• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

It's been almost three years...

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
***Mod: no comments in the agnostic Dir, only respectful questions are permitted, since agnostics don't know anything.***
 

Yazata

Active Member
If we say "Nobody knows", we would seem to be making a general assertion about the state of everyone's knowledge. I think that in Thomas Huxley's original formulation of agnosticism, he was willing to try to defend that assertion (regarding transcendental matters, not everyday life), based on Kantian and Humean-style arguments.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
If we say "Nobody knows", we would seem to be making a general assertion about the state of everyone's knowledge.
What's the problem with that?
There's lots of things nobody knows.

Including why people are sometimes so convinced that they have knowledge, when they're completely, demonstrably, wrong.
Tom
 

Yazata

Active Member
I think that part of the reason for the eclipse of agnosticism since around 2000 or so, is that the atheists have consciously tried to usurp agnosticism. Much of the discussion that once would have taken place under the 'agnostic' heading is now treated as 'weak atheism'.

I've always distingushed between atheism and agnosticism this way:

Atheism is an ontological assertion about the existence or non-existence of something (the non-existence of God or deities in this case).

Agnosticism is an epistemological assertion about knowledge or knowability concerning something (God, deities or transcendental realities in general in this case).

The common atheist assertion today is that 'atheism' isn't denial of the existence of God (or transcendental realities in general) but rather the mere lack of belief in them. They think that leaves them in possession of the intellectual high ground where they no longer have any 'burden of proof'.

Of course rhetorically, the burden lies with anyone who wants to persuade somebody else to accept something they don't already believe.
 
Last edited:

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I think that part of the problem since around 2000 or so, is that the atheists have consciously tried to usurp agnosticism.
Here is an example of a demonstrably wrong belief.
How do I convince you that this is incorrect?

Will my personal testimony do the job? Religious people commonly expect me to accept their's as facts.

In fact, it's about all they have.

Tom
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I think that part of the reason for the eclipse of agnosticism since around 2000 or so, is that the atheists have consciously tried to usurp agnosticism. Much of the discussion that once would have taken place under the 'agnostic' heading is now treated as 'weak atheism'.

I've always distingushed between atheism and agnosticism this way:

Atheism is an ontological assertion about the existence or non-existence of something (the non-existence of God or deities in this case).

Agnosticism is an epistemological assertion about knowledge or knowability concerning something (God, deities or transcendental realities in general in this case).

The common atheist assertion today is that 'atheism' isn't denial of the existence of God (or transcendental realities in general) but rather the mere lack of belief in them. They think that leaves them in possession of the intellectual high ground where they no longer have any 'burden of proof'.

Of course rhetorically, the burden lies with anyone who wants to persuade somebody else to accept something they don't already believe.

I don't know if atheism necessarily "usurped" agnosticism. One thing that strikes me about atheism is that they often seem more activist and organized. Agnostics really aren't organized as agnostics (at least not that I know of), although many agnostics support atheists politically when it comes to First Amendment issues, teaching creationism in schools, separation of church and state, etc.

I've run across some atheists who might tend to be a bit too overzealous, and a few even express irritation with agnostics because they think agnostics are wishy-washy and fence-sitters. That may be where the "weak atheist" idea comes from.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I've always distingushed between atheism and agnosticism this way:

Atheism is an ontological assertion about the existence or non-existence of something (the non-existence of God or deities in this case).

Agnosticism is an epistemological assertion about knowledge or knowability concerning something (God, deities or transcendental realities in general in this case).
I see my Agnosticism (Huxleyan) as a moral imperative to not believe things that lack proof or substantial evidence.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
***Mod: no comments in the agnostic Dir, only respectful questions are permitted, since agnostics don't know anything.***
May I respectfully ask where to find the rules that state that? I would accept it as an arbitrary rule set by the mods but together with the explanation it becomes highly (respectfully) questionable.
 
Top