Am 19.01.2014 16:57, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Theism /is/ a world view: The view that there is a supreme being (or a
>> multitude thereof); and this assumption /is/ typically held as a dogma.
>
>> Similarly, atheism /is/ a world view: The view that there is /no/
>> supreme being; and this assumption /is/ frequently held as a dogma as well.
>
>> If you ask me, the only entirely rational stance towards a supreme being
>> is that of an /agnostic/ - a person that neither asserts nor denies the
>> existence of a supreme being, and rather comes to the conclusion that we
>> simply can't know for sure.
>
> You are making the typical category error that so many people make.

Am I?

You failed to quote the following paragraph:

"Such a person may still lean towards theism or atheism - believing in 
the existence or absence of a supreme being based on 'gut feeling' - but 
either way they won't carry this belief as a dogma."


> Gnosticism/agnosticism is a philosophical view on knowledge. The gnostic
> view is that absolute knowledge is possible and obtainable, while the
> agnostic view is that it is not.

Be aware that the term gnosticism does /not/ denote the opposite view of 
agnosticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism


> A gnostic theist is one who is certain of the knowledge that a god exists
> (or, at the very least, thinks it's possible to know it for certain.)
>
> An agnostic theist is one who believes in the existence of a god, but
> doesn't believe complete certainty is possible.
>
> A gnostic atheist is one who does not believe in a god and is certain of
> it (or believes it's possible to acquire the knowledge of this.) This is
> more or less what "strong atheism" means.
>
> An agnostic atheist is one who does not have a belief in gods but doesn't
> assert it with certainty.
>
> People who classify themselves as "agnostics" are atheists by definition.
> That's because they would not say "I believe a god exists."

Are they?

I personally do believe in the existence of a supreme something - and at 
the same time I do believe that "the only entirely rational stance 
towards a supreme being is that of an /agnostic/", so it may come to you 
as no big surprise that I would classify myself as an agnostic.

Though, to be more precise, I should indeed not call myself an agnostic, 
but rather a "meta-agnostic": Not only do I lean towards the agnostic 
stance that the existence or non-existence cannot be known for sure - I 
also lean towards the belief that we cannot even known for sure whether 
the agnostic stance in its strict sense is true. In other words, I 
suspect (but yet don't know for sure) that we cannot know whether we can 
know whether there is a supreme entity.

Or, to use the words of that famous Reborn Christian mantra: "I don't 
know whether we can know whether we can know..."


Also note that non-agnosticism only comes in the flavors of theism and 
atheism, while agnosticism does come in all shades of grey - theists, 
atheists, people who aren't sure but tend towards one or the other, 
people who have no idea and are still trying to figure out - and people 
who don't bother because they believe that it has no practical 
implication anyway.


> The common claim "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" is an oxymoron.
> It's like saying "I'm not European, I'm Finnish."

That's nonsense, because all Finnish are European, but not all agnostics 
are atheists.

The claim is usually made in the sense, "I'm not an atheist, I'm 
[merely] an agnostic [theist or somewhere in between theist and atheist]"

Post a reply to this message