The 'third type of person' is supposed to be the agnostic fyi, and i don't think agnostics think they are better than the other folks, what they're simply stating is that; — Philosophical Script

Yeah, I was joking a little there. When I say "better" I mean that some think they are "above the fray". Some also think they are "better" in that they have honed there mind so perfectly that "belief" no longer occurs...psssh.

I cannot see any difference, aside from semantics and disagreement on specific meanings of certain words, between my views (which I would call agnostic atheist) and those of Agnostics.

what they're simply stating is that; atheists can't be 100% certain that deities don't exist, — Philosophical Script

Do you believe in god(s)?

Are you sure? — ZhouBoTong

The first question is about theist or atheist. The second is about agnostic or not.

what they're simply stating is that; atheists can't be 100% certain that deities don't exist, — Philosophical Script

You ignored the second question. An atheist who is unsure is agnostic.

how can they even prove that? — Philosophical Script

I don't know. But it may be possible. I am agnostic about the idea that "it is impossible to know if there is a god". Similarly, I am agnostic to the idea that "it is impossible to know if there is no god".

But there is no god I have ever heard of that I do believe in, so I call myself atheist.

No, an agnostic, by virtue of being an agnostic, isn't committed to the existence of God being possible, just that they don't know whether or not God exists. — S

So does the word agnostic tell us anything about the person other than they believe (hehe) that atheists and theists are wrong? I don't get why "I don't know" doesn't leave the possibility of god's existence open?

They simply don't have an opinion on it. Maybe they don't have enough information, or they think it's not something that can be known, etc. — Terrapin Station

Sounds like it is a possibility? I get they don't typically think about it, but once asked directly, they would have to acknowledge the possibility that is inherent in "I don't know".

So does the word agnostic tell us anything about the person other than they believe (hehe) that atheists and theists are wrong? I don't get why "I don't know" doesn't leave the possibility of god's existence open? — ZhouBoTong

It leaves both the possibility and impossibility of God's existence open. It isn't a stance about that, it's simply a stance about the lack of knowledge in relation to the existence or nonexistence of God.

I don't know what else you think that could tell us about the agnostic. No, it won't give away what football team they support or what their favourite flavour of crisps is. It doesn't give much, if anything, away at all, besides the obvious.

Sounds like it is a possibility? I get they don't typically think about it, but once asked directly, they would have to acknowledge the possibility that is inherent in "I don't know". — ZhouBoTong

What possibility would that be? And how is it inherent?

"I don't know" just means I don't know, not that it's possible. Some people seem to be reading that into it.

If asked whether there exists a circle which is square, and I reply that I do not know, how am I logically implying that I think that it is possible? That's neither what I mean nor follows from what I've said. I haven't ruled out that it is an impossibility by simply stating my lack of knowledge.

“I dont know” leaves the answer to whatever question completely open, saying you don’t know means the answer could be anything. A person could start eliminating certain possibilities after that of course to determine what isnt the answer but the possibilities of what IS the answer is inherently open by nature of not knowing.

“I dont know” leaves the answer to whatever question completely open, saying you don’t know means the answer could be anything. A person could start eliminating certain possibilities after that of course to determine what isnt the answer but the possibilities of what IS the answer is inherently open by nature of not knowing.
an hour ago — DingoJones

Yes. Exactly my thoughts, but clear, hehe. Thanks.

“I dont know” leaves the answer to whatever question completely open, saying you don’t know means the answer could be anything. A person could start eliminating certain possibilities after that of course to determine what isnt the answer but the possibilities of what IS the answer is inherently open by nature of not knowing. — DingoJones

Yes, I agree, and one of those possible answers is, "It's impossible". Just saying, "I don't know", doesn't rule out that possibility; which, if true, would of course mean that whatever we're talking about - whether the existence of God or square circles - isn't, and perhaps never was, possible, and, like you say, it would eliminate certain answers from the enquiry.

This direction the discussion has taken is a tangent which arose because someone here didn't understand what agnosticism entailed.

I don't know why atheism is always framed in epistemological terms: as if its merely a matter of 'knowing'. People ought to consider instead an 'ontological' atheism, a refusal of the very idea that God makes sense at all to begin with, or that he could be afforded any place whatsoever among 'what is' or, in the case of negagive theology, what 'is not'. Framing atheism as a matter of knowledge already concedes too much to the theist: that the very idea of God is at all sensical. I don't 'know' God doesn't exist, in the same way I don't 'know' square circles don't exist. Not because I'm ignorant about the 'existence' of square circles, but because the very idea is stupid to begin with.

Only when atheism is framed as a matter of 'knowing' or 'believing' does it have anything in common with agnosticism.

It seems we are in...agreement?

I don't 'know' God doesn't exist, in the same way I don't 'know' square circles don't exist. Not because I'm ignorant about the 'existence' of square circles, but because the very idea is stupid to begin with. — StreetlightX

I often say that part of how I know that God doesn't exist is that the very idea is stupid to begin with. (I'm pretty sure I said this earlier in this thread, too.)

↪ZhouBoTong ↪S

It seems we are in...agreement? — DingoJones

Good enough for me :smile:

Being an agnostic I find this interesting, so many people immediately assume I am atheist because of my stance. I stopped correcting them years ago found it was a waste of time to explain myself. Never really thought much about it. I imagine the story writers of the bible figured everyone was agnostic or walking on water and turning water to wine and other miracles wouldn't have been necessary to show them. Close minded individuals need a book to tell them how to live a certain way and thankfully one has been written our entire calendar system is based on it at this point even. I took the show me stance at a young age when the organized religions had obviously missed the message of living right. Catholic church for example so many wars in history from their influence, and how often do we hear on the news of yet another cover up of their leaders doing more harm than good. The universe does "show" anyone who is open enough to listen that there is more at work than just the mundane, Some call it synchronicity, but if its a higher power or just coincidence cant be proven. Sit back and watch people who choose to be less than their ideal selves and phrases like "such bad luck" often applies to them. Where in contrast people who try to lead a good life things typically go in their favor more than would be expected. My show me stance became solidified when I began listening to the universe my mile markers of the road of life tells me if I am deviating to far and the reminders to get back on track can often times be trying but even then things go in my favor more than not.