Agnosticism and other related labels (Agnosticism)

by romansh , Tuesday, May 06, 2014, 04:08 (3855 days ago) @ dhw

You asked how I would describe a weak atheist. I responded: "an agnostic tending towards atheism". This is my equivalent of your bluey green, in case you hadn't realized.-In case you did not realize atheistic is my equivalent to bluey.
> 
> Romansh: Atheists and theists can be agnostics at least according to Wikipedia.
> 
> Below are the Wikipedia definitions of agnosticism***. No mention of the existence of individual deities. However, we're not arguing about the adjective "agnostic", which is more flexible than "atheistic", since it relates originally to knowledge and not just to gods. This is clear from the definitions of "agnostic atheism" and "agnostic theism". I've frequently mentioned the problem of defining "agnosticism", because if it refers only to knowledge, we're ALL agnostics (which is why Dawkins can astonish the world by claiming to be one). My objection is to your twisted use of "atheistic". Here's your recommended definition of atheism from Wikipedia:
> 
> ROMANSH: It is not just my use ...again the opening lines from Wiki
> "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."
> 
> Any deities ... not one particular form. You approve, but you still want to apply the adjective to individual deities. This discussion started when I objected to Dawkins' joke about monotheists being atheists because they reject the ancient gods. You responded: "Are you not atheistic towards man walking with dinosaurs prior to a literal world flood?" Again I objected to your use of "atheistic", as I see no link with disbelief in god(s). I asked later why you used it, but you didn't answer. You can of course use language any way you please, but then you shouldn't complain if people don't understand you.
> 
> Dhw: [According to your twisted use of terminology, someone can be atheistic, theistic and agnostic all at the same time] and even in relation to one and the same god.
>> ROMANSH:I certainly have not meant to have said this. Please point out where I have said this.
> You obviously don't realize the implications of your language, even when they're pointed out to you, as follows: You tried to justify your question by rephrasing it: "Do you actively disbelieve in the god of the flood and man comingling with dinosaurs?" I commented on the ambiguity before answering (28 April under "Dawkins dissed...), and wrote on this thread: "Are you going to point to every single story about every god and say that someone who rejects a single story is atheistic? If someone disbelieves in the story of Noah but believes in the story of the parting of the Red Sea, does he then become atheistic AND theistic "with respect to" that same God? What kind of language is this?" Of course you did not respond. Add being agnostic "with respect to" the God of the burning bush, and you have your trio.-Just curious ... is there any difference for you when we use atheist as an adjective and atheistic?
Whilst I can't say I recommend any of them per se, I have no problem with any of them and is how I generally use the meanings.-> *** Definitions recommended by Romansh:
> 
> Agnostic atheism
> The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist. 
> Agnostic theism
> The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. 
> Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
> The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest. 
> Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")
> The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
> Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
> The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."