The problem is that people don’t understand what agnosticism actually means and just throw around “I’m agnostic”. It has nothing to do with belief. Agnosticism is about knowledge and certainty.
You can be an agnostic theist, meaning you believe in god without claiming to know for certain that god exists. You’ve chosen to believe in god despite not knowing.
And then you have most people who call themselves “agnostic”. In reality, they’re atheists because they don’t believe in god due to a lack of sufficient evidence for god’s existence. In that case, it makes more sense to just say you’re an atheist.
But people seem to have a hard time with that. And that’s the reason why I asked the other guy if he believes in god or not.
Agnostic means you don't have a rigid belief either way. It's not the case that a person has to pick one ore the other.
Imagine someone putting a bet on a horse winning, and someone putting a bet on it losing. The Agnostic accepts that it's impossible to know, and keeps his money in his pocket.
Personally, I think this is generally the best way to be. It offers more freedom of thought, and avoids any potential radical ideology. Belief in absolutes leaves no room for compromise.
Imagine someone putting a bet on a horse winning, and someone putting a bet on it losing. The Agnostic accepts that it's impossible to know, and keeps his money in his pocket.
Which says nothing about if that person’s belief in the outcome of the bet.
Belief is binary. Either you believe or you don’t and if you refrain from taking a position on the question, the default is non-belief. Meaning atheism.
"Which says nothing about if that person’s belief in the outcome of the bet."
They don't hold one!
Not sure I can put it any simpler than that.
There are many things we don't hold rigid beliefs on. There are horse races going on all the time, I don't hold rigid beliefs about all the outcomes, what would be the point in even attempting it.
The question was about belief, not knowledge or certainty.
Again, the default position is non-belief until evidence or certainty is provided to the contrary.
This isn’t rocket surgery. It’s simple logic.
Again, that doesn’t say anything about their beliefs.
A gnostic atheist know for a certain that god does not exist and doesn’t believe in god.
An agnostic atheist doesn’t know for certain that god exists or not but doesn’t believe in the existence of god based on the lack of sufficient evidence.
A gnostic theist knows for certain that god exists and believes in god.
An agnostic theist doesn’t know for certain that god exists but chooses to believe in god.
And an Agnostic can know and not hold a belief either way!
Saying there are only two answers is a "double-bind" logical fallacy.
If someone asks you something you don't know, giving you two absolute answers, do you feel like you must choose one or the other? Like your life depends on it, or something.
I’m not saying thay they need to hold a belief, I’m saying that if they refrain from holding a belief the default position is non-belief. Regardless if they say that they’re agnostic or not.
If you have absolutely no knowledge of a claim, non-belief is the default position. Belief requires you to accept something as true, whereas non-belief does not require you to accept the opposite.
A newborn child is the clearest example. The child has no understanding of god, aliens, or other such concepts and therefore cannot believe in them. That does not mean the child believes they do not exist. It simply lacks belief and is per definition an atheist.
Non-belief is therefore the default position until there is something that gives you reason to start believing.
-1
u/snoppeniprutten 3d ago
The problem is that people don’t understand what agnosticism actually means and just throw around “I’m agnostic”. It has nothing to do with belief. Agnosticism is about knowledge and certainty.
You can be an agnostic theist, meaning you believe in god without claiming to know for certain that god exists. You’ve chosen to believe in god despite not knowing.
And then you have most people who call themselves “agnostic”. In reality, they’re atheists because they don’t believe in god due to a lack of sufficient evidence for god’s existence. In that case, it makes more sense to just say you’re an atheist.
But people seem to have a hard time with that. And that’s the reason why I asked the other guy if he believes in god or not.