Nobody knows *anything*, period.

Yes. Which is why any sensible person would call them self an agnostic (literally - a person who doesn't know something), whether they were atheist, theist, or otherwise.

Cling to your nutty bullshit about 'knowledge' playing a role in these three positions.

How is it nutty bullshit to say that 'knowledge' plays a role in the word that means 'not having knowledge'? Bullshit moon logic.

That's what the word 'agnostic' is. That's what it means. If you're unhappy with this, then invent some new word that refers (and only refers) to your concept of someone who is neither a theist or an atheist. The word you are using doesn't exclusively refer to that, whether you read it upside down, back to front, or on the far side of Jupiter. Agnostic. A-gnostic. Someone without knowledge. Of God, proper lawnmowing techniques, or whatever the fuck else. The word is taken. It has a meaning. It is not for you. Let it go. Find a new mast to lash yourself to.

It is possible to remain agnostic on something that you participate in. I am agnostic about cod liver oil, but I take it every day.

Rick Reuben wrote:

DrAwkward wrote:
It's a semantic argument, and i dislike semantic arguments. .

No, it is not a semantic argument. Atheists deny, agnostics do not choose to confirm or deny a belief, theists confirm a belief. Those are three points on a spectrum, with atheist and theist representing the poles. There is no way for an agnostic to straddle a position at either end without violating the definition of agnostic. You can't 'half believe' or 'half deny'.

As I predicted, you lacked the guts to answer the question, "Can one be an antheist/agnostic hybrid?"

Funny, i thought i answered "yes," only taking a bit more time to explain that people's personal believes are more nuanced than the convenient pidgeonholes you prefer to stuff them in. Whatever.

Rick, that doesn't work with a negative. You are in Rumsfeldian territory with your "unknown unknowns" and "known unknowns".

Remember how stupid he seemed when he used a tautology to mask a double negative? You are doing the same thing.

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.

You know who said that, Bob? Thomas Huxley. The guy who came up with the word 'agnostic'. Would you like to argue with him about what his word means?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Bob is actually a tiny bit right. Agnosticism isn't about whether the agnostic knows or not (because nobody really knows), it's about what the agnostic believes.

Right. It's all about what one believes. And if agnostics make their choice to not express a belief, then any departure into the camp of theists ( who express a belief ) or atheists ( who deny a belief ) violates the definition of agnostic, which is: "one who chooses not to express a belief in the existence or non-existence of God".

That's your definition of "agnostic," and you may (or may not) have some dictionary support, but it's not a good definition. Look at the word, for goodness' sake. What do you think the "gnostic" part means? It means knowledge. An agnostic is one who believes that it is unknowable whether or not God exists.

LVP, you almost had it, but then you brought the word 'know' back in. Nobody can factor what they know into this decision, unless they can demonstrate what this knowledge *is*. A complete absence of knowledge is not knowledge.

I brought the word "know" back into it, but I never said an agnostic doesn't know or a non-agnostic knows. Neither knows, but an agnostic realizes it, while a non-agnostic does not.

You say this:

lvp wrote:because nobody really knows

Why even slide the word 'really' in there? Nobody knows *anything*, period.

Because some people (non-agnostics) claim they know. Nobody knows. Some people claim they know, but they don't really know. That's how we use "really." How would you use the word "really"?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Skronk wrote:That's not true. One can hold both beliefs, for instance "I personally (don't believe/believe) in a God, but I don't know if there is." These two ideas don't clash. An overlap can exist.

You can't 'know' anything in a field without knowledge. It is a given that:

Atheists don't know.

Agnostics don't know.

Theists don't know.

Nobody knows.

It is wrong to suggest that one can make a choice based on belief, but also cling to a different choice based on knowledge, if there is no knowledge. If there is no knowledge, then the entirety of one's choice is predicated on belief. The decision, made solely on belief, is what segregates one into one of the three camps. There are no hybrid choices.

Out of these options, none are based in knowledge, it's belief. That's why all of them must concede they don't know, but that in and of itself, doesn't exclude belief. None of them know, but they can still believe, whether it's theism or atheism.

If someone says they believe, but concede they do not actually know, what would category would you place them in? I wouldn't place them squarely in any of three categories, because that would be incorrect.

Rick Reuben wrote:Agnostics cannot say they believe or disbelieve in any way. Once they do, they cease to be agnostic.

Atheists cannot say they are hedging their denial of god's existence. Once they do, they cease to be atheist, and become agnostic.

Theists cannot say they are doubting their belief in God. Once they do, they cease to be theist and become agnostic.

Atheism, agnosticism, and theism are each alternatives to the other two in the group. There is no room for hybrid positions, or need. One of the three positions should satisfy any person. They don't need to occupy more than one.

There is a need if the categories don't accurately reflect their views. One can believe in a God, but not know. A theist can doubt their belief in God, but can still believe, if not dogmatically. An overlap, then, has to exist.

Which is why someone can practice a belief in God, without "knowing" that God exists.

A person aware that they are doing so would be an agnostic theist.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Because some people (non-agnostics) claim they know. Nobody knows. Some people claim they know, but they don't really know.

A claim of knowledge without knowledge reverts back to belief, 100%.

Yes, and a belief about knowledge is not mutually exclusive with a belief about god's existence. Hence the possibility of an agnostic atheist.

Again, Bob.

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.

Do you get it? This is what saying you have 'knowledge' means. It is saying that you are 'certain of the objective truth' of something. It's not about a judgment that you make, or what you claim to believe. It's about what you claim to know. That's why the guy who invented the word 'agnostic' coined it as an opposition to the people who said they knew.

'Judgment' does not, on this or any other planet, in this or any other language, mean the same thing as certainty.

So what are you talking about here: The word 'agnostic', as described by the guy who coined the word agnostic, a description included in any dictionary definition you will find of the word 'agnostic', or some bullshit moon version of the word, a translation into clocker bob speak?