It seems disingenuous to mix Agnosicism with Atheism. Both are utterly different - one makes a knowledge claim (atheism) while the other is in a position of neutrality or indifference (agnosticism)
The real distinction is between "teapot agnostics", who think gods are incredibly unlikely, and "proper" agnostics, who actually think it's reasonably probable. Many teapot agnostics will call themselves atheists just for the sake of saving time.
Nevertheless, I think it would be stupid to describe myself as a Santa Claus agnostic as opposed to a Santa Claus atheist. We have a very good explanation for the Santa Claus story, so there is zero reason to entertain the notion that it might be true.
Same for gods. We have good explanations for how the god stories arose. We can observe that all human societies have these stories, but that they are inconsistent from society to society. We can observe the the believes are convinced that there is something special about theirs--but we see that for the believers from each.
Given that, agnosticism seems a cop out to me.
To me agnosticism is being open to possibilities and admitting at this current level nobody has all the answers.
Why would they want to Cop out? In most people's mind Atheist and Agnostic are the same thing. [Edit: If you are downvoting it will be helpful if you post a reply]
Then I grew up and it just didn't seem logical any more. Burdened by the truth that may parents, now no longer the guardians of truth in the world, had played a trick on me I went into the world armed with the knowledge that all is not what it seems and that the search for the truth is difficult and long. Over time I realised that this burden was in fact a candle in the darkness of ignorance. A darkness that is in part inherited and in part constructed by the Guardians (whomever they may be) to keep me from the truth.
So you see good old saint Nick has a very specific role in society. He's a lie told by parents to bring darkness into the world of children under the guise of 'magical enchantment'. For some, he is a catalyst to see the lie but for others he is the first snuffing of the harsh light of inquiry and intellectual endeavour that all children are born with.
But then you are talking about power & influence, which I guess is the main reason why something that evolved for biological reasons is still around centuries past its expiration date.
1. Where do toys come from?
2. Why should I be good?
Sure, they are not correct answers, but neither are any that any particular god will answer.
Except you don't.
Why lie so blatantly. If you're trying to establish the truth then you wouldn't do this. This doesn't prove that you always lie to convince other people of your position regardless of it's truth but it does lead us in that direction.
Ask any scientist who is Christian, "does a good scientist believe claims that cannot be independently verified?" Then ask, "do you believe in god?" The questions "are you a good scientist?" and "can the existence of god be independently verified?" follow.
You'll force this poor scientist to admit they're not a good scientist, or perhaps as a compromise you can say that the existence of god is a hypothesis which they have not yet been able to test to their satisfaction (which doesn't sound like belief to me).
Okay, that's actually not the most common result (I might expect a lecture on politesse, or perhaps a simple request to shut my trap). But I find it detestable to go around and tell people that they label themselves wrong, e.g., "You are not a true atheist." It's almost as villainous to say things like "Strong atheists do not exist." when there are plenty of people who claim to be strong atheists. Say instead something like, "strong atheism is not a tenable position." Or, "strong atheism is logically inconsistent." Then, at least, I won't think of you quite so poorly, and we can argue logic instead of identity.
For the record, I'm positive that there are many good scientists who are also Christians. I'm also positive that there are many strong atheists.
P.S. It's bad enough that as a bisexual male I don't exist, but as a strong atheist too I doubly don't exist. Harsh.
What I should have said was that most atheists, such as myself or Richard Dawkins, are really agnostics of the negligibly-small-probability variety.
To which I counter: "Needlepins & how many angels they can hold." It just doesn't matter.
"God lives in a place where reason can't go" is the kind of weak argument I hate most about theism. If you're arguing about the remote possibility of god existing, you're pulling at straws.
Is it so hard to accept that we are just animals with highly evolved, yet ultimately limited brains? Is it so hard to accept that we can't understand everything?
After all, atheism is commonly just a rejection ("a-") of theism. Adeism, if you will, would be the belief there is absolutely no god. Just like deism weakly claims there is a god but we aren't sure what it's like, but theism tells us everything about this god.
1. If you believe in a god but don't claim to have knowledge, you are a theist agnostic. (This is not that silly. Many people believe things they do not claim to know. For instance, you can believe that P != NP while acknowledging the question as unproven and unknown.)
2. If you don't believe in a god but don't claim to have knowledge, you are an atheist agnostic.
3. If you claim to know, not just believe, that a god exists, you're a theist (but not an agnostic).
4. If you claim to know there are no gods, you're an atheist (but not an agnostic).
6. If you claim that the question, "does a god exist?" cannot be answered before defining "god", then you are an ignosticist. An ignosticist who claims that "god" cannot be defined is therefore also claiming that "does a god exist?" can never be answered.
7. If you claim that the question, "does a god exist?" is not worth answering, then you are apatheistic.
8. Alternatively, if you choose to assume that the answer to the question, "does a god exist?" is "no", but do not consider it worth the effort to attempt to answer the question conclusively, then you are apatheistic.
9. If you claim that the question, "does a god exist?" cannot be answered because the question cannot be correctly communicated due to differences in the definition of "god" and/or "exist" between the idiolects of the persons attempting to communicate the question to each other, then you are a philosophy major.
9b. If (9) above applies but you manage to work the word "qualia" into the discussion, then you are a philosophy major and I'm changing the subject.
A stance of mine is: try not to talk to people who believe that they have a "rational" or "empirical" proof of God's existence for no bigger fool will you find.
1. Deism
2. Atheism
3. Theism
4. Strong atheism
However, since they only go as far as "God exists" and never get to the more exotic beliefs, namely the beliefs which always were and always will be taken on faith (God had a human son, who was also God, died, and was resurrected; God chose a Middle Eastern ethnic group for a special purpose; God revealed prophecies to certain people; God is from outer space) they weren't religious.
You qualified definition '1' with "this is not silly" - on the contrary, I think it is in many cases the most reasonable option.
My agnosticism is of the - God's existence cannot be proven or disproven (at least in my lifetime, or potentially within the human races existence as homo sapiens) so it's illogical to take the side of religion or anti-religion. The logical conclusion (to me) is that it is an unknowable variable, concerning myself with it is a wasted effort.
Besides Greek Mythology has all the cool stories, Heracles slaying Hyrdas and freeing Prometheus. If religion can't entertain me in the slightest then it truly holds no value to me.
Agnosticism, however, is a knowledge claim: It's the claim that God is is unknowable.
Agnosticism is 'There may be a god, but I don't care enough to claim one way or the other', I think the 'fence sitting' argument is good.
Atheism is: 'There is no god' ie, Richard Dawkins
Atheism is a stronger claim than Agnosticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probabilit...
He describes himself as a 6 - that's an agnostic atheist. That means lacks belief, but does not entirely rule out the possibility of a deity.
You have just misquoted Richard Dawkins.
Agnostic: Unsure. Apatheist: Doesn't care. Atheist: Rejects theism.
I don't believe there is a god, so I am Atheist. I also don't think the answer to "is there a god?" can be answered definitiely. That makes me Agnostic. I also think that since the answer cannot be determined, the question is a silly one. That makes me an Apathist too.
I'd like to see a split between atheists and agnostics, particularly because the numbers are so high in that category in this community. I would guess that there would be many more agnostics than atheists. I don't think that being an entrepreneur is particularly bayesianly rational :)
I only ever interpreted the dichotomoy as 'there are zero deities' or 'there are one or more deities'.
Perhaps I like Pascal's Wager more than it deserves because it reminds me of: http://xkcd.com/525/
Taken to its logical conclusion, accepting Pascal's wager would at best generate immense amounts of cognitive dissonance as you attempted to integrate potentially infinite contradictory ideas into your worldview.
Unless I have misunderstood the Wager.
I think category A would be believing in Jesus and category B would be not believing in Jesus whatever that means to you.
There is more than one definition of Atheism (some classify them in weak and strong atheism, but even these two classes aren't enough for some), and there are different "levels" of Agnosticism depending on your country or culture. Some of these differences are because of communication issues. For example, there is controversy if "lack of belief" and "disbelief" are synonymous (compare with "not liking" and "disliking"). When books on such topics are translated to other languages, such nuances may get lost.
Sure, but making a knowledge claim doesn't make it any less objective or wise than being neutral.
I can say that there is definitely not a red 1982 Chevy Silverado orbiting Jupiter and that's a "knowledge claim", yet someone who says they're not sure or are neutral about my claim don't hold a superior position in any sense and would, in fact, look a little silly given the lack of evidence against it.