# Agnostic discrimination and misunderstanding



## Ntln (Apr 27, 2012)

It's hard for me to classify my beliefs between agnostic and atheist (and all the everything in between, like agnostic atheist) but for the most part, I'd say the closest definition would be agnostic.

I've noticed that a lot of people have a problem with someone identifying as agnostic. And at this point, I'd like to say that it's both religious people AND atheists. It's not just one or the other.

I'd say, both many religious and atheists seem to have a "You're so dumb sitting on the fence, pick I side already!" attitude. I think this reflects a wider problem with society for the most part. People automatically assume saying "I don't know" or "I think the answer is somewhere in between" is a sign of weakness, when honestly, it's a perfectly legitimate stance and often the smartest.

Of course, many religions have a strong dislike of anyone who disagrees with them by default. But, many atheists in their treatment of agnostics are really no better. For example, many say "Oh, you're just too scared to use the word atheist aren't you?".

What people don't get is agnostic can mean a lot of things. A lot of people assume agnosticism just means "Duuuuuuh you can't prove nothing!", which is far from the truth. Not to mention, it's often hard to differentiate whether you're agnostic, atheist or theist.

For example, my beliefs are that none of the major religions are reliable and are, with 99.9% certainty false. The abrahamic religions are clearly written by primitive man, and display morals and values that even most of their followers today wouldn't agree with (and it's a good thing they don't). Buddhism, and other large religions, also have their share of problems. Not to mention I most certainly agree that the religions themselves have the burden of proof, since it's impossible to prove a negative, and so far, none have presented good enough evidence. As for the "You have to have faith" well, there's hundreds of religions that ask me to have faith and believe without evidence, which should I choose, if I have literally no evidence to pick one over the other? At the same time, however, I believe that there's many things we don't understand, and the universe is infinitely complex. We simply don't know enough to know there's no higher power. There might be something that fits the definition of a "god" or "spirit" out there (higher form of intelligence), but it would likely be scientifically explainable in some way, not just "magic". It might not exist, but I believe there's certainly a possibility. So, therefore, I identify as agnostic, rather than atheist.

But at the same time, there might be someone who has the EXACT same religious beliefs as me, who identifies as an atheist. And there are more. Someone who believes in some kind "higher power" but follow no religion might identify as agnostic. Some people, who are for all intents and purposes atheists, identify as agnostics simply because they think there's a 0.00001% chance there's a god. Some people who just haven't really thought of it might identify as agnostic. The list goes on, there's even more.

I just wish people respected an agnostic viewpoint more and saw it as legitimate. Sorry this thread was so long, it's just hard to explain an issue like this in short.


----------



## Umpalumpa (Jan 26, 2014)

Really? Not picking a side is a sign for doubtness in anything, which i value as intelligence,
People many times can be like a cup full of water, they can not recieve anything new, people need to empty themselves a little bit in order to truly be able to recieve.


----------



## TicklemeRingo (Jan 11, 2013)

As a non-religious person I get annoyed at the assumption that I don't have a culture, or that the culture of religious people is inherently more valuable than that of a non-religious person.

Plenty of that attitude about in the last few days, due to events in France.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Ntln said:


> It's hard for me to classify my beliefs between agnostic and atheist (and all the everything in between, like agnostic atheist) but for the most part, I'd say the closest definition would be agnostic.
> 
> I've noticed that a lot of people have a problem with someone identifying as agnostic. And at this point, I'd like to say that it's both religious people AND atheists. It's not just one or the other.
> 
> ...


You should educate them on what agnosticism actually means, and highlight the fallacy of claiming to know there is or isn't a deity.

Everyone that has any credibility IMO on the subject is an agnostic, be that an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, since agnosticism addresses knowledge and atheism/theism addresses belief.

Believing in the existence of a deity or not does not infer a claim to know there is deity or not.

Agnosticism being a "middle ground" between atheism and theism for those who don't want to commit to either is a common misconception.

From reading your post it seems like while you are on the right track you are also a little bit confused about agnosticism, since you mention for example one trying to work out if they are agnostic, atheist or theist. As I say, agnosticism and atheism/theism address different questions, so aren't exclusive.

People are either:


Gnostic theists (they claim to know there is a god)
Gnostic atheists (they claim to know there is no god)
Agnostic theists (they believe there is a god but don't know there is)
Agnostic atheists (they believe there is no god but don't know there isn't)

You certainly sound like an agnostic atheist. Every atheist i've ever spoken to has turned out to be an agnostic atheist. Unlike with the deluded gnostic theists, of which there are hundreds of millions, all atheists i've ever spoken to have the intellectual honesty to admit they don't know if there is a god or not.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

TicklemeRingo said:


> As a non-religious person I get annoyed at the assumption that I don't have a culture, or that the culture of religious people is inherently more valuable than that of a non-religious person.
> 
> Plenty of that attitude about in the last few days, due to events in France.


Indeed, or the classic, "if you don't believe in god you don't believe in anything", that I sometimes hear theists declare.

It's just ignorance of beliefs and culture the exist outwith their own. Theists tend to be less educated and aware of other groups of people.


----------



## sajs (Jan 3, 2015)

Well, I dont like atheists much, I prefer an agnostic.

But even so, the usual agnostic tends to base their beliefs on a simple line of reasoning, like "oh, well, I cant say god is real because there is no evidence of it and I cant say he is not because of the same thing". Basically, to me, the agnostic is just a person waiting some contundent proof from the theist or atheist community to pick the winning side, without doing any reaserch on their own.

I am more on the theosophist side.


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

ugh1979 said:


> Agnostic atheists (they believe there is no god but don't know there isn't)


Only problem with that is I don't want to be lumped in with atheists. Should be another category, Indifferent Agnostic.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

sajs said:


> Well, I dont like atheists much, I prefer an agnostic.


Almost all atheists are agnostic, so are you referring to the few atheists who are "gnostic" atheists (aka as "strong atheists") who claim to know there is no god rather than just beleive there is no god?

I don't particularly like gnostic atheists either, as they are just as deluded as people who say they know there is a god.



> But even so, the usual agnostic tends to base their beliefs on a simple line of reasoning, like "oh, well, I cant say god is real because there is no evidence of it and I cant say he is not because of the same thing". Basically, to me, the agnostic is just a person waiting some contundent proof from the theist or atheist community to pick the winning side, without doing any reaserch on their own.


Since the existence of deity is ultimately unknowable, all credible atheists or theists adhere to agnosticism in addition to their theistic beliefs.

Neither atheists or theists can provide absolute proof for the existence or non-existence of a deity any more than they can absolute proof there are or aren't invisible unicorns on the moon.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

LawfulStupid said:


> Only problem with that is I don't want to be lumped in with atheists. Should be another category, Indifferent Agnostic.


Well if you express any disbelief in the existence of a deity then you are by definition an atheist. What's the issue with being an atheist if you are one? Saying you don't want to be "lumped in with atheists" for not being a theist is like saying you don't want to be "lumped in with black people" even though you are black.

Indifference to the belief of there being a deity or not infers atheism, so you would still be an atheist if you categorized yourself as indifferent to the belief in a deity.


----------



## Grog (Sep 13, 2013)

As you said 

We simply do not know enough . 

Exactly how I feel . Until we do know enough I'll stick to every thing being bull**** ..


----------



## Implicate (Feb 1, 2011)

It's a societal problem that infiltrates so many aspects of life. 

So many people only see the world in terms of black or white, not many can see the shades of grey in between. 

People tend to demand labels to understand anything. People tend not to be very enlightened or intelligent.


----------



## Ntln (Apr 27, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> Since the existence of deity is ultimately unknowable, all credible atheists or theists adhere to agnosticism in addition to their theistic beliefs.
> 
> Neither atheists or theists can provide absolute proof for the existence or non-existence of a deity any more than they can absolute proof there are or aren't invisible unicorns on the moon.


Yes, I feel I should have mentioned that as well. One could be an atheist or theist, but still consider themselves agnostic, since agnosticism addresses what a person knows, while theism or atheism addresses what they believe. The original post was just already long enough.


----------



## bfs (Jan 9, 2015)

I'd definitely say I'm closer to being an atheist than a theist, but when the label conversation comes I quickly say agnostic. I think it just comes down to whether or not you're willing to envision a world where anything can happen, rather than everything being "part of the plan"(Joker voice).


----------



## going going Gone (Nov 24, 2014)

to me an agnostic is a person who is on their way to becoming an atheist. You're still in the process of figuring out what makes sense to you, I've already made up my mind about what makes more sense to me


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

So where's the discrimination? It seems the only misunderstanding is from those that use the word incorrectly to avoid the atheist label, for whatever superficial reason. If you do not believe in a god or gods, you are an atheist. One's epistemological stance regarding this claim is largely moot. No one goes round identifying how agnostic or gnostic they are about belief or disbelief in pixies, fairies, elves, trolls, gnomes, sprites, goblins, etc... (there's literally thousands of things you can list here). Even if they did, why would anyone care about an epistemological stance on something that fails to reliably meet any sort of tangible justification? God claims are no different. We have had thousands of conceived deities while not a single one has ever been substantiated beyond concepts in the human mind. The main difference between fantasy races, being and deities is the power attributed to them and to what regard they are held among a collective mindset. Not trying to be a dick, but for the same reason you presumably don't give a sack full of seal nuts that I'm agnostic about orcs (which I technically am), I'm don't care that you are agnostic about some god people might fancy or favor in a particular geographic location.


----------



## Ntln (Apr 27, 2012)

emptyeyed said:


> to me an agnostic is a person who is on their way to becoming an atheist. You're still in the process of figuring out what makes sense to you, I've already made up my mind about what makes more sense to me





Foh_Teej said:


> So where's the discrimination? It seems the only misunderstanding is from those that use the word incorrectly to avoid the atheist label, for whatever superficial reason. If you do not believe in a god or gods, you are an atheist. One's epistemological stance regarding this claim is largely moot. No one goes round identifying how agnostic or gnostic they are about belief or disbelief in pixies, fairies, elves, trolls, gnomes, sprites, goblins, etc... (there's literally thousands of things you can list here). Even if they did, why would anyone care about an epistemological stance on something that fails to reliably meet any sort of tangible justification? God claims are no different. We have had thousands of conceived deities while not a single one has ever been substantiated beyond concepts in the human mind. The main difference between fantasy races, being and deities is the power attributed to them and to what regard they are held among a collective mindset. Not trying to be a dick, but for the same reason you presumably don't give a sack full of seal nuts that I'm agnostic about orcs (which I technically am), I'm don't care that you are agnostic about some god people might fancy or favor in a particular geographic location.


No offence, but these are exactly the attitudes I was talking about. Agnostics viewed as people too afraid to take a stance, or basically agnostics as "coward atheists". A view that agnostics are dumb/lazy or can't make up their mind. Also, what ugh1979 said in his posts (which I admittedly neglected to mention in my original post though I should have), you can be agnostic and atheist/theist at the same time.

For example, I'm essentially for all intents and purposes an atheist. The reason your post is offensive and fundamentally wrong, Fun_Teej, is that you are focusing on people agnostic towards "some god people might fancy or favor in a particular geographic location". I don't know where you're taking this from. I'm agnostic towards the idea of there existing some form of deity or higher power *in general*. You seem to view agnostic people as those who don't want to disregard the idea of a Christian god (or any other particular god) I don't favour any religion. As for the thing about fairies, pixies, orcs whatever, those aren't religious beliefs (for the most part). The idea that there is some form of higher intelligence, or that the universe itself might be intelligent in some way, does not strike me as all that ridiculous, or even going against science. If there is, it's probably nothing to be worshipped, so therefore, organised religion wouldn't make sense even if there was a "god" of some kind. But the small probability of something like that existing is why I identify as agnostic. And really, does it make a difference? Why would you care how I, or other people choose to label our religious beliefs, or lack thereof?


----------



## going going Gone (Nov 24, 2014)

Ntln said:


> emptyeyed said:
> 
> 
> > to me an agnostic is a person who is on their way to becoming an atheist. You're still in the process of figuring out what makes sense to you, I've already made up my mind about what makes more sense to me
> ...


I dont care what you prefer to call yourself but you are an atheist neverthless . Calling yourself agnostic is the safer option when you don't want people to automatically assume you think youre right about everything and 100% certain.. Most atheists are not hundred percent certain but that doesnt make them agnostic. Agnostics usually believe in some higher power but atheists don't see the point since its highly unlikely for it to be true. That doesnt mean they are 100% convinved there isn't or never could be one, it just means they'd rather follow an idea that makes sense and ignore all the unneccessary 'what-ifs'. As an atheist its perfectly okay to not be 100% sure, none of us are, but need to follow our intuition. I like to pick a side to make sense of the world and I wont pick one side just because it 'could' be true. I pick the side that has most evidence for itself and if im proven wrong I wont have an ounce of guilt within me for using my brain.


----------



## Terranaut (Jul 11, 2013)

sajs said:


> Well, I dont like atheists much, I prefer an agnostic.
> 
> But even so, the usual agnostic tends to base their beliefs on a simple line of reasoning, like "oh, well, I cant say god is real because there is no evidence of it and I cant say he is not because of the same thing". Basically, to me, the agnostic is just a person waiting some contundent proof from the theist or atheist community to pick the winning side, without doing any reaserch on their own.
> 
> I am more on the theosophist side.


I don't like theosophists much. Whatever that is.

I don't believe in believing. But I definitely don't believe it's very nice to express dislike for people I don't know and generalize about them. Is that what a theosophist does? (rhetorical question)


----------



## Terranaut (Jul 11, 2013)

"God" is an anthropocentric construct while falsely elevates the human being to think he or she is so important as to rate a nature above nature i.e. super-nature. This appeals mostly to the have nots--the lower socio-economic classes who place hope in this construct. This leaves them very much open to exploitation by the power hungry charlatan. 

It takes a long time and vigilance to tear off the secondary placenta of "belief" which children are bagged into without contract or choice. Agnosticism and atheism are stages of self-dis-indoctrination. When one achieves full detachment from all matters of some supposed "super-nature", he or she is ready to truly value the wonders of actual nature and value the priviledge of having just the one finite knowable life inside the only nature we can be sure of. That "spirit" is the achievement of a freedom and power to to love and forgive. That I think is what a Christ would want to bring of his or her culture. And in that sense, Christ is in all those who can be so grateful and accepting.


----------



## sajs (Jan 3, 2015)

Terranaut said:


> I don't like theosophists much. Whatever that is.
> 
> I don't believe in believing. But I definitely don't believe it's very nice to express dislike for people I don't know and generalize about them. Is that what a theosophist does? (rhetorical question)


Haha, why do you talk about theosophism if you dont even know its meaning ?.

You dont believe in believing ? Are you kidding me ? Is that a sort of riddle or what? lol.

I said, I dont like atheists MUCH. Everyone has some judgments of some sort. Some people will judge you because your looks and other people will judge you because other things. If I dont like their line of thinking, why should I said I like 'em?. I also do not like theists much, so what ? I am not saying I hate them, I just do not like what they think about that particular topic, everything else is unrelated and I can separate those aspects.

In a rethorical question you either expect the other part to agree with you or you either know the answer, which clearly you do not because you probably think they do that, and if you think otherwise, you are agreeing with the doctrine.

To quote Saint Augustine (in my own weird translation of his saying):

"Believing in everything and believing in nothing are two extreme postures that lead to nothing".


----------



## sajs (Jan 3, 2015)

Btw, I should note that this:



Terranaut said:


> I don't like theosophists much. Whatever that is.
> 
> ...
> 
> But I definitely don't believe it's very nice to express dislike for people I don't know and generalize about them ...


is totally ironic.


----------



## Terranaut (Jul 11, 2013)

sajs said:


> Btw, I should note that this:
> 
> is totally ironic.


 Good, I'm glad you got the irony at least. I think you missed the other points though. My tact was to point out that it's pointlessly offensive to say something like "I don't like atheists much". How would it sound if people led with "I don't like Christians much" or "I don't like Jews" or "I don't like people who pray much"? I think that would make me sound very much like an a55 I wouldn't want to hear much else from.


----------



## sajs (Jan 3, 2015)

Terranaut said:


> Good, I'm glad you got the irony at least. I think you missed the other points though. My tact was to point out that it's pointlessly offensive to say something like "I don't like atheists much". How would it sound if people led with "I don't like Christians much" or "I don't like Jews" or "I don't like people who pray much"? I think that would make me sound very much like an a55 I wouldn't want to hear much else from.


You are totally free to say it !, this does not mean that you are going to kill those people or be a Nazi. Do you like Nazis? I bet you will say "I dont like Nazis", would you be an *** for saying this?.

Yes, I probably did not explain why, but it was only to make clear that I prefer agnostics rather than atheists in their "idk" reasoning, but not how they handle it, as I made clear, agnostics just sit there waiting for some discovery from "theists" or "atheists" that prove they are right and pick the winning said and being releif that "at least they werent wrong".
Theosophism also has this kind of "idk" (although its more inclined to believing), but contrary to agnosticism theosophism does reasearch looking for answers, and it does not search only in the bible but in every holy book out there. Theosophism is a quest for truth, there their motto

"There is no religion higher than truth"


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

sajs said:


> You are totally free to say it !, this does not mean that you are going to kill those people or be a Nazi. Do you like Nazis? I bet you will say "I dont like Nazis", would you be an *** for saying this?.


There are valid reasons not to like Nazis, but you can't make the same sweeping generalisation about not liking atheists/Jews/Muslims/Christians etc and not be considered a ****.



> Yes, I probably did not explain why, but it was only to make clear that I prefer agnostics rather than atheists, that's all.


Do you prefer agnostic theists or agnostic atheists?


----------



## sajs (Jan 3, 2015)

ugh1979 said:


> There are valid reasons not to like Nazis, but you can't make the same sweeping generalisation about not liking atheists/Jews/Muslims/Christians etc and not be considered a ****.
> 
> Mmmm ...
> 
> Do you prefer agnostic theists or agnostic atheists?


I dont know if there is even something like "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist", never heard of it, but I am always more inclined to believing, 'cause to me there is no reason to say "there is nothing", 'cause you cant prove it either, and if you cant prove it but make any assertion you are actually BELIEVING, do you see how funny it actually is ? And if I am going to believe anyway I prefer to believe in something that sounds better than nothing.
I've read you said that believing in god is something humans do to feel unique and superior or whatever, let me propose the following .. how egocentric is saying that there is nothing more superior than the human being ?.

I just know that I hope there is something better after this, where all the good people can get what they deserve (I am not talking about me here), but I will like that, why not ? If its better, its welcome.

PS: I did not read you say anything, I confused you with the other poster. Sorry !


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

sajs said:


> I dont know if there is even something like "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist", never heard of it


The two terms address separate questions. Agnosticism in its typical context addresses _knowledge _of the existence of a deity or not, and theism/atheism addresses _belief _ in the existence of deity or not.

Most atheists don't claim to _know _there is no deity, but they do _believe _there is no deity. Therefore they are agnostic atheists. In the same respect there are theists who believe there is a deity but don't claim to know one exists, so they are agnostic theists.



> but I am always more inclined to believing, 'cause to me there is no reason to say "there is nothing", 'cause you cant prove it either, and if you cant prove it but make any assertion you are actually BELIEVING, do you see how funny it actually is? And if I am going to believe anyway I prefer to believe in something that sounds better than nothing.


When you say "nothing" you mean no deity yeah? The two terms aren't interchangeable, as there is literally a universe of things to believe in sans deities.

Or do you think that if you don't believe in a deity then there is nothing to believe in?



> I've read you said that believing in god is something humans do to feel unique and superior or whatever, let me propose the following .. how egocentric is saying that there is nothing more superior than the human being ?.


I agree it would be egocentric to say there is nothing more superior to humans. How can one ever verifiably quantify superiority in this context though?

I personally believe in the righteousness of an even playing field devoid of hierarchy.


----------



## sajs (Jan 3, 2015)

ugh1979 said:


> The two terms address separate questions. Agnosticism in its typical context addresses _knowledge _of the existence of a deity or not, and theism/atheism addresses _belief _ in the existence of deity or not.
> 
> Most atheists don't claim to _know _there is no deity, but they do _believe _there is no deity. Therefore they are agnostic atheists. In the same respect there are theists who believe there is a deity but don't claim to know one exists, so they are agnostic theists.
> 
> ...


From what I've read (and I dont know it this differs 'cause we read in different languages). It goes like this, to keep it short.

Theist = afirms the existence of at least one god.
Atheist = rejects the beleif of any god.
Agnostic = Say that assuptions referred to the existance or inexistance of god are unknown or unknowable

On the other hand in an article referred to agnosticism it used the term "believes" to talk about theists and atheists. So I guess there is a big confusion about using terms interchangeably because they are not the same.
Also, its seems to be wrong the interchangeable use of the term "unknown" and "unknowable" (i.e: To me your location is unknown but not unknowable)

So, this people do not make their minds about what is what. To me no person can say they know anything unless they can prove it, but this does not mean that some people may know the truth but does not share it, maybe we can not deal with that truth, and I dont blame them.

I think the truth is out there, and you can find it if you want.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

sajs said:


> From what I've read (and I dont know it this differs 'cause we read in different languages). It goes like this, to keep it short.
> 
> Theist = afirms the existence of at least one god.
> Atheist = rejects the beleif of any god.
> Agnostic = Say that assuptions referred to the existance or inexistance of god are unknown or unknowable


The first two relate to belief, the latter infers knowledge, so we are in agreement on the definitions. As I say, being agnostic isn't exclusive of being atheist/theist.

The first definition could also be considered to mean belief and knowledge of a god, but there are other definitions of theist which just define belief.

As I say, there are theists who don't affirm the existence of a god, but do believe there is one, so they can be considered agnostic theists, since they admit the existence of a god is unknown or unknowable.



> On the other hand in an article referred to agnosticism it used the term "believes" to talk about theists and atheists. So I guess there is a big confusion about using terms interchangeably because they are not the same.
> Also, its seems to be wrong the interchangeable use of the term "unknown" and "unknowable" (i.e: To me your location is unknown but not unknowable)


They aren't defined as interchangeable options. It can mean it is either unknown or unknowable. As you say, something can be unknown but not be unknowable.


----------



## bfs (Jan 9, 2015)

emptyeyed said:


> to me an agnostic is a person who is on their way to becoming an atheist. You're still in the process of figuring out what makes sense to you, I've already made up my mind about what makes more sense to me


How? The only thing we can know for an absolute fact about god, is that we know nothing. Stating that we know he exists or knows that he doesn't exist is just a pure leap of faith.

Now with that being said. If you want to say agnostic is in the middle of the spectrum, then I am without a doubt more atheist than I am religious. But we can not say we know what happens when we die, nor can we say we know god created anything.

You even said it at the end "what makes more sense". I even agree with you, to my understanding evolution makes more sense than creation to me, but we don't know if it's one or the other or neither; they both can be wrong.

Agnostic is for people who truly want to admit they got no clue, and don't claim they do.


----------



## MikeinNirvana (Dec 2, 2012)

Umpalumpa said:


> Really? Not picking a side is a sign for doubtness in anything, which i value as intelligence,
> People many times can be like a cup full of water, they can not recieve anything new, people need to empty themselves a little bit in order to truly be able to recieve.


I like this!
Just like Bruce Lee said once empty the cup"
Be water!


----------



## Ntln (Apr 27, 2012)

emptyeyed said:


> I dont care what you prefer to call yourself but you are an atheist neverthless . Calling yourself agnostic is the safer option when you don't want people to automatically assume you think youre right about everything and 100% certain.. Most atheists are not hundred percent certain but that doesnt make them agnostic. Agnostics usually believe in some higher power but atheists don't see the point since its highly unlikely for it to be true. That doesnt mean they are 100% convinved there isn't or never could be one, it just means they'd rather follow an idea that makes sense and ignore all the unneccessary 'what-ifs'. As an atheist its perfectly okay to not be 100% sure, none of us are, but need to follow our intuition. *I like to pick a side to make sense of the world and I wont pick one side just because it 'could' be true. I pick the side that has most evidence for itself and if im proven wrong I wont have an ounce of guilt within me for using my brain.*


Good for you. I myself am happy sticking with "I don't know". I don't personally feel the need to "pick a side" just for the sake of it, even though yes, I lean towards atheism strongly. I'm not scared of saying I don't know, and I'm tired of society forcing us to always pick extreme views when it comes to religion and politics.

Oh and "Agnostics usually believe in some higher power"? I have no idea where you got that from. I honestly think you've fundamentally misunderstood what agnosticism is in the first place. Sure, there are *some* agnostics who believe in a higher power, but as I mentioned in my original post, there is a pretty wide spectrum of beliefs within agnosticism. Agnostic atheists certainly don't believe in a higher power (mostly). Besides, agnosticisim addresses mostly knowledge, not belief. You can be BOTH an atheist AND agnostic, since atheism addresses the question of whether you believe in a god, while agnosticism addresses the question of whether you know there's a god. I could just as easily say many people who claim to be atheist should actually identify as agnostic atheists, because they don't claim to "know" whether a god exists or not, but I honestly don't care how people label their religious views. And neither should you. Live and let live.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

Ntln said:


> No offence, but these are exactly the attitudes I was talking about.


Why would I take offence to pointing out intellectual dishonesty? You admitted in your opening statement my whole point. Identifying as agnostic isn't some intellectually superior neutral zone between theism and atheism.


Ntln said:


> Agnostics viewed as people too afraid to take a stance, or basically agnostics as "coward atheists". A view that agnostics are dumb/lazy or can't make up their mind.


While in some cases this may be true, It is not my personal opinion that people that identify as agnostic as coward, lazy, or dumb. I do, however, believe that in virtually all cases is it used to avoid the atheist label. I'm not saying it isn't ok to not know things; just that the identity of this label is virtually pointless.


Ntln said:


> Also, what ugh1979 said in his posts (which I admittedly neglected to mention in my original post though I should have), you can be agnostic and atheist/theist at the same time.


Yes, I am very familiar with the definitions having written multiple essays on the topic. But the fact that they address different concepts underpins my point. For that reason, there is good reason to leave out what ugh said as it undermines your opening remark. 


Ntln said:


> For example, I'm essentially for all intents and purposes an atheist.


This is the case in virtually every post like this yet you felt the need to distinguish yourself as something other. It isn't as if you are the first on this forum to argue the position of agnosticism, as if it really means anything actually meaningful. 


Ntln said:


> The reason your post is offensive and fundamentally wrong, Fun_Teej, is that you are focusing on people agnostic towards "some god people might fancy or favor in a particular geographic location". I don't know
> where you're taking this from.


The fact that across the globe, people believe in different gods or even different concepts of the same god. But your quote is taken slightly out of it's context. It was in relation to my statement "...thousands of conceived deities..." of which many aren't exclusive to a particular culture and/or geographic location. This wasn't to exclude more ambiguous deistic concepts of higher power/energy force/etc. 


Ntln said:


> I'm agnostic towards the idea of there existing some form of deity or higher power in general.


Which is even more ambiguous than, but precisely as (non)useful as me being agnostic about mermaids. 


Ntln said:


> You seem to view agnostic people as those who don't want to disregard the idea of a Christian god (or any
> other particular god) I don't favour any religion.


Somehow I didn't convey my point adequately or you have misunderstood it. Eitherway, what religion or particular god doesn't matter. 


Ntln said:


> As for the thing about fairies, pixies, orcs whatever, those aren't religious beliefs (for the most part).


How does qualifying something as "religious beliefs" change anything about my point? Is there any difference in claims about Zeus, Horus, leprechauns, Allah, and pixies? You seem to think denoting a concept as religious makes a difference regarding the nature of how knowledge is addressed. However, even if you still disagree, I can make all of those things into religious claims. I'm now agnostic to pixie creationism! Maybe pixie dust created the heavens and the Earth in a big expansion but I don't know for sure. Maybe we can't know this but I need EVERYONE on SAS to be aware of my stance and it's importance.



Ntln said:


> The idea that there is some form of higher intelligence, or that the universe itself might be intelligent in some way, does not strike me as all that ridiculous, or even going against science.


Cool beans...but this is NOT agnosticism. Feeling this way has nothing to do with it. Hell, in fact, its counter to any definition of agnosticism. If you want to be a deist, just say it. 


Ntln said:


> If there is, it's probably nothing to be worshipped, so therefore, organised religion wouldn't make sense even if there was a "god" of some kind.


The odd thing about "agnostics" is they still claim to have some sort of insight on how these beings may operate. 


Ntln said:


> But the small probability of something like that existing is why I identify as agnostic.


Agnosticism doesn't address probability. But even if it did, how did you calculate probability of "something like that" existing to remotely draw any assumptions? I suppose the small probability of ettins or centaur make me agnostic about them, too. I wish I wasn't so discriminated and misunderstood.


Ntln said:


> And really, does it make a difference? Why would you care how I, or other people choose to label our religious beliefs, or lack thereof?


I value intellectual honesty. It's ok for you to not know something but this will never address, and thus substitute as a neutral position, to the proposition of theism.


----------



## Ntln (Apr 27, 2012)

Foh_Teej said:


> Why would I take offence to pointing out intellectual dishonesty? You admitted in your opening statement my whole point. Identifying as agnostic isn't some intellectually superior neutral zone between theism and atheism.
> 
> While in some cases this may be true, It is not my personal opinion that people that identify as agnostic as coward, lazy, or dumb. I do, however, believe that in virtually all cases is it used to avoid the atheist label. I'm not saying it isn't ok to not know things; just that the identity of this label is virtually pointless.
> 
> ...


I see that you have completely missed the point I was trying to make, and you can not address this issue without resorting to insults or acting like I'm in some way inferior to you. I really don't at this point know how to clarify my points any better (a weakness on my point, sure, but I have anxiety, I'm not gonna stress myself out by getting into a pointless debate with someone who has clearly made up their mind on an issue already). I leave you with what I responded to emptyeyed just the post above yours.

http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/1077604825-post32.html

How am I "avoiding the atheist label" if I admit I have a hard time deciding whether I'm agnostic or agnostic atheist :um? That makes absolutely no sense. I feel your addressing a totally different issue than the one I was talking about in this thread! I will, however, clarify two things

"Feeling this way has nothing to do with it. Hell, in fact, its counter to any definition of agnosticism. If you want to be a deist, just say it. " I never said I believed it, I said I consider it a valid hypothesis, but *don't know* (which is an agnostic point of view). I am an agnostic atheist, not a deist, as *I don't believe this* (due to lack of evidence), and consider the idea of deities in most religions to be impossible scientifically.

"How does qualifying something as "religious beliefs" change anything about my point? Is there any difference in claims about Zeus, Horus, leprechauns, Allah, and pixies?"- use this argument with creationists, don't make me into a strawman. The hypothesis that there exists some higher form of "being" (which, again, I attempted to explain as well as I could, I refuse to just go back and reexplain it to you) is a possible hypothesis in many ways. Zeus, Horus, Allah and pixies have all essentially been either *disproven* or made *irrelevant*. For example, many mythological beings were used to explain natural phenomenon, but since we now know how they work, these invisible creatures (a form of primitive hypothesis) are now irrelevant. The hypothesis of some form of higher intelligence, is not however, since we just don't know enough about the universe (and possibly multiverse) to say that something like that doesn't exist (and since it would explain many things, it's a valid hypothesis).

Though, why the f*** am I even arguing this? The point of this thread was that agnostics are treated condecendingly or seen as idiots or cowards. I didn't even make this thread with the purpose of arguing agnosticism one way or the other!


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

Ntln said:


> I see that you have completely missed the point I was trying to make, and you can not address this issue without resorting to insults or acting like I'm in some way inferior to you.


I'm not sorry you are insulted for using a word incorrectly. However, in no way did I say or attempt to imply you are inferior to me. Also, what point did I miss, exactly, as I feel I'm well aware of your point -- I just don't consider it valid as you think it is, and I'm pointing out why.



Ntln said:


> http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/1077604825-post32.html
> 
> "Good for you. I myself am happy sticking with "I don't know". I don't personally feel the need to "pick a side" just for the sake of it, even though yes, I lean towards atheism strongly.


The question of theism is binary and you are a theist or not one. It's ok to not know if you believe something but this doesn't meet any definition of theism nor does it suspend addressing that proposition.



Ntln said:


> I'm not scared of saying I don't know, and I'm tired of society forcing us to always pick extreme views when it comes to religion and politics."


No one is assaulting you for not knowing something. The point is, no one gives a damn about what you don't know about something. You seem to think that you have created this sphrere where your lack of knowledge about a topic is of some value to others, and boast of it's significance. At any rate, there is nothing extreme about atheism. It's completely void of any meaning outside of the single proposition it addresses. What next? Is being a non flight attendant also extreme? Here's the scoop, though: theism is a single proposition. It also has a precise definition of which you meet or do not. If you fail to meet the definition of theism for any reason, the a- prefix works exactly the same way as every other word where it is used to indicate not, lack of, or negation of the root. Now whether you know a god exists or not is a position that is largely moot as no one can produce having any actual knowledge to compare it to. Ya see, I don't know whether a god exists either. I also can say that about all of the fantasy beings already cited. The real difference in you and me is your enthusiasm to announce your lack of knowledge about a particular type of being, as if it makes a damn.



Ntln said:


> How am I "avoiding the atheist label" if I admit I have a hard time deciding whether I'm agnostic or agnostic atheist ?


Reread your above statement till you figure it out.



Ntln said:


> That makes absolutely no sense.


I agree as you keep using it incorrectly.



Ntln said:


> I feel your addressing a totally different issue than the one I was talking about in this thread!


Well we're talking about agnosticism and what it is and isn't. Is there still confusion regarding what you were talking about?



Ntln said:


> I will, however, clarify two things I never said I believed it, I said I consider it a valid hypothesis, but don't know (which is an agnostic point of view).


Cool. But why do you think anyone cares about what you claim to not know about a topic no one else knows about? What do you not know exactly? You haven't distinguished yourself from anyone else yet you feel the need to -- to the point where you feel misunderstood and discriminated, to boot.



Ntln said:


> I am an agnostic atheist, not a deist, as I don't believe this (due to lack of evidence), and consider the idea of deities in most religions to be impossible scientifically.


I understand this but what you were posting in regards to this response, was deism, not agnosticism.



Ntln said:


> use this argument with creationists, don't make me into a strawman.


Not sure how you figured this was a straw man. You replied to me that my list wasn't religious beliefs. I was simply asking you how labeling something as religious differs from other fantasy beings? It has nothing to do with creationists.



Ntln said:


> The hypothesis that there exists some higher form of "being" (which, again, I attempted to explain as well as I could, I refuse to just go back and reexplain it to you) is a possible hypothesis in many ways.


How so? Explain them. For an agnostic, you seem to have insight on quite abit while masqurading as if you do not. Regardless, I don't care about what you think is possible. This has nothing to do with agnosticism.



Ntln said:


> Zeus, Horus, Allah and pixies have all essentially been either disproven or made irrelevant. For example, many mythological beings were used to explain natural phenomenon, but since we now know how they work, these invisible creatures (a form of primitive hypothesis) are now irrelevant.


I didn't ask you to consider them for this purpose nor did my point hinge on whether they have been disproven and/or made irrelevant. I gave examples of religious beings and non religious ones. I think the confusion may have stemmed from my total and utter sarcasm regarding me not knowing about whether pixies created the universe.



Ntln said:


> The hypothesis of some form of higher intelligence, is not however, since we just don't know enough about the universe (and possibly multiverse) to say that something like that doesn't exist (and since it would explain many things, it's a valid hypothesis).


I never once claimed no gods exist or were impossible (remember I'm a pixie agnostic). But regardless, you are making an awful lot of assumptions about things that aren't what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is -and you can go read the defintion yourself- are that truth values to claims regarding the nature or existence of a god are unknown or unknowable. While i have my issues with the word itself and it's meanings, you want to make it into a position where you can factor in an arbtrary value of possibility and openness. While I can't stop you from doing that -nor do I even care if you do- it is not agnosticism.



Ntln said:


> Though, why the f*** am I even arguing this? The point of this thread was that agnostics are treated condecendingly or seen as idiots or cowards.


Yes, and I'm trying to tell you why.



Ntln said:


> I didn't even make this thread with the purpose of arguing agnosticism one way or the other!


I'm not sure of the origin of your definition of _argument_ but any modern dictionary suggests you did exactly that.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

likeaspacemonkey said:


> How?


 OP attempted to incorporate an arbitrarily derived probability of his view of the universe into a word that quite literally means _lack of knowledge,_ that may be further expressed as unknowable.


----------



## Ntln (Apr 27, 2012)

Foh_Teej said:


> I'm not sure of the origin of your definition of _argument_ but any modern dictionary suggests you did exactly that.


Okay, I am done with you. You are nothing but disrespectful and condecending. You just attempt to make yourself seem more valid by nitpicking small flaws in wording, rather than addressing the actual issues I pointed out. This isn't an essay, it's an internet post. And I really don't assume anyone cares what I believe in. I simply meant it it as one example of agnostic beliefs (frankly, what makes YOU think I care that they don't fit YOUR definiton of agnosticism? Perhaps I made it overcomplicated for you. I don't know if a god exists. I certainly don't believe one does. But I'm open to the possibility).

And I don't understand what is so hard about understanding about me not making this thread to argue agnosticism? YOU were the one who started arguing that it is an invalid belief. I don't claim my beliefs are right. I didn't make this thread with the intention of "converting" anyone to agnosticism. The only time I even came close to arguing that agnosticism might be "superior" in my original post was when I pointed out that society nowadays pressures us to make extreme assumptions, when a middle ground is not necessarily unreasonable in many cases. THAT WAS IT. I'm sorry if it came off as me claiming my beliefs were superior to anyone else's, it was simply meant as a side not, but again, this isn't an essay, of course I'm not going to assume the wording needs to be so ultra specific as to satisfy everyone who has a mind for starting conflict and drama on the internet in order to feel intellectually superior.

I simply wished to point out that certain groups of people who identify as atheist or religious, who have a condecending and very negative attitude towards agnostics. That's it. What exactly is so hard to understand about that? Seriously, what? If anything, you have proven that point exactly.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

Ntln said:


> Okay, I am done with you.


Sorry to hear that.



Ntln said:


> You are nothing but disrespectful and condecending.


Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm disrespecting you.



Ntln said:


> You just attempt to make yourself seem more valid by nitpicking small flaws in wording, rather than addressing the actual issues I pointed out.


I don't go around all day on the innerwebs to make my self seem more valid. My arguments stand or fall on their own, as does the validity behind them. Aside from that, what were the issues that you pointed out? You seem to be restating the same things that I promise will be met with the same objections each time. Also, I'm not entirely sure why you're charging me with "nitpicking small flaws in wording" when my objection is misuse of the word _entirely_. But to be fair to you, you aren't the first to attempt to change the word into something that it isn't.



Ntln said:


> This isn't an essay, it's an internet post. And I really don't assume anyone cares what I believe in.


You were right to think that and I stressed this point that no one cares several times. However, it wasn't about your beliefs but using a word improperly then complaining about people that give you grief over it.



Ntln said:


> I simply meant it it as one example of agnostic beliefs (frankly, what makes YOU think I care that they don't fit YOUR definition of agnosticism?


The -ONLY- agnostic belief is regarding the nature of knowledge, ya know the one found in the dictionary. Why did you think it was _my_ definition? Let's pick any dictionary. I promise none of them have entries regarding openness, possibility, or the neutral ground between theism and atheism. Of it's actual definition, I did argue of why it's relatively pointless term at least, and untenable position at worst.



Ntln said:


> Perhaps I made it overcomplicated for you.


That you did but not for the reason your think.



Ntln said:


> I don't know if a god exists.


Neither do I. Neither do the vast majority of people regardless of his or her stated beliefs. The only way a person isn't de facto agnostic is if he or she claims knowledge of some god. But even in the rare case of the self declared gnostic, we have no verifiable method of assessing the nature of this assumed knowledge to compare what a lack of it means. The point is your epistemological stance is hardly much different from virtually everyone else, and equally as trivial.



Ntln said:


> I certainly don't believe one does. But I'm open to the possibility).


Neither do I. However, agnosticism does not address openness nor possibility. Even if it did, your openness is completely irrelevant to whether something is possible. Regardless, I wonder how you even posit something like a god as even possible. Sure, I suppose you can conclude it isn't *impossible*, and therefore possible, but you could only do this if you had knowledge of god creation and the properties of existing and existence are known. If you claim to be agnostic, that admission clearly precludes having such information.



Ntln said:


> And I don't understand what is so hard about understanding about me not making this thread to argue agnosticism? YOU were the one who started arguing that it is an invalid belief.


You stated it was misunderstood and discriminated. While I agree it is very misunderstood, your view of it is the problem I was voicing. However, you are perhaps quick to forget you quoted me first. If you didn't want responses, why post it in a forum? If you then thought I wouldn't respond to a direct quote, you were mislead by some faculty of mind.



Ntln said:


> I don't claim my beliefs are right.


Whoa, whoa, whoa I'm not attacking you for beliefs. You're masquerading your beliefs behind the veil of agnosticism, of which I am objecting on grounds of misusing the word as an identity to describe them.



Ntln said:


> I didn't make this thread with the intention of "converting" anyone to agnosticism.


I'm not sure how that would be possible, as that concept is largely incoherent, even if that was your goal.



Ntln said:


> The only time I even came close to arguing that agnosticism might be "superior" in my original post was when I pointed out that society nowadays pressures us to make extreme assumptions, when a middle ground is not necessarily unreasonable in many cases. THAT WAS IT.


Yes and there is no middle ground. How many gumballs are in the candy machine? "I don't know" is not a middle ground between the correct number and every other incorrect response, nor does it substitute as valid answer. Not only are you arguing this, you are infusing the term with openness and possibility.



Ntln said:


> I'm sorry if it came off as me claiming my beliefs were superior to anyone else's, it was simply meant as a side not, but again, this isn't an essay, of course I'm not going to assume the wording needs to be so ultra specific as to satisfy everyone who has a mind for starting conflict and drama on the internet in order to feel intellectually superior.


If I confused you with what I meant, my apologies. I did not intend to project you as stating your beliefs are superior -as they aren't the focus of my argument-- but identifying as agnostic is a superior stance between theism and atheism. By_ superior_, I meant as more appropriate position between atheism and theism.



Ntln said:


> I simply wished to point out that certain groups of people who identify as atheist or religious, who have a condecending and very negative attitude towards agnostics. That's it.


Do you still not understand how this word works? No you don't.



Ntln said:


> What exactly is so hard to understand about that? Seriously, what?


I'm finding myelf having to repeat myself. YOU ARE USING THE WORD INCORRECTLY. THERE IS NO POSITION BETWEEN THEISM AND ATHEISM.



Ntln said:


> If anything, you have proven that point exactly.


No you have created a self fulling dilemma of which you are getting mad at people for your misapplication of a word.



likeaspacemonkey said:


> The way I see it though, he didn't incorporate it into his definition of agnosticism.


I'm not interested in the way you see it. In every single one of his replies he justified his position as a deistic possibility. That's both fine AND dandy; however, it isn't agnosticism.



likeaspacemonkey said:


> He seems to understand himself as agnostic because he doesn't and can't know.


Which doesn't tell anyone anything new about the claim in question, nor does it actually distinguish him from virtually every other person on the earth, except those that claim knowledge. Those that do claim such knowledge cannot produce any verifiable information by any practical application of any working method we have. If they could, this entire topic wouldn't exist. Also, one cannot possibly have the requisite information to know about something they claim they cannot know about. Aside from something truly unknowable as being completely irrelevant, that definition of agnosticism simply self refutes itself into nonsense.



likeaspacemonkey said:


> What he was doing was explaining why he doesn't consider himself atheist or deist.


And I was explaining why this is incorrect and can't avoid the binary nature of a single proposition.



Ntln said:


> I understand not believing in or disbelieving the existence of something one could call "God" going by a vaguer definition of the word, as opposed to one of the specific fictitious characters humankind created over our history.


My very first post addresses this specifically.


----------



## Ntln (Apr 27, 2012)

Foh_Teej said:


> Sorry to hear that.
> 
> Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm disrespecting you.
> 
> I don't go around all day on the innerwebs to make my self seem more valid. My arguments stand or fall on their own, as does the validity behind them. Aside from that, what were the issues that you pointed out? You seem to be restating the same things that I promise will be met with the same objections each time. Also, I'm not entirely sure why you're charging me with "nitpicking small flaws in wording" when my objection is misuse of the word _entirely_. But to be fair to you, you aren't the first to attempt to change the word into something that it isn't.


Okay, I got too emotional in my last post, which I apologise for.

At any rate, I think I shouldn't have even mentioned my personal beliefs, as it has clearly muddied the water, and shifted the focus of the discussion.

What I meant by addressing that I believe there is a possibility of there excisting a god was to illustrate WHY I can't claim to know. Perhaps it was somewhat irrelevant, or overcomplicated the issue, which, again, I admit, I probably shouldn't have brought up, but I honestly couldn't have predicted it causing so much confusion. By basic definition, I would still say agnostic or agnsotic athesit is the closest to my beliefs. Because the fact of the matter is, I don't believe in a god, but I can't claim to know for sure whether one exists or not, which, I really DON'T see how that goes against the "official" definition of agnosticism.

Basically I didn't really use the example I gave of my beliefs as a poster for agnosticism, or to try and use it to explain what agnosticism is, it was simply an explanation as to why I personally think I can't claim to know a god exists.

This, honestly makes most of your post irrelevant, since I AM NOT MISUSING THE LABEL. Once again, I am sorry for confusing you by using my own beliefs as an example, but if you claim to not know whether a god exists or not, you're agnostic, pure and simple, and that's what I am.

I hope that's enough about my beliefs not being "real agnosticism" or me trying to "change the meaning of the word". I'll address using "possibility" a bit later.

As for the rest, your main argument (unless I misunderstood you) seems to be that you consider the term agnostic to be arbitrary. This is somewhat hard to argue with, since at the end of the day, that's your subjective opinion. However, you do make some good points that are fairly objective (though not entirely)

"Neither do the vast majority of people regardless of his or her stated beliefs. The only way a person isn't de facto agnostic is if he or she claims knowledge of some god"- alright, this is a fair enough point. I would argue that there are PLENTY of people who, even if they don't identify as such, are fairly gnostic, as in, claim to know for sure whether there is a god or not. Is it valid to claim such a think, since as you said, there's no way (at least as of now, probably never) to objectively measure a possibility such as a deity existing? No probably not. But regardless, there are definitely people who *think* they know and claim that the evidence (or I guess in the case of gnostic religious, they're feelings) are enough for them to claim that they know the answer for sure.

So therefore, this point is fairly irrelevant. Even if the vast majority of people would technically qualify as agnostic, doesn't mean such a label is meaningless, since there are still a very large number of people (even if they are the minority) who wouldn't fit the label due to claiming belief. If it is your personal choice to not use that label for the most part, and simply identify as atheist, then, more power to you. I've mentioned earlier on this thread even, I COULD argue just the same, that most atheists are technically agnostic atheists, but if they wish to rather just use the atheist label, then really, I don't care.

"Regardless, I wonder how you even posit something like a god as even possible. Sure, I suppose you can conclude it isn't *impossible*, and therefore possible, but you could only do this if you had knowledge of god creation and the properties of existing and existence are known."- okay, this part confuses me. If I explain my beliefs, saying why I believe I am open to the possibility of a god existing (oh yes, I am still using possibility, and I'll explain why later), you go on a rant about misusing the word. If I don't, you start asking me HOW I could consider something like a god possible. Just..... what.

"Not only are you arguing this, you are infusing the term with openness and possibility"- THIS RIGHT HERE, this is EXACTLY what I meant by nitpicking wording to make your argument sound more valid than it actually is. Knowledge and possibity are logically LINKED. If you can't claim to know something, that automatically means you must consider that something to be possible. If I claim that "the existence of god is impossible" then logically, that must mean I also claim to know that there is no god, because the only logical conclusion to something being impossible can be that it doesn't exist. If I claim "I believe that the existence of a god is certainly possible" then logically, I cannot really know if a god exists or not, unless I can somehow deduct that one doesn't. Therefore even if it's not in the definition exactly, it still logically follows that the possibility to something existing is very strongly linked, and in many ways, NECESSARY.

"No you have created a self fulling dilemma of which you are getting mad at people for your misapplication of a word"- again, I have not misapplied the word. It is partly my fault for writing in a confusing manner by addressing my personal beliefs.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

Ntln said:


> I would still say agnostic or agnsotic athesit is the closest to my beliefs. Because the fact of the matter is, I don't believe in a god, but I can't claim to know for sure whether one exists or not, which, I really DON'T see how that goes against the "official" definition of agnosticism.


Well, to begin with you still view agnosticism as a form of belief and an exception to your theistic claim. It is neither.



Ntln said:


> I AM NOT MISUSING THE LABEL.


You may have identified agnosticism as a position on knowledge but you continue to misrepresent it by not drawing a clear distinction between knowledge and belief. In your own words, agnosticism or not picking sides between atheism and theism is "often the smartest"stance to take. The moment you stop making this mistake would be the moment you would stop misusing the label.


----------



## Ntln (Apr 27, 2012)

Azazello said:


> Well, to begin with you still view agnosticism as a form of belief and an exception to your theistic claim. It is neither.
> 
> You may have identified agnosticism as a position on knowledge but you continue to misrepresent it by not drawing a clear distinction between knowledge and belief. In your own words, agnosticism or not picking sides between atheism and theism is "often the smartest"stance to take. The moment you stop making this mistake would be the moment you would stop misusing the label.


Again, nitpicking at wording and taking a small quote out of context and adding much more significance to it than was initially meant.

I recognise that agnosticism isn't a point between theism and atheism. However, when most people say atheist or theist, the default assumption would be that the person in question is gnostic theist or gnostic atheist. In that sense, agnosticism, whether theistic or atheistic, is a more balanced view.

And secondly, while not a religious belief in itself, many people out there (even if wrongly) identify as agnostic (as in agnostic just on its own). It's even an option on many forms where one must identify their belief. While not the textbook definition many people still identify as agnostic when they do not know whether there is or isn't a god. Since not knowing often ends up in not being sure what to believe, they choose to identify as agnostic. I would like to say I am not one of those people, since I would mostly fit the label of agnostic atheist, but regardless, there is a point to be made about the people who view agnostic as theistic stance.

See, the problem is going after the textbook definition is all well and good, but when you start actually applying it to people, you start getting problems. And besides, if I am really misusing it (which I still don't think I am, I admit, I made mistakes in my OP, but I have corrected them, and explained confusing parts in my god awful wording as best as possible), then so are millions of people using the label. At that point, wouldn't you say the definition should be changed, or at least expanded upon?

But you see, all this is simply a whole other issue than the thread was supposed to be about. It's not about my use of the word, nor my beliefs. It's about gnostic atheists or gnostic theists (or even people who technically fit the definition of agnostic atheist) viewing agnosticism as a "weak" or "stupid" stance. Those people often misuse the label of agnosticism in their own way. I am really getting tired of how derailed this thread has become.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

Since I probably will not address your posts further, on account of the labor involved wetvac'ing the stall of a dead horse, I'm just going to warn you now about Azazello, Ntln. While her bite is somewhat subdued by her eloquence, she's arguably several degrees more vicious than I may have seemed, if you choose to engage her.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

Ntln said:


> Again, nitpicking at wording and taking a small quote out of context and adding much more significance to it than was initially meant.
> 
> I recognise that agnosticism isn't a point between theism and atheism. However, when most people say atheist or theist, the default assumption would be that the person in question is gnostic theist or gnostic atheist. In that sense, agnosticism, whether theistic or atheistic, is a more balanced view.
> 
> ...


This is what this discussion looks like so far:


you describe a square;
someone else points out that it should be a circle;
you proceed to polish off the corners in your description;
the other person continues to say that your initial description was wrong;
you carry on elaborating upon your description with each post until you triumphantly can claim 'I've been calling it a circle all along' and that all others were just nitpicking and reading your definitions out of context.

Needless to say, you trying to imbue your posts with different meaning each time someone points out an error, is not the same as admitting an error.

Yes, your original post was rife with misconceptions. But you see, no matter how you try and justify it, your initial description of agnosticism is all that matters, for it is on the basis of THAT understanding that you claim to be "_discriminated_" against. And as this thread so clearly illustrates, it is the misuse of the term and lack of understanding of its concept that incurs the majority of criticism NOT the lack of some fictitious respect for agnosticism or its legitimacy.

My original comment was addressed to you and your understanding of agnosticism alone. Your ad hoc attempt to shift the responsibility for these errors onto others by suggesting that this is somehow the fault of the definition, because so many people misuse it, is ironic, particularly in the face of the subject of this thread.

Me thinks you have just circled back to what many have been saying here all along - it all comes down to incorrect use of the word. "_Literally_" has been corrupted beyond measure in recent years, are you going to blame it on its unclear definition also?

In the end people jumping on a bandwagon, without first checking the direction in which it is going, is not the fault of the bandwagon design. And others pointing out they are going in a wrong direction is not discrimination. Moral of a story - pay more attention and educate yourself.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

Foh_Teej said:


> Since I probably will not address your posts further, on account of the labor involved wetvac'ing the stall of a dead horse, I'm just going to warn you now about Azazello, Ntln. While her bite is somewhat subdued by her eloquence, she's arguably several degrees more vicious than I may have seemed, if you choose to engage her.


Meh, I wouldn't call myself vicious. Just somewhat lacking in tact and consideration for personal feelings.


----------



## Ntln (Apr 27, 2012)

Foh_Teej said:


> Since I probably will not address your posts further, on account of the labor involved wetvac'ing the stall of a dead horse, I'm just going to warn you now about Azazello, Ntln. While her bite is somewhat subdued by her eloquence, she's arguably several degrees more vicious than I may have seemed, if you choose to engage her.


Alright, well, I will admit I learned a bit from discussing with you and made a few mistakes in my original post



Azazello said:


> This is what this discussion looks like so far:
> 
> 
> you describe a square;
> ...


Okay, I admit I made mistakes in my original post. I admit now that I have misused the word to an extent.

However, me elaborating on my posts is seriously down to misunderstanding. Fact of the matter is, I used the description of my own beliefs to justify why I choose to err on the side of agnosticism, rather than use it as a description of agnosticism itself. If you choose to not believe that and accuse me of trying to "lie" in order to sound smarter, then there's nothing I can do about it, but it won't make your argument any more legitimate, since it simply isn't true.

At any rate, would you not, at the very least, say that there is something wrong when people say things like "I don't like agnostics, I feel like they should just choose a side, it's a weak stance"? I've heard that, in person, and online, in both the form of comments, and even statements from fairly people who actually have a voice, and these people knew nothing about my personal beliefs or whether I identify as agnostic or not. Surely they are misusing the label and viewing agnosticism as a theistic stance as well, would you not agree? And not only are these people then wrong about what agnosticism is, but it's also offensive and condescending. So yes, me and the countless others who misuse/have misused the label when claiming to be agnostic has nothing to do with discrimination towards agosticism.

Also, I would like to point you to an earlier reply to this thread and my response to it
http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/1077512241-post5.html
http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/1077531857-post13.html

This was before Foh_Teej even came along. I had already admitted my mistake and corrected it for the most part. And this was without a debate or argument. So, you see why I would get annoyed if I have to instead correct and admit it, over and over and over again, with Foh_Teej and now you? And then get blamed for trying to "change a square into a circle"?



Azazello said:


> Meh, I wouldn't call myself vicious. Just somewhat lacking in tact and consideration for personal feelings.


Not something to be proud of on a social anxiety support site at all. Not really something to be proud of in general to be honest, but regardless.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

Ntln said:


> Alright, well, I will admit I learned a bit from discussing with you and made a few mistakes in my original post
> 
> Okay, I admit I made mistakes in my original post. I admit now that I have misused the word to an extent.


I am glad you are taking something away from it.



Ntln said:


> However, me elaborating on my posts is seriously down to misunderstanding. Fact of the matter is, I used the description of my own beliefs to justify why I choose to err on the side of agnosticism, rather than use it as a description of agnosticism itself. If you choose to not believe that and accuse me of trying to "lie" in order to sound smarter, then there's nothing I can do about it, but it won't make your argument any more legitimate, since it simply isn't true.


I commented on your approach to handling criticism not your motivation, so I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. I don't know why you debate the way you do. If I were to guess, I would say that your own understanding of the concept was so vague to begin with that any objection to your explanation fell into your lax definition of agnosticism. This is why I suggested that you needed to draw a clear distinction between knowledge and belief.

Thing is, if you used a correct definition of agnosticism you would not have needed any justification for being an agnostic. Justification for not believing in a god is a whole different kettle of fish though.



Ntln said:


> At any rate, would you not, at the very least, say that there is something wrong when people say things like "I don't like agnostics, I feel like they should just choose a side, it's a weak stance"?


I can honestly say, I have never heard anyone say that. I have, however, seen people use the term agnostic as some sort of higher middle ground between the two extremes, not unlike in your OP, and being chastised for it, quite rightfully in my opinion. Some people simply don't realise the error, whilst others do so in order to avoid the stigma of being called an atheist or theist. No matter what their reason is, calling them out on the misuse of the word is hardly discrimination.

One thing I will add though is, if you do hear/see someone complain about you calling yourself an agnostic ask them what their definition of the word is and why they don't like you using that word. They can be misusing it just like you have.



Ntln said:


> I've heard that, in person, and online, in both the form of comments, and even statements from fairly people who actually have a voice, and these people knew nothing about my personal beliefs or whether I identify as agnostic or not. Surely they are misusing the label and viewing agnosticism as a theistic stance as well, would you not agree?


You are asking me to judge some anecdotal experience you supposedly had completely out of context. Nonetheless, see above.



Ntln said:


> And not only are these people then wrong about what agnosticism is, but it's also offensive and condescending. So yes, me and the countless others who misuse/have misused the label when claiming to be agnostic has nothing to do with discrimination towards agosticism.


Here is another example of you trying to turn square into circle. Your OP gave an explanation of what you consider to be agnosticism. It is that explanation of agnosticism that you claimed was misunderstood and discriminated against. 
That explanation was the embodiment of the safe fence sitting, neither here nor there, non-committal superior attitude. When this was pointed out to you, you immediately claimed this was exactly the kind of discrimination you were talking about.

Now, if you had started with a correct definition and were clear regarding the distinction between knowledge and belief and wanted to discuss those who confuse agnosticism with a theistic stance then we would be having a completely different conversation and Foh_Teej, myself, and others would be commenting on the lack of understanding of those people. Unfortunately for you, this is not the case. And whilst both these examples speak to ignorance of some people, I fail to see where discrimination comes in here, or do you accuse anyone who doesn't like you or your opinion of discrimination?



Ntln said:


> Also, I would like to point you to an earlier reply to this thread and my response to it
> http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/1077512241-post5.html
> http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/1077531857-post13.html
> 
> This was before Foh_Teej even came along. I had already admitted my mistake and corrected it for the most part.


Which mistake and where?



Ntln said:


> And this was without a debate or argument. So, you see why I would get annoyed if I have to instead correct and admit it, over and over and over again, with Foh_Teej and now you? And then get blamed for trying to "change a square into a circle"?


All you did was to say that you should have mentioned that both theists and atheists can be agnostic. You didn't correct anything, in fact you disregarded the main part of Ugh's criticism, which was about agnosticism being seen as the middle ground between theism and atheism. So again we go back to drawing distinction between knowledge and belief.

It does seem like you are homing in on the correct definition. Like Ugh said, you have the right inkling. I just wish you weren't so evasive about admitting mistakes.



Ntln said:


> Not something to be proud of on a social anxiety support site at all. Not really something to be proud of in general to be honest, but regardless.


You are confusing admittance with pride and forgetting that there are many causes of social anxiety, which are manifested in different ways. So far the lack of these characteristics have not hindered my being able able to express myself on this site, which is all that I am looking for. I am most certainly not here not win friends with social niceties.


----------



## Foh_Teej (May 5, 2004)

Can't say you weren't warned


----------



## Ntln (Apr 27, 2012)

Azazello said:


> I am glad you are taking something away from it.
> 
> I commented on your approach to handling criticism not your motivation, so I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. I don't know why you debate the way you do. If I were to guess, I would say that your own understanding of the concept was so vague to begin with that any objection to your explanation fell into your lax definition of agnosticism. This is why I suggested that you needed to draw a clear distinction between knowledge and belief.


It doesn't matter whether you were commenting my "approach to handling criticism" or my motivation. My answer is the same. While yes, my emotional bias didn't let me take in some of the criticism early on, mostly because I read some of Foh_Teej language and comments as condescending (which I can't stand)I can now. For example, I didn't know that you cannot simply identify as "agnostic", there's agnostic atheist and agnostic theist. That was due to a large chunk of people using the word agnostic in that context in every day speech. The rest was legitimate confusion of what I meant. Don't be put off by my relatively good grammar, English is NOT my first language and years of social isolation have deteriorated some of my language skills. I have a hard time explaining myself, and that veeeeeeery often leads to people taking meanings from what I say that I never meant. So, if I try to explain a little better, I must just be doing it to avoid criticism right? Or maybe I shouldn't say this, you'll probably put some odd meaning to it as well.



> Thing is, if you used a correct definition of agnosticism you would not have needed any justification for being an agnostic. Justification for not believing in a god is a whole different kettle of fish though.


I can choose to justify what I want. I even admitted much earlier that I probably shouldn't have started discussing my own personal beliefs. But, I don't see what is wrong with explaining why I consider something largely unknowable?



> I can honestly say, I have never heard anyone say that. I have, however, seen people use the term agnostic as some sort of higher middle ground between the two extremes, not unlike in your OP, and being chastised for it, quite rightfully in my opinion. Some people simply don't realise the error, whilst others do so in order to avoid the stigma of being called an atheist or theist. No matter what their reason is, calling them out on the misuse of the word is hardly discrimination.


You haven't heard it so it doesn't happen? And this is my problem with what you're saying right now: I explain EXACTLY what I meant by discrimination (perhaps discrimination is a somewhat overexaggerated word, but I can't think of anything better), and ask how you feel about that, you literally turn the argument around and say "Well, I haven't seen that, but what I THOUGHT you meant by discrimination is for this reason and that reason". I don't see how that's relevant. Before making this thread, I had never even heard of anyone being criticised for misusing the word agnostic. If this thread was never meant to be about people criticising for misusing the word, why would I care if it's justified or not, in the context of this thread? I've already admitted to making mistakes, and I've already discussed it to death.



> Here is another example of you trying to turn square into circle. Your OP gave an explanation of what you consider to be agnosticism. It is that explanation of agnosticism that you claimed was misunderstood and discriminated against.
> That explanation was the embodiment of the safe fence sitting, neither here nor there, non-committal superior attitude. When this was pointed out to you, you immediately claimed this was exactly the kind of discrimination you were talking about.


Umm, how? In the OP, I gave NO definition to agnosticism, I just gave a brief explanation of my own beliefs. And even there, I admitted to not believing in any gods, but just being open to the idea that there is a possibility that there is something that might fit the definition of a god somewhere. How is that "fence sitting"? What would be the point of that? I'd still get punished according to most religions. And as for not wanting to identify as atheist, mate, I grew up religious, in an environment where most everyone was non-religious and left religion about two years ago. If you identified as anything OTHER than atheist, you'd likely get looked down upon. It makes no sense for me to avoid the atheist label.

The problem I had with what Foh_Teej said in his initial post was that he considered agnosticism largely a moot point, by saying that it's irrelevant whether you are agnostic in the grand scheme of things. Since he mentioned being agnostic to gods from "a particular region", I assumed he must have been thinking that agnostic equals agnostic towards specific religions, such as agnostic towards christianity (which was why I explained my beliefs again, to show that was not necessarily the case). It doesn't seem that was what he initially meant, but that was what I got from that. I also had a problem with his attitude coming off as somewhat condescending when he said he was a pixie agnostic, and it is the same thing when you are agnostic towards the existence of a god. That is why I explained my beliefs in more detail, to show why I considered the existence of something fitting the definition of a god a valid hypothesis (though not a hypothesis I necessarily believe), while pixies, trolls, whatever, are no longer valid, which is why I disagreed with his point.

Ultimately though, the main problem I have with your argument is that you have already interpreted what I said in a certain way, so even if I clarify anything or admit to mistakes, you will still see it as me trying to cover my tracks and avoid criticism. So what's the point?


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

Ntln said:


> It doesn't matter whether you were commenting my "approach to handling criticism" or my motivation. My answer is the same. While yes, my emotional bias didn't let me take in some of the criticism early on, mostly because I read some of Foh_Teej language and comments as condescending (which I can't stand)I can now. For example, I didn't know that you cannot simply identify as "agnostic", there's agnostic atheist and agnostic theist. That was due to a large chunk of people using the word agnostic in that context in every day speech. The rest was legitimate confusion of what I meant. Don't be put off by my relatively good grammar, English is NOT my first language and years of social isolation have deteriorated some of my language skills. I have a hard time explaining myself, and that veeeeeeery often leads to people taking meanings from what I say that I never meant. So, if I try to explain a little better, I must just be doing it to avoid criticism right? Or maybe I shouldn't say this, you'll probably put some odd meaning to it as well.
> 
> I can choose to justify what I want. I even admitted much earlier that I probably shouldn't have started discussing my own personal beliefs. But, I don't see what is wrong with explaining why I consider something largely unknowable?
> 
> ...


I'm about to call it a night here but will aim to respond to you sometime this week or next weekend.

P.S. Don't worry about English not being your native tongue, it isn't mine either.


----------



## bloodymary (Apr 26, 2009)

Ntln said:


> but I honestly don't care how people label their religious views. And neither should you. Live and let live.


Yeah the labeling seems to be more complicated than God himself.

Great posts Ntln by the way.


----------



## Ntln (Apr 27, 2012)

bloodymary said:


> Yeah the labeling seems to be more complicated than God himself.
> 
> Great posts Ntln by the way.


Thanks, though admittedly I made mistakes and could have done it much clearer and better.


----------



## Doktor haus (Jun 26, 2013)

People generally ask if you believe in god, not if his/her/its existence can be objectively proven. Of course it can't. Hell, I don't know either, but I've seen zero evidence to the positive and plenty to the negative, so I consider it highly unlikely. That's why I call myself an atheist. There are probably very few "gnostic atheists".


----------

