What do people mean when they say they are “Agnostic”? Is it a bona fide philosophical position, or just a term used to describe atheism without all the negative connotations of that word?
According to dictionary.com, an agnostic is…
- One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
- One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
It seems to me that skepticism about the existence of God is a facet of “true atheism”. Coming outright and saying “God doesn’t exist” is no different than saying “God does exist”. Neither position can really be proven. You may think differently, and if so leave a comment.
I would be accurately described as a “weak atheist”. From Introduction to Atheism:
Weak atheism is the sceptical “default position” to take; it asserts nothing.
That sounds to me like what definitions #1 and #2 are advocating. Now I’m not calling agnostics a bunch of liars and wimps for not coming out as atheists. Sometimes it’s better if you really are just a weak atheist to call yourself agnostic. In some parts of America the “a-word” has extremely negative connotations.
I, however, will continue to call myself an atheist.
No Cure for Snarkolepsy 
Well there’s a critical difference.
I call myself an atheist, but that’s only because the ranks of the agnostics seem to be populated by new-age spiritual hippy types.
Which is a shame.
I am probably what most people would consider an agnostic. I believe the only honest SCIENTIFIC answer to the question of god is, “No data”. I think atheism is as inherently unscientific as belief is.
My answer to the existence of god is: Who cares? I don’t believe it makes any difference…
Obviously I don’t believe in Our Fairy Sky Father, but is there any sort of god at all? Don’t know, don’t care.
But you’re just buying into the idea that there is some thing to make a decision about. I’m an atheist (strong) not because I say “there is no god” but because I say that the word “god” has no rational or logical meaning. Nothing has actually ever been offered for me to make a judgement upon. To say that “there is no god” is no different from saying that “there is no gorkshnax”.
I am a strong atheist because while I cannot prove that there is no god, no evidence in support of a god has been given (and withstood scrutiny) and the actions of gods as described by the majority of religions can be shown to be illogical. The simplist conclusion is that there is no god with the caveat that the conclusion can be revisited if evidence to the contrary if provided.
Comment #2 has it spot on, but there is another point.
As a committed agostic, with an physics/engineering training – I demand to see the evidence.
And, of course, there is no evidence for any “god”.
Furthermore, one can turn the relgiose arument around, by following Uncle Albert (Einstain) – by proposing a test:
No god is detectable.
Then, in the absence of any detection, we can carry on not believeing in any god, because of the absence of evidence ….
All rational detection metods allowed ….
[…] Excellent! I was wondering if we’d see Dante this issue. And we have. Here is his analysis on Agnosticism from Superlicious: What do people mean when they say they are “Agnosticâ€?? Is it a bona fide philosophical position, or just a term used to describe atheism without all the negative connotations of that word? […]