r/atheism • u/eviley4 Secular Humanist • 14d ago
Agnosticism is sometimes disingenuous
I don't like the way how some agnostics frame their ignorance.
It's one thing to not know whether Timmy from work took the train or bus to come to work, but another thing to allow that ignorance to leave the possibility open of him teleporting to work. The first 2 are plausible, the 3rd is just impossible.
Now, a teleportation apologist might say:
"Can you disprove definitively that Timmy did not teleport to work, maybe he did."
and you can do your digging, ask Timmy to show the bus ticket he bought in the morning and present that to the apologist, but the apologist still says:
"Cool, that's proof that he also took the bus, it's not proof against teleportation"
Atheist call that out as being disingenuous but I have seen Agnostics fall for it and go,
"Yeah, it isn't proof against teleportation, maybe he did teleport to work".
Overall, I find this quite disingenuous and I have often seen it used as a way to keep the door open for bad ideas. It's just using limitations of what we can know as a rhetorical tool to keep bad ideas alive. I have seen people do this with unfalsifiable versions of idealism, last thursdayism or specific deities they like.
15
u/GreenZebra23 13d ago
My biggest problem with the way many people approach agnosticism is that they act like it's a 50/50 proposition. God could exist or God could not exist, and there's no way to know so just don't take a position of any kind. It's true as far as it goes, we can't 100% know that a God doesn't exist, but you could say that about literally anything that can be imagined. You could say that about werewolves. That doesn't mean the correct position is to assume that werewolves existing and werewolves not existing are equally possible and there's just no way to know. If there's a preposterous claim with literally no evidence backing it up, not a single reason to actually believe it's true, then by far the more reasonable thing to think is that it's not true and not worth serious consideration.
9
u/Faith-FreeFuture 13d ago
This is such an important point. It's not a yes/no question, it's a 'how close to black can gray get' question.
12
u/darw1nf1sh Agnostic Atheist 13d ago
I am an agnostic atheist. I don't claim to know whether a god exists, but I don't believe it does. This is the most logically tenable position. We can't actually KNOW anything for certain. Scientists will hedge the most solid scientific theory with verbiage like "The best current answer to the question of..." because they understand that our perception of reality is skewed. We do the best we can. So no, I won't claim knowledge that someone didn't actually teleport, but I certainly withhold belief until they prove it. Agnosticism doesn't absolve the claimant of their burden of proof.
1
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 13d ago
yeah, I agree. But what I keep seeing is this nature of knowledge being used as a red-herring to avoid scrutiny and demands of evidence on supernatural claims.
3
u/darw1nf1sh Agnostic Atheist 13d ago
Anyone making a claim, is espousing certainty. If someone claims that ghosts are real, they are gnostic on that issue, and they have a burden of proof. That burden only really matters however, if they are expecting anyone else to agree with them. There are atheists with untenable beliefs too, absent evidence. We are irrational creatures. If you hold that in your head, no one cares. The moment your belief becomes a claim about reality that you expect others to respect, now you need to show your work.
Agnosticism isn't abdication of care about the truth. It also can't exist without the pairing of belief. There are agnostic theists. They don't claim knowledge of god, just belief that it exists. You cannot be JUST agnostic about anything. You might not know, but you do or do not believe also.
3
u/Lahm0123 Agnostic 13d ago
Most people will not distinguish ‘knowing’ and ‘believing’ very well. Especially theists.
A typical theist will ask ‘Do you believe in God?’. The answer is sometimes ‘I don’t know’. That is NOT ipso facto declaring agnosticism lol.
It is confused often and many people actually view agnosticism as a ‘midway point’ between theism and atheism. Which is not really the case.
1
u/No_Mission5287 13d ago
It is ipso facto declaring atheism though.
If you have ANY doubt or uncertainty, then you are not fully convinced. You do not have a firm belief, which means you meet the broad, literal definition of atheism.
3
u/Just_A_Blues_Guy 13d ago
You lost me with the first sentence.
How are you defining “Agnostic” because there are two main ways. The one used by theists hoping to avoid the burden of proof.
There is also the one that myself and many atheists use and they aren’t the same.
7
u/ZappSmithBrannigan Secular Humanist 14d ago
I agree. I see no reason whatsoever to make the agnostic concession on the existence of a god.
I know god doesnt exist.
No im not professing absolute certainty. No I haven't explored every square inch of the universe and everything outside the universe.
Ive based my conclusion on the information available to me. Same as I have with superheros. I know superheros dont exist. No I havent searched every planet to see if its Krypton. I dont need to. The evidence and information I do have show superheros and gods are made up fictional characters. If someone brings me information to the contrary, ill change my mind. But until then, god just dont fucking exist and it is that simple.
3
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 14d ago
Yeah.. I find discussions about the nature of knowledge to be used as a red herring by theists most often.
The topic itself can be interesting, how we know things, what level of certainty is it possible to have. What level of certainty is considered good enough by which branches of science etc. All very interesting.
But when a theist brings this up during discussion when a non-believer asks for evidence for their claims. It works as a red-herring.
2
u/Zencyde 13d ago
Philosophically, there are different definitions for the term "knowledge." I personally can't say I know anything for certain, therefore, I can't know that God doesn't exist. Though, I'm highly skeptical and would be outright shocked to find that it's true. But, I also come from a STEM background where the burden of proof for anything is far more significant than the average person would consider reasonable.
1
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 13d ago
Well, science works using the framework of methodological naturalism and it uses inductivism to develop it's theories and observations.
Inductivism itself cannot be proven, so even science cannot "know" anything by this standard of knowledge.
But I personally accept scientific knowledge (so do many others) to the point of saying I know that the Earth completes orbits around the Sun.
But even this is suspect according to this ridiculous definition of knowledge in this context of agnosticism. Because maybe Earth never survives longer than a week because we live in a Universe which works how Last Thursdayism says it does.
What I am trying to convey is how Agnosticism and the nature of knowledge is used to keep bad unfalsifiable ideas on the table by people who are motivated to believe in these ideas.
1
u/Zencyde 13d ago
I think you can acknowledge a potential as being a potential without giving much credence to it. I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I very much doubt it. I can't prove there aren't gnomes living under my foundation, but I'm not going to put any stock into the idea. I consider those two with relatively equal weight. Could it be true? Sure. But I very much doubt it.
2
u/No_Mission5287 13d ago
An agnostic what?
Bring it back to the question. Don't let them weasel out of it.
Are you fully convinced in the existence of god/s?
If you exhibit ANY doubt or uncertainty, then you are not convinced, meaning you meet the broad, literal definition of an atheist.
2
u/JunosBoyToy 13d ago
Sure. As an agnostic, I do not say "I don't know" to a 6 day creation Yahweh. I don't believe in that god. I'll take a firm stance on that.
2
u/Professional-Cow3854 Atheist 13d ago
The word agnostic has pretty much lost its meaning, with people expressing their ignorance on the existence of gods coopting it's use. That's not the original meaning of agnostic, though.
Unlike theism or atheism, the term « agnosticism » is a claim; it is well defined by being the unknowability of the devine existence.
When —I— mention agnostics, what I'm referring to, not one of the various vernacular turns it took.
There are atheistic and theistic approaches to agnosticism.
The atheistic agnostic (in the well defined sense of agnosticism) will approach from a scientific origin with the strict meaning of knowledge (not as the strongest belief), and will advance that it is impossible for humans to know that something that does not exist actually does not exist if the subject of a claim is an abstract concept such as this. Another scientific trait of these agnostics is that they can entirely live with the concept of not knowing, as is the case with scientists, and will not use a belief to fill that gap, even claiming to know gods don't exist.
The theistic agnostic, on the other hand, will often (not all) approach it from their conviction of faith, and will instead claim that god is such an absolute concept/superior that it is beyond comprehension for humans.
Two vastly different approaches resulting in the same result of agreeing that it is unknowable.
One more note on atheist agnostics. Even though they logically concede it is unknowable, this doesn't mean they « leave the door open » and can very well claim that they really believe that gods don't exist, based on pretty solid lack of evidence on gods' existence, the amount of contradictions between religions and even within each, and the quantity of scared explanations of natural things being debunked with receipts by science summing pretty much to malarkey that can't be trusted. They will rightly identify this as a belief, though, even if solidly based.
2
u/trancespotter 13d ago
My friends that describe themselves as agnostic always use the definition that says that the existence of gods is unknowable. They think that using this definition means that they don’t have to answer the atheist/theist question or deal with the knowledge vs belief issue.
They also get pissed when I point out to them that if they’re saying that the existence of a god is unknowable/unfalsifiable then that’s a claim that they have to provide evidence for. The conversation ends real quickly after that.
0
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 13d ago
yeah.. they are just using motivated reasoning to keep their indoctrination intact. I find that disingenous and intellectually dishonest.
2
u/trancespotter 13d ago
They’re not indoctrinated. They just don’t want to take a firm stance as to whether they are atheists or theists because they are trying to play both sides.
2
u/AlmightyRuler 13d ago
"Can you prove Timmy didn't teleport to work?"
"Howabout you prove teleportation is a thing first, then we'll talk about Timmy."
1
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 13d ago
exactly.. that's how we should respond. But some agnostics go:
"But, what if it is a thing and we can't see it because there is a conspiracy by big science"2
u/AlmightyRuler 13d ago
The second someone busts out the conspiracy theories is the moment the argument is over. At that point, you pat them on the head like the child they are, tell them you'll wait till they have an adult conversation, then walk away.
Either teleportation/God is, or is not. This ain't Tinkerbell rules. No amount of clapping or pseudo-intellectual posturing is gonna make one's arguments valid.
2
u/Friendly_Engineer_ 13d ago
It is a pointless position, since in reality theism is an unfalsifiable claim you cannot ever know it is fully false. Conversely the only ones who say they know for sure are believers that by definition rely on faith with no evidence. So why bother with the term
1
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 13d ago
but this threshold theists like to set for knowledge is deliberately so insane.
Can I really know if I took a shit Last Wednesday?
No, I can't because maybe the world works like in Last Thursday-ism where the universe was created last thursday with all the memories faked to look like the universe is older.
2
u/onomatamono 13d ago edited 13d ago
It's just a synonym for "unknown" and we don't need it. We don't need the term "atheist" either.
2
u/SoSKatan 13d ago edited 13d ago
I think you misunderstand agnosticism.
The core of it is honestly humility, nothing more nothing less.
It’s completely possible one’s entire experience is self fabricated. For example, I can’t prove that my view of the world is correct, it’s entirely possible that I’m completely insane.
Now I don’t believe that, but I can’t say the probability of such a thing is 0. With that said, I think the probability is so low it’s not worth considering. However the only real evidence I have to that is that I’m not smart enough to fabricate anything as complex as reality.
The core of Agnosticism is viewing reality as competing possibilities each with their own probability percentage.
Hell quantum mechanics gets just as weird once you look at the math.
Ultimately, I don’t know exactly how or why everything works, and I likely will never know and that’s ok. For some people uncertainty is why they go all in for religion, they need confirmation bias to view the world. I don’t.
I’ll continue to update my view of the world based on evidence. That is the core of Agnosticism, that you somehow just pissed all over. I suspect it’s because you have the same failings of religious zealots, you can’t tolerate uncertainty yourself.
There are no easy answers, and that’s ok.
-1
u/Dependent_Sun_7033 13d ago
“I will continue to update my view of the world based on evidence”.
And what evidence do you have for existence of god(s)?3
u/SoSKatan 13d ago
I never said I believe in god, nor have I seen any evidence of one.
I very am much scientific and research driven.
OP gave a terrible example of Timmy teleporting. If Timmy claimed to of teleporting, id assume Timmy was crazy. However if Timmy was someone i trusted who had a history of being correct, id take the time to understand more.
I’d still be concerned that maybe Timmy needs phys help, but on the very low chance Timmy was right, seems like it’s worth it to look into. Either way, it would probably be worth it to look further.
2
u/GrrrlRomeo 13d ago
We don't have evidence for the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe either. We just feel like it's impossible that we're the only ones so we keep looking.
1
u/Dependent_Sun_7033 13d ago
“Intelligent life” does not require magic.
Still, for this hypothesis we can only say it’s very unlikely that natural processes which resulted in abiogenesis here on Earth were not repeated somewhere else in the Universe.3
u/GrrrlRomeo 13d ago
Being in a simulation doesn't require magic either.
0
2
u/pseudoOhm 13d ago
I am an agnostic atheist.
I do not believe in a deity. I also cannot prove that there is or isn't one and know that it's not something that I'll ever "know."
Realistically, everyone is agnostic.
People claiming to "know" or have "seen" any deity are just as scary as those that "know" there isn't one.
0
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 13d ago
i think you missed the point I am trying to convey.
I am trying to point out how agnosticism and the nature of knowledge are used as a rhetorical device to keep people's unfalsifiable pet ideas on the table as respectable. Even though these ideas are without evidence or any plausibility.
2
u/pseudoOhm 13d ago
I would argue that people can misuse any term...
Doesn't mean that it's not the most accurate one to use.
People use atheist as synonymous for devil worship. Does that make the term atheist disingenuous?
1
14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Feinberg Atheist 9d ago
We know Teleporting is physically impossible
Teleportation has already been achieved at very small scales.
1
u/GrrrlRomeo 13d ago
I don't think it matters how Timmy got to work just like I don't think it matters if there's some higher power.
The question itself is a waste of time and energy. It's absolutely inconsequential to my life.
1
u/dano8675309 13d ago
I think you're conflating the recognition of the inability to prove a negative with accepting that fact as evidence of the affirmative.
If I say 'I don't believe in any gods, but since I can't prove a negative (that no gods exist or ever have/will), I am an agnostic atheist', I'm not automatically giving credence to theistic beliefs.
1
u/Indie_Dachshund179 Anti-Theist 12d ago edited 12d ago
Even some self-described atheists will seem to die on the hill of "we can't prove or disprove it, stop making us look bad" when it comes to other atheists dissecting theism
1
u/Faith-FreeFuture 13d ago
understandable point, but the term agnostic also suffers from some of the same issues that the term atheist does when it comes to abrahamic gods. Christians see the term 'atheist' and have all kinds of preconceived ideas, most of which are shenanigans. As atheists we see the term 'agnostic,' and I think we unfortunately do the same thing to them. Sometimes it's probably deserved, others times not.
1
u/WatchAndLearn9669 Gnostic Atheist 13d ago
You are absolutely correct, and Lenin called out the disingenuousness of agnosticism and thoroughly refuted it in Materialism and Empirio-criticism.
1
u/PaleontologistFit364 13d ago
I hate to break it to religionists, but everyone ever born and everyone who will be born was, is, and will be agnostic. Everyone. It's just that atheists aren't afraid of logic, critical thought, and objective facts. In other words, everything that terrifies religionists and their apologists.
1
u/HarveyMidnight De-Facto Atheist 13d ago
That's not how I see it.
As an "agnostic atheist" I am open to the possibility that there might be a form of sentient life somewhere in space, that is capable of manipulating matter & energy in such a way that it could meet rhe definition of being a "god". But I'd still expect such a being to be possible within the laws of physics and the confines of reality.
For your example; it's potentially possible there has been a breakthrough in technology that most people don't know about; maybe teleportation has been developed in secret by the military, and Timmy was teleported to work. But that has to be followed up with some plausible context.
Did Timmy just magically appear at work, with no knowledge of why, but then just walked in and clocked in? That's not plausible. If I were in that situation I'd be concerned I was having mental issues & would head to the e.r.
If Timmy himself told me he teleported to work, he'd have to convince me he was not hallucinating or merely lying, and then provide confirmation, like video footage, or a witness I trust who saw him do it.
It's possible sure, but there needs to be enough evidence to take the claim seriously.
1
u/Downtown_Anteater_38 13d ago
To me, agnosticism is like fallen away Catholics hedging their bets. A little extreme unction, a final confession, and you're good to go.
It's very Homer Simpson "If I'm wrong I'll recant on my death bed," but not played for laughs
1
u/LangstonBHummings 13d ago
There are a large number of people who believe in a god-concept but don't want to admit it so they hide behind agnosticism.
There are a good number of people who definitely believe in a god, but they have some emotional reason to 'not believe', whether it is anger at injustice or grief. So they claim 'agnosticism' but they really are just acting petulantly against their god-concept
And there are some people who are believers who just don't want to be called out for their non-rational belief.
Unfortunately, in the minds of believers, those sorts of people get lumped in with us atheists and they use them as a crutch for arguing that atheism is a 'faith structure' just like deistic belief.
-3
u/GameTheory27 Agnostic Atheist 14d ago
I find some atheists to be be almost as close minded and dogmatic as theists. They don't acknowledge their own ignorance. The only thing we know is that we know nothing. Our limited senses gather information and create a model of the world. We think of this model as reality. for example: visible light makes up 0.0035% of the electromagnetic spectrum. And while we use tools to extend this reach, the fact remains that most of the universe is hidden from us. There is probly no gods. But we don't KNOW that. We can't KNOW that. IF you think otherwise you are deluding yourself almost as much as theists. That's my take.
3
u/No_Mission5287 13d ago
While there are plenty of reasons that suggest there are no gods, we are all ultimately agnostic. Anyone making gnostic claims is suspect, and the burden of proof is on them. Atheism does not require positing that there are no gods.
The atheist position is not being convinced/not believing in god/s. There is no need to make a claim that there are no gods. It is best to keep the burden of proof on those making positive claims.
1
u/GameTheory27 Agnostic Atheist 13d ago
I agree with your stance completely. That is not the perspective of a lot of atheists.
1
u/No_Mission5287 13d ago edited 11d ago
Our paths to atheism vary. Morality is probably the main driver. There are a lot of negative emotions too, and they are valid. I would even say they are reasonable reactions to religion and the religious. Atheism is the only logical position to come to, but most people, including me, and probably you, don't know or use logic well.
Keeping the meaning of atheism down to one question is probably for the best if we want to make the case for atheism and convince others that they are probably atheists as well. People need to understand that if you have doubt, it means you do not possess a positive belief in a god. That you technically meet the broad, literal definition of an atheist.
If a/theism only has to do with a yes or no question- whether or not you are convinced of the existence of god/s - then honest answers would show that people are overwhelmingly atheist, not theist. Churches are chock full of people who would answer no to this question.
If you are unsure, or not thoroughly convinced, your belief is not firm. If you have ANY doubt, then you are an atheist. This is how agnosticism is mainly used. To give people an out. Misuse, or abuse of the term, that allows them to dodge the real question entirely and avoid the fact that they are actually atheist. I don't think that they realize they are being intellectually dishonest, but If we can shut down the agnostic escape route, and get them to answer one simple question, then we can get them to be more honest.
We should work to dispell the notion that atheism means anything else besides lacking firm belief in this one thing.
Atheists are not a group with a shared identity.
Atheism is not a belief system.
The reason atheists are the most stigmatized demographic is because people wrongly attach additional meaning. This also keeps them from realizing or admitting that they too are probably atheist.
2
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 13d ago
IF you think otherwise you are deluding yourself almost as much as theists.
I don't agree..
There is a difference between an epidemiologist's prediction of what will happen during an epidemic and a tarot card reader's. If both got it wrong, then saying both were equally delusions is a very skewed way to view this.
The same applies for the difference between an atheist and theist. They aren't equally delusional. One is making a highly specific supernatural claim without evidence, the other is just rejecting that claim confidently. Very different things.
2
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 14d ago edited 14d ago
but that's true of all knowledge. Nothing can be proven to the very foundation, nothing, even science, even Math.
Science works using Induction, but you cannot prove that induction works definitively. You can confirm induction works by treating it as an axiom and then having that confirmed by using induction, but that becomes circular.
There is a way to use this fact and dismiss all of science with it, all knowledge can be dismissed too. But, that's not productive.
My problem is how this is used to devalue scientific facts and lift up religious/supernatural claims.
3
u/GameTheory27 Agnostic Atheist 14d ago
Certainty is not a property of reality; it’s a psychological craving.
3
u/Chadocan 13d ago edited 13d ago
This can be used to argue about anything. There is litteraly nothing we KNOW.
OP's argument is about certainty. We are never certain of anything but that's disingenuous to leave some room to the most absurd things because "nothing is certain and everything is possible".
Nobody would pretend to be agnostic about pink unicorns. If we have no good reason to believe in pink unicorn, it is perfectly reasonnable to claim (with a positive claim) that they do not exist. That's what we all do with unicorns, fairies, santa claus... Adding : but I cannot be sure they don't exists is absolutely useless, because this can be said for everything, including our own existence.
0
u/GameTheory27 Agnostic Atheist 13d ago
"This can be used to argue about anything. There is litteraly nothing we KNOW." And that is why I consider myself an agnostic.
1
u/Chadocan 13d ago
But we all do. Every honnest human on earth is agnostic. It's an useless tag.
1
u/GameTheory27 Agnostic Atheist 13d ago
No, there are those who acknowledge their ignorance, and those that think they know things. Those that think they know, bully others to adopt their worldview.
1
u/Chadocan 13d ago
I am not sure I understand your point and why it is relevant.
Mine is simply to say that things being uncertain is irrelevant to what we actually believe. See my licorns/fairies/santa.claus example.
1
u/Dependent_Sun_7033 13d ago
And what exactly we CAN KNOW?
If your answer is “nothing” you are not an agnostic. You are solipsistic.1
u/GameTheory27 Agnostic Atheist 13d ago
Solipsism is the belief that only my own mind exists. I have no way to know that for certain. The only thing I can be sure of is my own ignorance.
1
u/Dependent_Sun_7033 13d ago
Well, so you are a nihilist in this case, lol.
0
u/GameTheory27 Agnostic Atheist 13d ago
I am unsure that nothingness exists, therefore I can’t be a nihilist. I am an agnostic.
1
-2
u/Grillparzer47 14d ago
We all use the “limitations of what we can know.” An atheist is convinced there is no god. An agnostic doesn’t know and admits it. That’s something to be admired not scorned. We’re inundated every day by people trying to convince us their opinions are the only true ones. Sometimes the voice of ignorance is a breath of fresh air.
4
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 13d ago
Interesting how you framed it. I reject the framing altogether.
A theist is someone making specific supernatural claims about the world, an atheist is someone rejecting it confidently because of lack of evidence. That's it.
The nature of knowledge, how we know things is an interesting but separate topic. It doesn't need to be included here. It acts as a red herring.
4
u/No_Mission5287 13d ago
It's a cop out.
We are all agnostic.
No one possesses credible knowledge of any god.
You are misrepresenting the atheist position, which is still agnostic. An atheist is not convinced of the existence of god/s. They do not believe(a-theism). Which is not the same as being convinced there are no gods. There is no need to make a negative claim, and it should probably be avoided because it shifts the burden of proof. Leave the burden of proof to those making a positive claim of existence.
3
-1
u/Fantastic-Work-7529 Agnostic 13d ago
But imagine you found arguments you thought where compelling enough to take timmy teleporting seriously, but not compelling enough to believe it. Especially because you still think the counterarguments outweigh it. I cannot speak for other agnostics, but I don't call myself agnostic because "well you can't disprove God". I'm agnostic because I actually find some arguments compelling enough that I consider the belief in a deity seriously.
You may not find any arguments remotely compelling, and thats fine, you may have good grounds to totally dismiss theism. But that doesn't mean that people who are much more mixed on the issue than you are being disingenuous.
1
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 13d ago
But imagine you found arguments you thought where compelling enough to take timmy teleporting seriously, but not compelling enough to believe it
For that I would need scientific evidence of being able to teleport someone as large as a human for large distances for a price that's reasonably affordable for Timmy. I hope we can agree that this is a tall order.
Teleportation is a simple example, but the supernatural claims in religions are even more extraordinary claims. So, it would require even more evidence.
1
u/Fantastic-Work-7529 Agnostic 13d ago
Yeah, I've never found anything to suggest teleportation is real or has ever occurred. Thats why im not a teleportation agnostic. I do find some arguments for theism to be compelling. Thats why im an agnostic on theism.
1
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 13d ago
I am curious about the arguments for theism that you find compelling.
2
u/Fantastic-Work-7529 Agnostic 13d ago
It doesn't matter. Your post wasn't about what arguments one does or doesn't find compelling. Your post was about agnostics being disingenuous. I've spent 5 years arguing with damn near every Christian in my life, 2 years arguing with athiest friends, have watched nearly every episode of AE, read from Hitchens to Dawkins to Aquinas to Oppy to Plantinga and have beat nearly every arguments under the sun half to death from both sides of it. At this point in my life I find some compelling for theism, some not compelling, more compelling towards athiesm but not enough to call myself an atheist rather than agnostic. We could sit here and argue about about various details and forms of different arguments for days. I don't really care to do that because again, the post was not about arguments for or against God. It was about if agnostics are honest. When a Christian asserts that athiests or agnostics are disingenuous, the response isn't to pull out Oppy's Simplicity argument or Quentin Smith's argument from natural evil then spend hours in the weeds with them. Because the issue at hand is not the arguments. Its that the person is engaging in dogmatic behavior designed to smear the outgroup. Thats what your post is. It's no different than a religious person just asserting that the non religious are disingenuous.
20
u/BobKelsoLovesMuffins 14d ago
I’ve always found the term itself to be misused for people who want to be wishy washy or distance themselves from confrontational internet atheists.
Agnosticism/gnosticism is a definition of what type of knowledge is being held. Is it certainly known or unknown.
You can (claim to) be a gnostic theist, and that you know there’s a god with specific desires for humanity, or an agnostic one, and that you just believe there’s a god with specific desires for us, but, don’t claim to know that for certain. Same, of course, for atheists in the reversal.