Is everyone an agnostic except when they're not?

[SMadsen]

Since there can never be evidence of the existence or non-existence of deities, I'd submit that everyone is an agnostic. However, if I claim that, say, Brahma exists, no one can really contradict it. There can't be any evidence that Brahma doesn't exist. I can even claim revelation, i.e. an exclusively and privately proclaimed knowledge, and it can't ever be contradicted.

So even though I should be an agnostic per definition, the same definition also allows me to be a non-agnostic if I so choose. Any thoughts?

[Sucre]

Since your assumption is based on BELIEF, anybody can contradict it.

[dilettante]

If everyone beleived this...Since there can never be evidence of the existence or non-existence of deities,...


...then this would be true: ...I'd submit that everyone is an agnostic....since believing that ultimate reality is unknown/unknowable is the definition of agnosticism.

But since billions of people seem to believe that ultimate reality (e.g. "God") is at least partially knowable, then no, not everyone is an agnostic.


However, if I claim that, say, Brahma exists, no one can really contradict it. There can't be any evidence that Brahma doesn't exist. I can even claim revelation, i.e. an exclusively and privately proclaimed knowledge, and it can't ever be contradicted.

So even though I should be an agnostic per definition, the same definition also allows me to be a non-agnostic if I so choose. Any thoughts?


Wouldn't claiming divine revalation be claiming evidence for the existence of the revealer? Even if you couldn't demonstrate the evidence to anyone else, it would be evidence for you.

E.G. If I claimed to have seen the flying spaghetti monster, I could hardly be called agnostic with regard to his existence.

If you believed you had receieved "exclusively and privately proclaimed knowledge" from God, you would, by definition, NOT be an agnostic.

[Americano]

Religion; the circular argument starting and ending with faith.

[Michael]

Since there can never be evidence of the existence or non-existence of deities, I'd submit that everyone is an agnostic.

That is ONLY true if you value rationalism as your number one guiding principle in all things. ;)

I respectfully submit that not everyone is ready, willing, capable or desireous of such rationalism.

For those who are believers, there is no need for any rationalist logic-chopping agnosticism. That's just the devil's work.

However, if I claim that, say, Brahma exists, no one can really contradict it. There can't be any evidence that Brahma doesn't exist. I can even claim revelation, i.e. an exclusively and privately proclaimed knowledge, and it can't ever be contradicted.
Certainly a believer in a different God may contradict your Brahma. They may not be able to do it according to perfectly rational and philosophic logic, but they certainly will contradict it with all of their faith (and heart and soul), and holy books and the support of their fellow believers.

So even though I should be an agnostic per definition, the same definition also allows me to be a non-agnostic if I so choose. Any thoughts?
None on this point. Everyone is an agnostic, except those who are not. That makes logical sense and is essentially impossible to dispute.

[SMadsen]

Since your assumption is based on BELIEF, anybody can contradict it.
True. In fact, what you say points to the inherent contradiction of the concept of agnosticism; it sets out to describe the knowledge of something that's solely a matter of assumption.

Wouldn't claiming divine revalation be claiming evidence for the existence of the revealer? Even if you couldn't demonstrate the evidence to anyone else, it would be evidence for you.
True. So says many a schizophrenic as well. And, indeed, it is evidence to them. At least until the experience that the therapist looks at it as evidence of something else.

E.G. If I claimed to have seen the flying spaghetti monster, I could hardly be called agnostic with regard to his existence.

If you believed you had receieved "exclusively and privately proclaimed knowledge" from God, you would, by definition, NOT be an agnostic.
Exactly. What you say here seems to agree with the assertion that agnosticism is not the rational statement that many think it is.

I'm leaning towards the idea that agnosticism is entirely a religious term and can't be used in any kind of epistomological, secular or otherwise rational context. I don't think it's possible to align agnosticism with atheism, which, regardless of why such a concept exists in the first place, is actually a secular position.

It seems that people often avoid referring to themselves as atheists because it in many parts of the world has a ring to it of active denial. That makes atheism look like a religious affiliation while agnosticism with its inescapable, almost unintentional inability to know seems to have the religiously impartial quality of secularism. I assert that it's quite the opposite.

None on this point. Everyone is an agnostic, except those who are not. That makes logical sense and is essentially impossible to dispute.
Yes, it was something of a non-starter, wasn't it? :)

[dilettante]

Exactly. What you say here seems to agree with the assertion that agnosticism is not the rational statement that many think it is.

I'm leaning towards the idea that agnosticism is entirely a religious term and can't be used in any kind of epistomological, secular or otherwise rational context. I don't think it's possible to align agnosticism with atheism, which, regardless of why such a concept exists in the first place, is actually a secular position.


I'm not sure how rational people think agnosticism is, but I do think it has its place as one category of thought about the existence of God, as distinct from both atheism and theism in western thought.


It seems that people often avoid referring to themselves as atheists because it in many parts of the world has a ring to it of active denial. That makes atheism look like a religious affiliation while agnosticism with its inescapable, almost unintentional inability to know seems to have the religiously impartial quality of secularism. I assert that it's quite the opposite.


From my experience, people who call themselves agnostic are defined by either their uncertainty or ambivalence; very few view it as any sort of formal position. They have neither affection nor antagonism toward religion/Theism and wish to avoid association with those who do.

[Americano]

I'm not sure how rational people think agnosticism is, but I do think it has its place as one category of thought about the existence of God, as distinct from both atheism and theism in western thought.



From my experience, people who call themselves agnostic are defined by either their uncertainty or ambivalence; very few view it as any sort of formal position. They have neither affection nor antagonism toward religion/Theism and wish to avoid association with those who do.

I use the agnostic label for those reasons but there is quite a bit of antagonism in my opinion as organized religion steps beyond the boundaries of their non-profit status to influence legislation. Actually it pisses me off.

[Sucre]

I think the contrary : most agnostics are non-believers. "Agnostism" is a very comfortable and politically correct label, but the truth is that you can either be a believer or a non believer. "Half belief" does that exist ?

[The Drunk Guy]

I think the contrary : most agnostics are non-believers. "Agnostism" is a very comfortable and politically correct label, but the truth is that you can either be a believer or a non believer. "Half belief" does that exist ?
I think "agnostic" is more socially excepted. I know that when someone tells me they're agnostic, I see another atheist.

[partofme]

I think people also view the word atheist as if it takes faith in the same way that religion does. In other words I know many that call themselves agnostic because they think an atheist is dogmatic and claims to know with certainty that there is no god which also can't be proven. I don't look at it that way. I call myself an atheist because I have no belief in a god but that doesn't mean I discount the possibility completely although saying I highly doubt it doesn't give my lake of belief justice.

[Sucre]

I think "agnostic" is more socially excepted. I know that when someone tells me they're agnostic, I see another atheist.
I agree.

I also agree with partofme that the problem of the word "atheist" is that it sounds dogmatic.

The truth is that, most of the time, most people don't think too much about God, the meaning of life etc. They have no dogam at all for not spending time thinking about dogma. The new fashion nowadays is pseudo-boudhism, personal development and intuition development.

[SMadsen]

I think "agnostic" is more socially excepted. I know that when someone tells me they're agnostic, I see another atheist.
Except when it's used apologetically. I've heard deeply religious people tell me they are agnostic, simply to say, I'm convinced, that all humans believe in a higher power whether they want to or not and whether or not such a higher power can be known. That way they can force any "stray" concept of atheism back into the meaning that it traditionally has to religious or semi-religious people, namely denial.

Atheism solely exists on the premise of religion. If there were no religions, neither secularism nor atheism would make any sense. But that doesn't make secularism and atheism religious concepts. Quite the opposite, in fact. Since religions can take control of the human mind from individuals to households to institutions to governments, there must exist concepts for situations where religions are not in control. Atheism is simply such a concept. Agnosticism, however, is not. It makes no such distinction.