HOME | DD
i-stamp — Agnostic isn't in the Middle
Published: 2010-09-28 08:39:58 +0000 UTC; Views: 5759; Favourites: 133; Downloads: 22
Redirect to original
Description
A lot of people think that 'agnostic' is an ideological 'middle' between atheism and theism. But I haven't actually ever heard any theologian or sociologist call it that.There's a huge array of 'types' of agnostics described, including agnostic atheists (do not have a belief in a deity but do not claim one doesn't/can't exist) and agnostic theists (does not claim to know a deity exists, but believes one does). Either one of those could believe that the existence of a deity is inherently unknowable and still be a theist or an atheist.
Related content
Comments: 87
As much as I like Mr. Enter, he's simply wrong about this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm 90% Muslim but 10% Agnostism, and thank you for this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you for this. I see all of these "Agnostic" stamps with either no idea what Agnosticism is or no interest in correcting the common misconception. This is the first one I've seen that actually makes the correction. Thank you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Ah, thanks for that! I actually didn't realize there was a difference <3
I'm probably an agnostic atheist then~
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you for finally bringing some knowledge to some ignorant deviants here on this site.
Brava.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have just discovered that I might be an Ignostic. From what your definition says, that is VERY similar to how I think about a higher power.
Now... I think that I have to change a few things on my profiles on various websites...
There is one other thing that I must know... WHY does is say that Ignostic is spell incorrectly when it is not? I even checked the spelling, and it is spelled correctly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I think it's spelled I-g-n-o-r-a-n-t but I'm not sure.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And just how is that ignorant?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If you're talking about the spell checker on your web browser, it's probably because it's not prolific enough to be in the dictionary. Dictionaries are based on common use terms, and Ignostic hasn't made its way into lay vernacular yet. You can usually highlight the word and right click it, then click 'add to dictionary' depending on which browser you use.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Interesting idea about ignostics. Reminds me of the more general or broad "epistemological nihilism", where one denies all knowledge because even if one witnesses something, it's still filtered through personal perception and therefore can't be truly related/conveyed to anyone else.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Quite true. I am glad there is a stamp like this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'll have to show this post to my mother-in-law. We get along very well, but I had a hard time explaining why I can be agnostic, yet still hold a personal belief of theism or atheism. She thinks that you can only be one or another, but now I believe I can explain it better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Happy to help, good luck with that conversation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it will be interesting. Thanks > w<.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Any honest atheist should be agnostic about the existence of a deity or deities (I am). Agsnoticism in itself isn't even incompatible with theism.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Good to see some clear-thinking around here. But reading some of the comments below (from ~longwing and !CrimsonHussar)... It's as if some people saw the stamp and commented, without even reading what you wrote.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Either you're a theist, or you're an atheist. You either believe there is a god, or you don't believe there is a god. Adding extra terms to try and categorise your individual beliefs is splitting hairs. Categorising your atheism and then putting other atheists down because they haven't categorised theirs is immature. Agnostics have the right idea because they are atheists - but they attack their fellow atheists, which is odd.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, they can't - theists are theists. If you believe a god/gods exist, you are a theist. If you don't believe they exist, you are an atheist. There is no in between.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A/gnostic isn't a question of belief, it's a question of knowledge. Whether you claim to know something or that something cannot be known. Belief doesn't come into that, which is why the two terms are differentiated and why it's fully possible to be agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. And why those words have been in circulation since the 1800's.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Atheists don't generally claim to know that god doesn't exist. There's no way the existence of a god can be disproven - it's just that the overwhelming burden of evidence points in the direction of no god. It's just like saying I don't believe unicorns exist. Incidentally, the word "unicorn" has been in use for a lot longer than "agnostic", but that doesn't make them any more real.
Nobody knows if gods exist. Theists have faith and belief in them, atheists don't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, they don't. That's why they're categorically separated as explicit and implicit atheist. Implicit atheist is the same as an agnostic atheist. That's what language is for, defining concepts. You can't just write off these subjects because you think they're too complicated. Unicorns as an idea defined by language exists, and so do agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
Incidentally, there are atheists who feel they know gods don't exist. For example, those who are convinced of cyclic universes (where the universe couldn't have been created). Or those who subscribe to m-theory tithe same degree. I'm not one of those atheists, but they do exist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, some atheists are convinced gods don't exist. Most don't - as I said before, atheists don't believe in god. This doesn't usually mean they think there is 0% chance there is a god. There is no point in inventing words to make things more complicated when we have two perfectly good words already - and to make extra words that you think don't belong in either the two groups just goes to show you don't understand them. Either you have an apple or you don't - if you have an orange, you don't have an apple. Either you have a god or you don't - if you don't know, then you don't have a god.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Some atheists are convinced gods don't exist (explicit atheist ). Some theists are not sure gods exist but believe in one anyway (agnostic theist ). Some people believe gods existence is non-debatable because the term 'god' doesn't have a stationary enough definition, which is not a statement on whether gods do or don't exist and thus cannot be classified as atheism or theism. (ignostics and theological non-cognitivists )
By saying we're 'choose between these two' you're presenting a false dilemma. There are more fruit here than an apple and an orange.
And, in any case, there are already countless linguists and philosophers as well as laymen that have been using these words since the 1800's. And you're not going to eliminate them just because you don't think the difference between concepts warrants additional classification.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is only one type of fruit in this discussion and that is god existence. If you believe in a particular god you're theist; if you believe there is a god although not sure what form it takes or what it is you're theist; if you don't know or think there isn't a god you're atheist. Explicit or not. If you would like to add more labels to yourself you may call yourself a different kind of atheist, if it makes you feel special, but you are still an atheist. Agnostics don't want to be lumped in with the atheists or the religious because they fear controversy so they create a new term for themselves. However, they can all be described as theist or atheist. Ignostics are interesting as they don't know what an apple looks like. I reckon a lot of them could still be one or the other though. I don't think either of us are trying to change the world in this debate; I'm talking to you, not the "countless linguists and philosophers as well as laymen".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never said that I wasn't an atheist, or that agnostics weren't atheist or theist. There just isn't one classification of theist or one type of atheist, but they are general terms for many different specific theological positions which have their own terminology.
Going on is just going to result in repeating the same thing over and over again. I provided plenty of links that give a very detailed analysis of the differences, and why professional linguists, theologians and philosophers, and myself differentiate between them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, so there are 2 types of people: atheists and theists. There are as many different positions within them as there are human beings (although why we have to give them special names is beyond me but hey, whatever floats your boat). I think maybe we were arguing about different things - I'm just fed up of agnostics thinking they're special and somehow above atheists and theists when essentially they fall into those categories anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree that agnostics are still either theist or atheist, albeit agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
The basic agnostic is nuetral and in the middle because an agnostic is neither not arrogant enough to be sure god exists but not arrogant enough to know god doesnt.
I know because I am one
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What you call yourself and how the word is defined in academic circles don't match. What people usually mean by 'basic agnostic' is agnostic atheist, a non-practicing, non-believing, non-religious person who doesn't have a belief in gods but doesn't claim to know one doesn't exist. That's not middle ground because you still have a belief. Please see ignostic or theological noncognitivist for what can really be called 'middle.'
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
-__- Your over-analyzing. Jeez, take a fucking break.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Welcome to linguistics and philosophy. Which studies the semantics of words and their meanings. In any event, these terms, 'agnostic atheist,' 'agnostic theist,' 'ignostic,' 'theological noncognitivist' have been around since before you or I were born. A/gnostic a/theism has been around since the 1800's. These are not new concepts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Haha that's great - sooooo many labels for religion too, human mind is surely creative when it comes to cathegories.
Anyway I guess I'm a pantheistic agnostic then with maybe-theist tint.
Thanks for sharing and explaining. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm a tricky one, then... I don't claim to know whether a deity exists, nor do I claim they CAN'T exist.
Does ignostic say that we cannot know whether there is a deity or not? Because if so, I'm not ignostic, either.
Basically, I don't know if a deity exists, and therefore have no belief for/against one. Yet I don't believe it's impossible for humans to know if there certainly is one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Belief is different than knowledge. Agnostic deals with not 'knowing' rather than not 'believing.' Agnostic a/theist is about saying 'I believe x, but I don't know for sure.' If you ask yourself the question 'Do I believe in a god/higher power, notwithstanding that I don't know whether one exists or not' and answer yourself 'no' then you are probably an agnostic atheist. If you answer yourself 'yes' then you're probably an agnostic theist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I get that but I don't even know if I believe in a higher power or not. There are some moments where I do (when I think of certain NDE's or coincidences) and some moments where it seems almost foolish.
If my comments aren't making any sense or if they're not really following yours I'm sorry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
YES!!! Finally. Someone who knows what the hell they're talking about.
Have you ever watched "The Atheist Experience"? It's great for people that want to learn more about the apologetics of religion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have beliefs, but I also believe I can be wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Now I know the correct term to use when people ask if I believe and stuff! It's always been super complicated to explain, now I can just say google it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't really care if I was made by God or Zeus or Brahman, and think it's all possible. It's even possible God, Zeus and Brahman worked together to make the world. That is what it is to be agnostic. The belief in possibility.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I can certainly agree on a definition for God or Gods, yet I consider myself agnostic and in the middle, since I feel sufficient evidence is lacking for both the theist and atheist sides.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Evidence not-withstanding, gnostic or agnostic is a matter of belief, where as theism atheism is a matter of knowledge. If you live your life without belief in any gods, but don't assert knowledge whether gods exist, then you're an agnostic atheist. Agnostic doesn't stand on its own.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm insulted by such labels! I abhore atheism and I absolutely refuse to be known as an atheist. If I'm agnostic without being theist or atheist then I am just agnostic, not agnostic theist, not agnostic atheist, just agnostic. Period. I neither believe nor disbelieve in God or any gods. That doesn't make me either theist or atheist, it makes me neutral. Get it right! I would think I would know what I believe, and not someone else. I will argue against the opposing side either way.
In otherwards, I'll argue against an athiest and support theism in that respect, but I'll argue against a thiest with the atheism side.
But I will not stand to be labeled an athiest! >.< I don't care what the theologians or the sociologists want to call it, because it isn't true to me. Call me a fence sitter, but don't call me an atheist.
No, I have nothing against athiests, but I can't stand the philosphies behind athiesm. I am open to the idea that God could exist, I just don't believe one way or the other because of the insufficient evidence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Whether you're insulted or not doesn't impact how the definition of the terms work. There is no such thing as just 'agnostic.' All agnostic means is without knowledge. If you don't believe in god due to insufficient evidence, but do not reject the concept of a god, then you are an agnostic atheist. [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I neither believe, nor disbelieve in God. That doesn't make me either theist or atheist. If ANYTHING I lean slightly more toward the theist side.
You have no right to tell me what I believe or don't believe. I do not believe in either side. I simply do not know what to believe. I believe there is a possibility of God existing, but I also believe thre is a possibility that doesn't exist. How does that make me anything other than neutral or in the middle?
Lack of belief in God is an athiest. Belief in a God is theist. But neither believing nor disbelieving does not make one or the other now does it?
I'm simply the neutral category, and if there isn't one, well guess what, there is now because that's exactly what I am. You can send me labels, links, expert opinions or whatever. But that's what opinions are for. They aren't facts. The fact is, I'm neither an atheist nor am I thiest. I believe both sides are just as probable of being possible as both sides are probable of being impossible.
So if anything I'm an agnostic neutral.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you lean more towards the theist side (you believe there is a god or gods but don't claim to have any absolute knowledge) then you're an agnostic theist.
I have every right to use words the way they are meant to be used. You could claim that your perspective of the color 'blue' means that the sky is green to you, but it wouldn't change anything. Linguistics is all about words and labeling, as is philosophy and theology from which we get these words. If you don't care to be labeled based on what words actually mean then I'm sorry you don't like it. But it's still going to happen. Words don't change just because one person doesn't feel it describes them right.
And there is a neutral category, but it isn't agnostic. I already described Ignostic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, I read your definition of Ignostic. Interesting, but that doesn't describe me either because in the defintion it says you have to define what god or gods are first.
I too can make a comparison on the perspective of colors. In the light spectrum there's black, white and shades of gray. When it comes to God and religion, I'm the shade that's directly in the middle, assuming let's say that white represents someone that is purely thiestic and black represents someone purely atheistic. I'm at 0% on both sides of the spectrum. Sometimes I lean a little more closely to the theistic side, and sometimes I lean a little bit more closely to the atheistic side. Depends on my mood and how I'm thinking about the evidence. If pushed one way or the other, I'll move in the opposing direction. Perhaps my belief system is so uncommon that there isn't a proper word for it yet, and agnostic is the closest because I claim no knowledge one way or the other. At the same time, I neither believe nor disbelieve.
Do you get it now?
Since you want to argue the point, after doing a research apparently someone has come up with a word for it. They call it a "Possibilian" or someone who is open to either possibility. I kind of like this word actually, but I still consider myself an agnostic because I also don't claim to have any knowledge of the existence of God existing or not. It's like the box, where you don't know what is inside until you open it. At the same time, I neither believe nor disbelieve in God, but I'm open to the possibility of either claim, swaying my opinion left and right depending on the circumstance, but always staying in the gray area in the middle.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>