"Agnostic atheist" is such an oxymoronic term, because atheism takes a firm stand there are no gods whereas agnosticism remains neutral on it. Agnosticism is neither theistic, nor atheistic. So, therefore, there are no such things as "agnostic theist/atheist".
It depends on how we define the terms. If atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god, it would be possible to claim that you don't *believe* in any gods (atheism) even as you acknowledge that you don't *know* if any gods actually exist (agnostic). This idea is in the literature. See, for example, plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/, which acknowledges different working definition for "atheism" and "agnosticism." Within these definitions, "“even if agnosticism were defined as the rather extreme position that neither theistic belief nor atheistic belief ever has positive epistemic status of any sort, it wouldn’t follow by definition that no agnostic is either a theist or an atheist… [S]ome atheists proudly call themselves ‘agnostic atheists’, although with further reflection the symmetry between this position and fideism might give them pause. More likely, though, what is being claimed by these self-identified agnostic atheists is that, while their belief that God does not exist has positive epistemic status of some sort (minimally, it is not irrational), it does not have the sort of positive epistemic status that can turn true belief into knowledge.” I acknowledge that it is possible to define the "atheism" and "agnosticism" in a manner that is mutually exclusive; however, it is no necessary to do so. Nor is it universally accepted that doing so is the "right" way to define those terms. This is one reason why I say it's "possible" to think of atheism and agnosticism as being compatible terms (as opposed to say that the definitively are compatible terms).
@@thewanderingprofessor9532 *If atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god, it would be possible to claim that you don't believe in any gods (atheism)* Atheism is not defined as a lack of belief. But rather as disbelief. *“even if agnosticism were defined as the rather extreme position that neither theistic belief nor atheistic belief ever has positive epistemic status of any sort, it wouldn’t follow by definition that no agnostic is either a theist or an atheist* But it is for a fact that agnosticism is a belief position that is neither theistic, nor atheistic. *[S]ome atheists proudly call themselves ‘agnostic atheists’, although with further reflection the symmetry between this position and fideism might give them pause.* Because they still wanna believe that agnosticism only deals with knowledge. *I acknowledge that it is possible to define the "atheism" and "agnosticism" in a manner that is mutually exclusive; however, it is no necessary to do so.* But it is for a fact that they are mutually exclusive positions. *This is one reason why I say it's "possible" to think of atheism and agnosticism as being compatible terms (as opposed to say that the definitively are compatible terms).* That's just only in your own opinion. But they are not compatible with one another, because agnosticism is a neutral position whereas atheism isn't.
@@americanliberal09 I think you can define the terms the way you are, but it goes too far to say, in some objective and authoritative sense, "they are mutually exclusive positions," because that's now the terms function in the field. (Hence, the essay I cited). My point is that sources in the field define the terms in ways that are not mutually exclusive. And this method of defining them makes sense to me. Consider: You write, "agnosticism is a neutral position whereas atheism isn't." But they speak about different things. Agnosticism (from the Greek gnosis) deals with knowledge about the existence of a god or gods (or, perhaps, a belief about whether such knowledge is possible), whereas theism and atheism deal with beliefs about whether or not any gods exist. And so, one can say, "I don't think it is possible to know that god exists [agnosticism], but even in the absence of such knowledge, I don't believe in any gods [atheism]." In essence, we're disagreeing about how to define the terms. To avoid speaking past one another, I might suggest that the pertinent argument here is: How do we decide which definitions are authoritative? I'm suggesting that the lack of monolithic definitions in the field betray the possibility that the definitions are not mutually exclusive. You can disagree with that, of course, but you'd need to provide more argumentation to support why your definitions are superior to the ones I've provided. At any rate, I really appreciate the engagement. I mean that in all sincerity.
@@thewanderingprofessor9532 *I think you can define the terms the way you are, but it goes too far to say, in some objective and authoritative sense, "they are mutually exclusive positions," because that's now the terms function in the field. (Hence, the essay I cited).* I really don't care if you don't like those facts. But every academic has actually acknowledged for the fact that atheism, and agnosticism are both mutually exclusive positions. *My point is that sources in the field define the terms in ways that are not mutually exclusive. And this method of defining them makes sense to me.* Yeah. Just only in your own opinion. *Consider: You write, "agnosticism is a neutral position whereas atheism isn't." But they speak about different things. Agnosticism (from the Greek gnosis) deals with knowledge about the existence of a god or gods (or, perhaps, a belief about whether such knowledge is possible)* Wrong. Agnosticism is actually a belief position. And, besides. Agnosticism is actually defined by its modern definition. Not by its etymology. *In essence, we're disagreeing about how to define the terms. To avoid speaking past one another, I might suggest that the pertinent argument here is: How do we decide which definitions are authoritative?* Authoritative? So going by its actual definition is now considered to be authoritarian to you? *I'm suggesting that the lack of monolithic definitions in the field betray the possibility that the definitions are not mutually exclusive.* Oh, i see. You don't really like those definitions. So you wanna come up with your own definitions that are more objective to you, right? *You can disagree with that, of course, but you'd need to provide more argumentation to support why your definitions are superior to the ones I've provided.* Superior? Dude. This isn't about my definitions being superior. I'm just providing the facts that were established by academics.
@@americanliberal09 “I really don't care if you don't like those facts. But every academic has actually acknowledged for the fact that atheism, and agnosticism are both mutually exclusive positions.” The issue isn’t that I don’t like them. The issue is that they aren’t facts. The claim that “every academic has actually acknowledged for the fact that atheism, and agnosticism are both mutually exclusive positions” is demonstrably false. I’ve already provided a source from a renowned philosopher (Paul Draper) who doesn’t maintain they are mutually exclusive (and acknowledges that’s not how they’re used in the field. I could provide more sources, but I’m not sure what value it would be, since you haven’t quite come to terms with the first source I used. I’ll also note that you haven’t shared a single source (peer-reviewed or otherwise) to substantiate your claim that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive (and everyone in the field agrees with you). “Just only in your own opinion.” I accept that every text requires interpretation. But my interpretation is fairly justified by the evidence. You are free to argue otherwise, of course, but you’re not providing argumentation so much as making unsubstantiated declarative statements. “Agnosticism is actually defined by its modern definition. Not by its etymology.” I don’t disagree. But as I’ve already noted, not everyone defines the terms as you have. Hell, not even American Atheists agree with your claim: “To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods… Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.” www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ Here’s another take, from APA: “Technically, an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in a god, while an agnostic is someone who doesn’t believe it’s possible to know for sure that a god exists. It’s possible to be both-an agnostic atheist doesn’t believe but also doesn’t think we can ever know whether a god exists. A gnostic atheist, on the other hand, believes with certainty that a god does not exist.” www.apa.org/monitor/2020/07/believe So, now I’ve demonstrated that not all philosophers, atheists, or psychologists accept your view. They agree with the one I’ve provided. Again, this isn’t to say that my view is the only valid one. It’s merely to say it represents discussions happening around the topic of atheism and agnosticism. “So going by its actual definition is now considered to be authoritarian to you?” No. Authoritatively declaring the one and true definition without reference to scholars (or anyone) while simultaneously ignoring evidence that stands in tension with said definition is authoritarian. “I'm just providing the facts that were established by academics.” I’ve not seen a fact or a reference to an academic. But I’ve provided both, so… Look, you clearly feel very strongly about this. You’ve also turned a bit combative, using strawman arguments and what not. Combining this with the fact that you seem unable to acknowledge or seriously engage the information and arguments I’ve provided makes this exercise seem a bit futile to me. So, continue to think what you will, but I hope you can at least to acknowledge the counterevidence I’ve provided. Peace.
"Agnostic atheist" is such an oxymoronic term, because atheism takes a firm stand there are no gods whereas agnosticism remains neutral on it.
Agnosticism is neither theistic, nor atheistic. So, therefore, there are no such things as "agnostic theist/atheist".
It depends on how we define the terms. If atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god, it would be possible to claim that you don't *believe* in any gods (atheism) even as you acknowledge that you don't *know* if any gods actually exist (agnostic).
This idea is in the literature. See, for example, plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/, which acknowledges different working definition for "atheism" and "agnosticism." Within these definitions, "“even if agnosticism were defined as the rather extreme position that neither theistic belief nor atheistic belief ever has positive epistemic status of any sort, it wouldn’t follow by definition that no agnostic is either a theist or an atheist… [S]ome atheists proudly call themselves ‘agnostic atheists’, although with further reflection the symmetry between this position and fideism might give them pause. More likely, though, what is being claimed by these self-identified agnostic atheists is that, while their belief that God does not exist has positive epistemic status of some sort (minimally, it is not irrational), it does not have the sort of positive epistemic status that can turn true belief into knowledge.”
I acknowledge that it is possible to define the "atheism" and "agnosticism" in a manner that is mutually exclusive; however, it is no necessary to do so. Nor is it universally accepted that doing so is the "right" way to define those terms.
This is one reason why I say it's "possible" to think of atheism and agnosticism as being compatible terms (as opposed to say that the definitively are compatible terms).
@@thewanderingprofessor9532 *If atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god, it would be possible to claim that you don't believe in any gods (atheism)*
Atheism is not defined as a lack of belief. But rather as disbelief.
*“even if agnosticism were defined as the rather extreme position that neither theistic belief nor atheistic belief ever has positive epistemic status of any sort, it wouldn’t follow by definition that no agnostic is either a theist or an atheist*
But it is for a fact that agnosticism is a belief position that is neither theistic, nor atheistic.
*[S]ome atheists proudly call themselves ‘agnostic atheists’, although with further reflection the symmetry between this position and fideism might give them pause.*
Because they still wanna believe that agnosticism only deals with knowledge.
*I acknowledge that it is possible to define the "atheism" and "agnosticism" in a manner that is mutually exclusive; however, it is no necessary to do so.*
But it is for a fact that they are mutually exclusive positions.
*This is one reason why I say it's "possible" to think of atheism and agnosticism as being compatible terms (as opposed to say that the definitively are compatible terms).*
That's just only in your own opinion. But they are not compatible with one another, because agnosticism is a neutral position whereas atheism isn't.
@@americanliberal09 I think you can define the terms the way you are, but it goes too far to say, in some objective and authoritative sense, "they are mutually exclusive positions," because that's now the terms function in the field. (Hence, the essay I cited).
My point is that sources in the field define the terms in ways that are not mutually exclusive. And this method of defining them makes sense to me.
Consider: You write, "agnosticism is a neutral position whereas atheism isn't." But they speak about different things. Agnosticism (from the Greek gnosis) deals with knowledge about the existence of a god or gods (or, perhaps, a belief about whether such knowledge is possible), whereas theism and atheism deal with beliefs about whether or not any gods exist. And so, one can say, "I don't think it is possible to know that god exists [agnosticism], but even in the absence of such knowledge, I don't believe in any gods [atheism]."
In essence, we're disagreeing about how to define the terms. To avoid speaking past one another, I might suggest that the pertinent argument here is: How do we decide which definitions are authoritative? I'm suggesting that the lack of monolithic definitions in the field betray the possibility that the definitions are not mutually exclusive. You can disagree with that, of course, but you'd need to provide more argumentation to support why your definitions are superior to the ones I've provided.
At any rate, I really appreciate the engagement. I mean that in all sincerity.
@@thewanderingprofessor9532 *I think you can define the terms the way you are, but it goes too far to say, in some objective and authoritative sense, "they are mutually exclusive positions," because that's now the terms function in the field. (Hence, the essay I cited).*
I really don't care if you don't like those facts. But every academic has actually acknowledged for the fact that atheism, and agnosticism are both mutually exclusive positions.
*My point is that sources in the field define the terms in ways that are not mutually exclusive. And this method of defining them makes sense to me.*
Yeah. Just only in your own opinion.
*Consider: You write, "agnosticism is a neutral position whereas atheism isn't." But they speak about different things. Agnosticism (from the Greek gnosis) deals with knowledge about the existence of a god or gods (or, perhaps, a belief about whether such knowledge is possible)*
Wrong. Agnosticism is actually a belief position. And, besides. Agnosticism is actually defined by its modern definition. Not by its etymology.
*In essence, we're disagreeing about how to define the terms. To avoid speaking past one another, I might suggest that the pertinent argument here is: How do we decide which definitions are authoritative?*
Authoritative? So going by its actual definition is now considered to be authoritarian to you?
*I'm suggesting that the lack of monolithic definitions in the field betray the possibility that the definitions are not mutually exclusive.*
Oh, i see. You don't really like those definitions. So you wanna come up with your own definitions that are more objective to you, right?
*You can disagree with that, of course, but you'd need to provide more argumentation to support why your definitions are superior to the ones I've provided.*
Superior? Dude. This isn't about my definitions being superior. I'm just providing the facts that were established by academics.
@@americanliberal09 “I really don't care if you don't like those facts. But every academic has actually acknowledged for the fact that atheism, and agnosticism are both mutually exclusive positions.”
The issue isn’t that I don’t like them. The issue is that they aren’t facts. The claim that “every academic has actually acknowledged for the fact that atheism, and agnosticism are both mutually exclusive positions” is demonstrably false. I’ve already provided a source from a renowned philosopher (Paul Draper) who doesn’t maintain they are mutually exclusive (and acknowledges that’s not how they’re used in the field.
I could provide more sources, but I’m not sure what value it would be, since you haven’t quite come to terms with the first source I used. I’ll also note that you haven’t shared a single source (peer-reviewed or otherwise) to substantiate your claim that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive (and everyone in the field agrees with you).
“Just only in your own opinion.”
I accept that every text requires interpretation. But my interpretation is fairly justified by the evidence. You are free to argue otherwise, of course, but you’re not providing argumentation so much as making unsubstantiated declarative statements.
“Agnosticism is actually defined by its modern definition. Not by its etymology.”
I don’t disagree. But as I’ve already noted, not everyone defines the terms as you have. Hell, not even American Atheists agree with your claim:
“To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods… Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.”
www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/
Here’s another take, from APA:
“Technically, an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in a god, while an agnostic is someone who doesn’t believe it’s possible to know for sure that a god exists. It’s possible to be both-an agnostic atheist doesn’t believe but also doesn’t think we can ever know whether a god exists. A gnostic atheist, on the other hand, believes with certainty that a god does not exist.”
www.apa.org/monitor/2020/07/believe
So, now I’ve demonstrated that not all philosophers, atheists, or psychologists accept your view. They agree with the one I’ve provided. Again, this isn’t to say that my view is the only valid one. It’s merely to say it represents discussions happening around the topic of atheism and agnosticism.
“So going by its actual definition is now considered to be authoritarian to you?”
No. Authoritatively declaring the one and true definition without reference to scholars (or anyone) while simultaneously ignoring evidence that stands in tension with said definition is authoritarian.
“I'm just providing the facts that were established by academics.”
I’ve not seen a fact or a reference to an academic. But I’ve provided both, so…
Look, you clearly feel very strongly about this. You’ve also turned a bit combative, using strawman arguments and what not. Combining this with the fact that you seem unable to acknowledge or seriously engage the information and arguments I’ve provided makes this exercise seem a bit futile to me. So, continue to think what you will, but I hope you can at least to acknowledge the counterevidence I’ve provided.
Peace.