fdrake: this post is a response to an OP from a different thread which appeared here due to merging. SnoringKitten's post, which
Grey vs Gray is replying to here is as follows:
Hi, the following seems long winded but it's actually one simple statement repeated & fleshed out, before it returns back to the one simple statement.
PROBLEM:
There is a lot of confusion today between the terms Atheism / Agnosticism / Theism.
We now see people who are Agnostic Atheists, Agostic Christians, Atheist Agnostics and that's just the beginning.
I'm not sure what the dictionaries state on the matter but l'd like to cut through all the confusion.
FACT #1: Our beliefs fluctuate, as the Muslims believe: Faith (Iman) goes up and down.
Therefore: Labels addressing our thoughts in toto, are not useful, as we hold manycontradictory internal beliefs. Those contradictory beliefs are a good thing because it means we have an internal dialogue going on, it means we have reasoned our faith.
FACT #2: Atheism, Agnosticism, Theism - these labels are NOT meaningless.
Deep inside, we know what each of these things is. We just know.
SOLUTION (= middle way between Fact #1 & #2, & the carnival of chimaeric appellations arising from the three labels Atheist, Agnostic, Theist): Let each of these terms relate to what the lips profess, regardless of the backend operations in the mind, the arguments to-and-fro in the backs of our minds. The label "Atheist" / "Agnostic" / "Theist" relate to the end conclusion of our bourgeoning internal dialogue on the matter with its many concessions to atheism & theism - the label is the END product of ALL that:
Atheist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there definitely is no God"
Agnostic thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY the arguments are stacked perefectly equal either way, hence l stand mute on the matter"
Theist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there is a God." Note that, at least in Islam, the religious adherents are called "Believers" ("Moomins" like in the children's TV show). Thus even though Atheism / Theism are unfalsifiable, the Theist is actually defined as a Believer not a Knower and is thus right with science.
NOTES:
* Agnosticism thus becomes unthinkable for a sentient being, a human with higher faculties intact. How can we, as creatures of refined aesthetic, be so perfectly on the fence between two rival beliefs? Have we no aesthetic inclination either way, at the very least?
Also how can two rival beliefs be so perfectly matched as to justify Agnosticism as a permanent camp?
* Agnostic Atheism = intellectual dishonesty. Atheists know that they cannot scientifically dismiss God, as God / Atheism are unfalsifiable. Therefore, they sit on the fence. Yet devoid of aesthetic (such that they cannot even feel preference for one camp over the other), they try to voice their materialism in a simultaneous declaration of Atheism, which totally contradicts the entire point of Agnosticism in my scheme.
* Therefore l feel we can now do away with "Agnosticism" + "Agnostic Atheism". This leaves just Atheism and Theism. Therefore my solution is elegant.
CONCLUSION:
Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism are now redefined as what the lips actually profess, not the mind in toto.
It follows that Agnosticism as such doesn't exist.
It also follows that Agnostic Atheism is intellectually dishonest.
I would also like to make the charge of intellectual dishonesty against Atheism because God/No-God are unfalsifiable concepts, and as l've explained: Muslims at least consider the religious to be Believers, not Knowers, hence you cannot accuse them of being unscientific in violating unfalsifiability. I'm happy to leave that for another discussion though.
Feel free to argue but l'd like to state: Beyond page 1 of this debate, l will likely switch off as will most other casual visitors.
Please read this OP thoroughly before raising a point that has already been covered. I believe this OP is watertight. It's imperative that we adopt these new definitions of Atheism / Agnosticism / Theism. — SnoringKitten
Grey vs Gray's reply to SnoringKitten continues:
No one will follow your reasoning. No one will care. Of course your concept will influence people but ultimately their understanding of the words has to do with their experience and current attitude of a god.
What an atheist will say is (what I am): You claim that there is a god? Wow that is amazing, but where is the proof? (The argument or lack there of is given and their attitude is unchanged.) Oh, we'll I don't believe that, I am not convinced. I am an atheist.
What a theist will say: The universe was created, I just can't conceive of it starting from nothing. Nothing can't come from nothing. There must be a god.
What a dogmatic theist will say: My god is the real god, everyone else is wrong and will suffer forever if they don't believe. I want to impose my beliefs because they are right. There is one true god.
What an agnostic will say: The universe could have been created. I don't know. The universe could also have come to be from something else or nothing. Who knows. Is this really important? We don't have enough information to believe either, why be so convinced either way and argue over something no one can prove for a long time yet if at all.
Of course the agnostic position is real, there is a spectral distribution of every human attribute.