Well, in this thread we're gonna discuss agnosticism. You guessed right, the thread title is coherent with the thread.

First, I'll start with the definitions.

1. Theism - The belief in a God. That, for the sake of arguement. Weak theism is the belief in God, while the Strong theism is the absolute belief in God.

2. Atheism - The lack of a belief in God. Which means, the person does not believe in a God. Weak atheism is the position which claims not to believe in God. Strong atheism is the absolute lack of belief in a God.

3. Agnosticism - The belief that God's existence can not be known. Weak agnosticism have the lack of belief in finding the answer. Strong agnostics know that the question can not be answered.

4. God - The God in question is the traditional monotheistic, omnipotent, omniscient etc. God. Whatever abrahamic theological dogmas might be hold about this God, does not count however. Doesn't matter if there is a trinity or not.


My stance is that agnosticism is incoherent. My arguements against it follows.

1. Agnosticism is not philosophically motivated, but rather political.
I think agnosticism is a position that alot of people have started to withdraw to, rather than atheism, not because of the actual opinion itself, but rather as "atheism" is considered too extreme, especially in America. Lots of people over there actually believe atheists to be evil, if you say you're agnostic, you're kinda "in doubt". I think many, maybe even most, agnostics have craved in to the pressure from the christian right, and stopped calling themselves atheist (to remove the "opposition"). Not to mention, you do have some almost "fundamentalist" atheists in America aswell, which may alienate these "agnostics".

I think alot call themselves agnostics to be a sort of a middle ground, and not "take side" in the struggle between atheists and theists, which is getting more and more heated these times. I do not blame them for that however. But this (specific agnostic) position seem to be utterly pragmatic, and avoiding the real philosophical discussion on God's existence.

That said, I do think there's many honest agnostics (philosphically), which hold their opinion regardless of religious bullies. Which leads me to the next point of criticism.



2. Agnosticism isn't coherent.

Now, red equals a agnostic statement, blue equals an atheist sttement, and green equals a theist statement. Makes it a little easier to see.

A christian (or theists in general) can say "I believe in God, but I do not think we can ever know about/prove his existence." Some, usually rather rasonable theists hold this point of view, let's call it weak theism.

An atheist can say "I do not believe in God, But I do not think we can ever know about/prove his existence". This is also known as weak atheism.

Both of these fit into the category of agnostic, but they're likewise theist (belief in God) and atheist (non-belief in God) respectively. Thus, agnostics must redefine themselves, as either atheistic agnostics, or theistic agnostics. A third possibility occures, this being weak agnosicism ("agnostic agnosticism"), diiferentiated from strong agnosticism, which I will deal with later.

Weak Agnosticism

1. If God does exist, he can hypothetically prove his own existence (as all our existance is subject to his power), which means, an agnostic can not say "I do not think God can ever be proven nor disproven".

2. An agnostic could say: "I do not think the question can be answered as of today." This because God has not proven his existence to us. This means, agnostics are a theist or atheist waiting to happen. I.e. an agnostic is willing to take a stand, but is unable as there is lack of proof.

3. When it comes to the existence God, this is a reasonable stand. God has not yet proven himself to us, therefore there isn't any positive reason to believe in him.

4. However, when it comes to the non-existence of God, it makes no sense. What kind of proofs are you waiting for? How can an atheist ever prove to you, more than now, that God does not exist? If God doesn't exist, we won't get any more proofs of his non-existence than we already have. That, as the idea is laughable, as each arguement against God is answered with an ad hoc arguement ad infinitum.

Which leads me to conclude, why aren't weak agnostics just (weak) atheists? Are agnostics waiting for God to prove himself, which would basically make them waiting theists? What would it take for such an agnostic to become an atheist? Is the agnostic perhaps favouring theism, by not accepting the reasonable stand of the (weak) atheist?



Strong Agnosticism

Strong agnostics will say she knows the question can't be answered and never can, and thus making it impossible to mix with either of the theistic or atheistic view. However, it will now be just as dogmatic as the views held by strong atheists and strong theists, and thus subject to their own criticism of these views. Likewise, I could say to a strong agnostic, that I know that wheter your stand (agnosticism) is true or not can never be proven/disproven. The strong agnostic can counter my arguement, and the arguements can go at eachother ad infinitum.


Now, this was a long post, and I have been working on it for some time. Correct me if there are any glitches. It might no be perfect, but atleast rather strong... atleast so I think.

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

I cannot be the only color blind person on this site. Coding with color prevents me from joining the conversation. You might use bold and italics and underlined instead. Thanks.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

Even though I cannot read the lower part of your post, I would like to take issue with one thing in the upper part.

Your last sentence in this paragraph implies that this is a NECESSARY discussion, when in fact it is not, it's irrelevant. No one knows, by definition, we cannot know unless the postulated "God" shows up to answer questions. All the supposing and praying and theological sophistry will never be able to Prove the existence of God without God being there for all to see. So the whole debate is a study in futility and for many agnostics it's very little more than mental masturbation. If one likes the discussion and enjoys thinking about it, then fine, do it, but if one does not contemplate God's existence more than 2 minutes a month their whole life they will still live and die just as surely as everyone else.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

Gotcha covered:
bold = agnostic
italics = atheist
underlined = theist

From the OP:
Now, red equals a agnostic statement, blue equals an atheist sttement, and green equals a theist statement. Makes it a little easier to see.

A christian (or theists in general) can say "I believe in God, but I do not think we can ever know about/prove his existence." Some, usually rather rasonable theists hold this point of view, let's call it weak theism.

An atheist can say "I do not believe in God, But I do not think we can ever know about/prove his existence". This is also known as weak atheism.

Both of these fit into the category of agnostic, but they're likewise theist (belief in God) and atheist (non-belief in God) respectively. Thus, agnostics must redefine themselves, as either atheistic agnostics, or theistic agnostics. A third possibility occures, this being weak agnosicism ("agnostic agnosticism"), diiferentiated from strong agnosticism, which I will deal with later.

Awesome post, Rotten. You've obviously thought this out really well.

In answer to the question about, it seems to me it could just as easily be asked in reverse: Why aren't (weak) atheists just (weak) agnostics?
Or you could just as easily replace "(weak) atheists" with "(weak) theists".

It seems to me the "weak" groups all start from the same agnostic recognition that the question cannot be (or, at least, has not been) susceptible to absolute proof.
The atheistic agnostic and the theistic agnostic merely lean in different directions from that same center point. The "agnostic agnostic" must just be someone who refuses to lean in any direction, or feels honestly undecided thus far.

Just me two cents...

I don't need someone from fucking Norway telling me that my being an Agnostic is a political decision because I live in the United States.

Agnosticism is what it is, as is Christianity, Atheism, Buddhism, etc...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

Please tell me what's polite about suggesting that someone holds the religious beliefs they do only because of political expediency?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

Thanks.

Yes, weak agnosticism will kinda be obsorbed into atheism. Why it is that way, rather than the other way around I don't really know. I think first of all, atheism was there first (which in itself might not be a very good arguement in itself). If atheists were to call themselves agnostics, agnostics would be obsorbed into the "opposition". This would make the debate Christian vs. Agnostic or somesort, leaving the term atheist archaic. And then the more "philosophically inclined" agnostics would probably choose a new name for themselves, rather than identifying themselves with this group which now basically is atheists under a new name.

Indeed. The weak groups recognize the "magnificence" of the question at hand, and thus leaves the door open. The weak agnostic is still standing in the hallway, so to say.

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

As I said, some are probably honest agnostics...And I said especially the US, not only. Why? Because in America this religion vs. atheism thing is so much bigger than in Europe, and America is far more religious than Europe. There's barely such a discussion at all over here, in Norway it's only the question of wheter to have a state church or not (yes, we actually do have one still).

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

Hey, folks, let's stick to discussing the topic and not discussing board members. Thanks.

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

Thanks, I agree 100 %.

My grandad is FROM Norway originally TOO. Came over in 1911 :-)

I'm agnostic because I'm one of the few humans left that is humble enough to admit that this is something I don't KNOW.

The rest of the sophistry and attempts at impressive sentence structure and language in this thread doesn't impress me in the least.

Where did we THINK this would go with the opening post stated the way it IS ?

It's going the way it was structured by 'rotten' to GO

I don’t believe I can know whether or not God exists during my lifetime. Is that strong agnosticism or weak agnosticism?

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

That would be weak agnosticism.

If you don't like the thread, stay away from it. If everyone was to post in a thread to say they don't like it, we'd have nothing but trolls here. If you don't want to participate, then don't. But don't ruin it for those who does.

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

I guess there are people who are honest agnosts. But truly I think it is an american political therm used to cover up that you dont believe in God. It isnt used in other parts of the world by the public. Is it possible to remain in doubt so long? Dont you consiously or unconsiously pick a side?

Or maybe it neither is used in america? Is it an internetian therm?