Technically speaking, everyone is agnostic

[Hovind]

Since no one really knows if a god exists or not isn't everyone, technically, agnostic? Some religious people claim to know that a god exists but they can never demonstrate how they know. They just believe. Most atheists claim there is no evidence for a god (not "I know with 100% certainty there is no god.")
So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

 

[jayem]

It should go without saying that absolute metaphysical certainty isn't possible for anything. I reject the existence of any supernatural god with the same level of confidence that I reject abductions by extra-terrestrial aliens, or world domination by shape-shifting reptilian elites. The term "agnostic" is imprecise, IMO. If I have to qualify my atheism, I'd say that I'm a presumptive atheist.

 

[JGL53]

Since no one really knows if a god exists or not isn't everyone, technically, agnostic? Some religious people claim to know that a god exists but they can never demonstrate how they know. They just believe. Most atheists claim there is no evidence for a god (not "I know with 100% certainty there is no god.")
So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

Right - if we agree that we are talking about absolute or certain or guaranteed knowledge - and we are not using the word knowledge in the ordinary everyday sense of "know" meaning "believe".

Thus to say we are all agnostics is just to state a truism about all humans - we are all fallible, all the time, and have access to only a finite part of the imagined infinite data.

However there are those who believe beyond a reasonable doubt there is a god, and those who doubt that beyond all reasonable doubt. We could call these two groups theists and atheists.

I think those who self-label as agnostic are actually atheists but wish to make the point that they are not absolutists and thus avoid being painted by the same brush as dogmatic religionists.

OK. By that criteria I am an agnostic atheist. I.e., I don't know, I don't think anyone knows, but I don't believe and I think that is OK. Is it not OK? How and why, exactly?

 

[JGL53]

It should go without saying that absolute metaphysical certainty isn't possible for anything. I reject the existence of any supernatural god with the same level of confidence that I reject abductions by extra-terrestrial aliens, or world domination by shape-shifting reptilian elites. The term "agnostic" is imprecise, IMO. If I have to qualify my atheism, I'd say that I'm a presumptive atheist.

Well, yes, that is what I also mean when I self-label as an atheist.

 

[Ken-1122]

Since no one really knows if a god exists or not isn't everyone, technically, agnostic? Some religious people claim to know that a god exists but they can never demonstrate how they know. They just believe. Most atheists claim there is no evidence for a god (not "I know with 100% certainty there is no god.")
So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

No. To "know" does not mean you have the ability to demonstrate anything, it simply means you believe beyond any shadow of doubt; it means you are 100% certain. I suspect many people (especially religious folk) are 100% certain about their beliefs.

Ken

 

[SithDoughnut]

Since no one really knows if a god exists or not isn't everyone, technically, agnostic? Some religious people claim to know that a god exists but they can never demonstrate how they know. They just believe. Most atheists claim there is no evidence for a god (not "I know with 100% certainty there is no god.")
So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

You assume that people not knowing means that no one will think they know.

 

[Hovind]

No. To "know" does not mean you have the ability to demonstrate anything, it simply means you believe beyond any shadow of doubt; it means you are 100% certain. I suspect many people (especially religious folk) are 100% certain about their beliefs.

Ken

I disagree. For one to actually "know" something then that must mean it can be demonstrated to another person. I know 2+2=4 and I can demonstrate how I know that. Belief is not the same as knowing no matter how beyond a shadow of a doubt it is.

 

[SithDoughnut]

.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I disagree. For one to actually "know" something then that must mean it can be demonstrated to another person. I know 2+2=4 and I can demonstrate how I know that. Belief is not the same as knowing no matter how beyond a shadow of a doubt it is.

Really? The dictionary says otherwise.

Know [noh] knew, known, know·ing
verb (used with object)
1. To perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.

2. To have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?

3. To be cognizant or aware of: I know it.

4. Be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.

5. To understand from experience or attainment (usually followed by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.

Source

Absolutely nothing about demonstrating in there. Belief is not the same as knowing, yes, but never has demonstrable proof been required.

 

[Hovind]

Really? The dictionary says otherwise.

Absolutely nothing about demonstrating in there. Belief is not the same as knowing, yes, but never has demonstrable proof been required.

And all of those examples from the dictionary are demonstrable.

 

[Hovind]

Really? The dictionary says otherwise.

Absolutely nothing about demonstrating in there. Belief is not the same as knowing, yes, but never has demonstrable proof been required.

Also, in order for this claim to be accurate the dictionary would have to say something along the lines of "demonstration is not required for knowing something is true."

 

[keith99]

And all of those examples from the dictionary are demonstrable.

I know there was a beach on one of the Hawaiian Islands. Kawai I think. Branake Beach off one end of Poipo. (Spelling in question for both of those). I know it had a break that allowed a good body surfer to actually get tubed.

I know of no other such beach.

I KNOW this. I was there and I routinely could body surf so that I was in a tube.

How can I demonstrate this to someone.

Oh and I also know that the beach no longer exists. About 15 years ago a hurricane washed the sand away. I know this because my brother was there and found a rocky shore where the beach used to be.

The only evidence I know of is individual testimony.

I cannot demonstrate anything about that beach. I know beyond any doubt that it was there.

 

[quatona]

Since no one really knows if a god exists or not isn't everyone, technically, agnostic?

That´s at least the traditionally agnostic position: You not only don´t but you can´t know if a god/gods exist.
There are, however, strong theists who claim that they know that a god does exist. (Incidentally, just two minutes ago I read a post in which a theist claimed that).

Some religious people claim to know that a god exists but they can never demonstrate how they know.

While I think that the inability to demonstrate one´s knowlege (or what you think you know) is a good reason to remain skeptical about those claims, I am not aware that "demonstrability" is part of the definition of "knowledge".

Most atheists claim there is no evidence for a god (not "I know with 100% certainty there is no god.")

...and they better do, if only for the fact that there is no copyrighted definition of "god". It wouldn´t be wise to deny the existence of all those claimed entities that just happen to have the same label attached to them.

So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

Doesn´t follow from anything you said.
It´s actually the other way round: agnosticism holds that no one can really knows.
Whatever - the ability to intersubjectively demonstrate your knowledge is not a prerequisite for knowing. It´s just a legitimate obstacle to for everyone else to take your word for it.

 

[Paradoxum]

Since no one really knows if a god exists or not isn't everyone, technically, agnostic?

I don't think so since agnosticism mean that you think you can't know whether God exists. That would seem to me to imply a 50/50 chance. Many theists and atheists would seem to tend their percentages to being above or below 50% of existence.

Some religious people claim to know that a god exists but they can never demonstrate how they know. They just believe.

I think that is a little unfair on some theists. Many have arguments and claim to have evidence.

Most atheists claim there is no evidence for a god (not "I know with 100% certainty there is no god.")
So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

Many say this, but most, I would say, don't act as if it is a 50/50 chance of existence.

 

[Ken-1122]

I disagree. For one to actually "know" something then that must mean it can be demonstrated to another person. I know 2+2=4 and I can demonstrate how I know that. Belief is not the same as knowing no matter how beyond a shadow of a doubt it is.

Know | Define Know at Dictionary.com

know

1 /noʊ/ Show Spelled [noh] Show IPA verb, knew, known, know·ing, noun
verb (used with object) 1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.

2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?

3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.

4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.

5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually followed by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.

Nowhere does it say does it say anything about an ability to demonstrate.

Ken

 

[Sectio Aurea]

You could take this a step further and postulate that technically speaking, everyone is born an agnostic atheist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Since no one really knows if a god exists or not isn't everyone, technically, agnostic? Some religious people claim to know that a god exists but they can never demonstrate how they know. They just believe. Most atheists claim there is no evidence for a god (not "I know with 100% certainty there is no god.")
So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

No.

All you have done is to impose your own agnosticism onto other people. Someone else could also impose their own gnosticism. For instance, someone could claim that we can't know that we can't know that a God exists or doesn't exist. Since we can't be certain of our agnosticism, it may be possible that someone else really does know with perfect certainty that a God exists or doesn't exist. Therefore, not everyone is necessarily an agnostic.

But agnosticism is better thought of as a stance. It is about what you claim to not know or claim cannot be known.

The same thing is true for atheism. It would make little sense to say that everyone is an atheist if God doesn't exist, or that everyone is a theist if God does exist.

These are stances, and say something about how that individual thinks, rather than what they can successfully know or what is real.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

dp

 

[SithDoughnut]

Also, in order for this claim to be accurate the dictionary would have to say something along the lines of "demonstration is not required for knowing something is true."

The dictionary defines what the definition is, not what it isn't. If demonstration was required then it would say so, the absence of such a qualifier shows that demonstration is irrelevant to knowledge. You can demonstrate it or not, it doesn't matter; it's still knowledge.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Since no one really knows if a god exists or not isn't everyone, technically, agnostic? Some religious people claim to know that a god exists but they can never demonstrate how they know. They just believe. Most atheists claim there is no evidence for a god (not "I know with 100% certainty there is no god.")
So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

As I've said before, it depends on the god.

There are god concepts that are logically contradictory. Logically contradictory things cannot - and therefor do not - exist. So there are god concepts about whose nonexistence I am 100% certain.

Also, agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. Gnostic/agnostic is a distinction pertaining to knowledge. Theist/atheist is a distinction pertaining to belief.