish-orange" and "orangish-red." And db0 started talking about reddish-orange, then posted a link to orangish-red.
As for db0's comment that many people in the UK may understand "atheism" to mean "irreligious," well, then obviously a bunch of people in the UK are as stupid as they are here. And, I'll call irreligious people in the UK who call themselves "atheists" idiots, too, db0. Give me e-mail addresses, and I'll even e-mail them that.
And, as for db0 criticising me (spelled the UK way as a grace note), well, instead, he should have taken my article as it read and corrected stupid people on his and Adrian's side of the pond.
Instead, he invited the argument.
Austin, per my first comment to you. And db0 as well:
First, in hardcopy, my "Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion," by William L. Reese, says this under "agnosticism":
It is usually applied, however, principally, to suspension of belief with respect to God.
Now, Bob Carroll does use the word "knowledge," but as subordinate to "belief":
Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God is impossible.
Note the definition is about belief, again.
Nothing about knowledge, empirical evidence, etc. That's why I said I've never conflated belief and knowledge; in making reference to metaphysical states, I've been referring to belief all the time.
So did the Pew poll.
And, per that definition, let me rephrase my original critique of both of you:
Phrases like "agnostic theism" or "theistic agnosticism" in that both the governing noun and the adjective talk about states of belief, or metaphysical stances, to use my phrase ...
ARE MISLEADING.
You have incompatible belief states being smashed together.
I don't care if "agnostic theism" has 5,000 Google hits, either. I don't even care if there's a website called AgnosticTheism.com.
That's just further proof of the Pew poll. And, beyond that, neither Reese nor Carroll use either that phrase or "theistic agnosticism."
Thank doorknob there's only 5,000 deluded Google hits, too.
So, I've already checked Carroll, Austin; no need for you to do so. Other than ascribing personal beliefs to db0 that he doesn't have, I stand by everything in the original post, including calling those confused people idiots.
I'm also going to ask if db0 actually read the linked New York Times story, which also made it clear the Pew poll was about beliefs and not knowledge.
If you're a theist, you believe in a god. Agnosticism as an overarching point of view is agnostic about the existence of God.
As for belief and knowledge, I never conflated the two, myself.
You're doing so right here. Being agnostic about the existence of God means not claiming to know if God exists. Thus the only reason you can't be a theist and an agnostic is if you conflate belief and knowledge. So long as you recognize a distinction between belief and knowledge (and I must point out that you never try to argue believing without claiming to know for sure is incoherent or logically contradictory), then you necessarily allow that it's possible to be an agnostic and a theist.
I don't even care if you run About's page.
I never said you should. I find it curious that you would feel the need to bring it up.
First, I apologize for having apparently attributed beliefs to you that you do not hold, db. Sorry for calling you a theist.
Since you never had any reason to do in the first place, I think you should ask yourself why you would accuse someone of being a theist simply because they disagree with you. If you engaged people more on their ideas and less on their identities, you wouldn't be in the position of having to apologize for accusing them of being something they are not.
First, in hardcopy, my "Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion," by William L. Reese, says this under "agnosticism": It is usually applied, however, principally, to suspension of belief with respect to God.
That actually describes weak atheism, so what Reese is saying is that most people think that weak atheism is really agnosticism, which is why so many Christians try to tell so many atheists that they are really agnostics. Such misunderstandings about both atheism and agnosticism are hardly a basis for arguing that it's impossible to be an agnostic and a theist. Constructing an argument based on popular misunderstandings is no more legitimate than constructing an argument based on numbers of Google hits.
Now, Bob Carroll does use the word “knowledge,” but as subordinate to "belief": Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God is impossible.
Note the definition is about belief, again. Nothing about knowledge, empirical evidence, etc. That's why I said I've never conflated belief and knowledge; in making reference to metaphysical states, I've been referring to belief all the time.
Wait, nothing about knowledge? Read the bold-faced word again. An agnostic believes that knowledge of the existence of God is impossible. If you are an agnostic, you don't claim to know if any gods exist or not. Knowledge is not "subordinate" to belief here, that makes no sense.
This does not preclude believing anyway. Why? Because not knowing something for sure, but bel
Some of the comment was cut off...
This does not preclude believing anyway. Why? Because not knowing something for sure, but believing anyway, isn't that uncommon.
Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. Just because an agnostic believes they cannot know for sure if any gods exist doesn't mean that agnosticism is about a "state of belief." That's like saying that if nihilism is the position of believing that morals don't exist, then nihilism is "about a state of belief," or if secularism is the position of believing that church and state should be separate, then secularism is "about a state of belief."
Here is just one relevant quote. There are more at the above link:
Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being. The term “agnostic” does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic. The agnostic theist believes in the existence of god, but maintains that the nature of god is unknowable. The medieval Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, is an example of this position.
-George Smith, Atheism
Other than ascribing personal beliefs to db0 that he doesn't have, I stand by everything in the original post, including calling those confused people idiots.
Then you need to be able to construct a logical argument demonstrating that it isn't possible to both believe something is true but also not know for sure that something is true. You've posted several comments since having this pointed out to you, all without even trying to directly address it, so I don't think you can do it.
William L. Reese wrote his dictionary over 25 years ago. Times change, definitions change. Agnosticism today is considered as a position on whether the truth value of something can be known or not. Calling agnosticism a "suspension of belief in God" is like saying to a happy person "Oh, you're very gay today".
Words change.
You mentioned on your other blog that Dictionary.com agrees with you in it's first definition. This I think is a pretty weak point since the first definition is:
"the doctrine or belief of an agnostic"
Well duh. That's like saying the definition of atheism should be "the philosophy of an atheist". Of course such a vague description would agree with you, but it agrees with everyone else as well.
The second definition over at Dictionary.com is the one that supports myself, Austin, and db0, and in fact the rest of the agnostic atheist community.
"an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge."
You claim that agnosticism and theism are two different beliefs that cannot possibly be combined but this isn't true. I would agree that they are different beliefs, but they aren't beliefs about the same thing. Theism considers the existence of God, and Agnosticism considers whether the existence can be known.
Your example of "Democratic Republicanism" is not relevant to this point, because Democratic and Republican are words associated with the same "belief" (different political systems).
A person can be Democratic and also Pro-life, or Republican and be anti-war, just as a theist can be agnostic about his/her beliefs.
There are only two positions on the existence of God: theism and atheism. (deism is considered a subset of theism)
There are only two positions on the "knowability" of the existence of God: agnosticism and gnosticism.
Hopefully you can now see how these attributes are completely different n definition, but can be related to each other easily.
Sorry to double post, but I've just read the skepdic.com definition of agnosticism which you pasted the first line of.
If you'd have read down a bit you would have found the rest of the definition:
"The agnostic holds that human knowledge is limited to the natural world, that the mind is incapable of knowledge of the supernatural. Understood this way, an agnostic could also be a theist or an atheist. The former is called a fideist, one who believes in God purely on faith. The latter is sometimes accused by theists of having faith in the non-existence of God, but the accusation is absurd and the expression meaningless. The agnostic atheist simply finds no compelling reason to believe in God."
The entire definition can be found here: http://skepdic.com/agnosticism.html
If anything it just shows the entire thing is about semantics, and his version supports both views. I certainly know many people who would prefer just to be called "agnostic" and respond to the question "Do you believe in God" with "I don't know". If they are happy with this definition, that's fine by me, but everyone should be aware of other definitions, especially when a lot of atheists call themselves agnostic as well.
I will continue to disagree with you all, including you, Austin. Including your claim that I am conflating knowledge and belief.
Re Adrian, the second sentence of Skepdic identifies agnosticism as a middle ground between theism and atheism, both of which are belief states. And, yes, I read the whole thing before I posted a link.
As for George Smith, well, he is another contributor to the problem.
Finally, as I told Konstantine re his Humpty Dumpty argument, sometimes semantics matter.
I will continue to disagree with you all, including you, Austin. Including your claim that I am conflating knowledge and belief.
I have no problem with a person disagreeing with me. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again in the future.
What I do have a problem with is a person who insists on sticking to a position without even trying to construct a logical argument in defense of it. That's your right, of course, but it's not behavior that can be respected or taken seriously. I doubt that you would have any kind words to say in response to someone who wrote "I will continue to believe in God" without providing any arguments on behalf of their assertions. Well, I have the same reaction to the quoted statement above.
By the way, I don't simply claim that you are conflating knowledge and belief. I explain, in some detail, why I think you do. If you disagree with that explanation, that's fine, but it's wrong for you to not invest any time or effort into explaining why you disagree.
I'll leave it at that and won't return, unless someone informs me that you have a change of heart and decide that constructing an argument is worth your time after all. Until then, visiting this site isn't worth my time.
I have invested time. And energy.
Commenting by HaloScan
