YellowBrickRoad said:
So you claim. But can you show how useful your definitions are?
Yes, I can. Common usage. If you use a word differently from how the grand majority uses it, you will either have to define your special meaning to everyone you use it with, or live with misunderstandings. The function of language is clarity. If you take on an obscure or new meaning for the term, your use of language will impair that function.
There is no question that the word "agnosticism" is considered by the majority to refer to the stance that one does not know that there is a God, however that stance is carried out in detail. Agnosticism is not a belief system, just as atheism isn't. Therefore, it can't exist as a sect or denomination within atheism. It carries a different label simply because it defines a very different thing. Which comes straight back to the rule of clarity in semantics.
You can define atheism as holding an equally firm but opposite belief from fundamentalist theism, but my point is that that's a useless and misleading way of reading the labels. Few self-professed atheists, like me, will say that we know for sure that God does not exist. Most self-professed atheists give themselves that label simply because they want to make a social or anti-religious stand.
If you do not positively affirm that God is not real, then you are, by common consideration, an agnostic. You can call yourself an atheist all you like, it's simply not what the term means in terms of its collective use (unless you, of course, become more sure of yourself). I'm aware that you can fight a system while still being unsure, because of the high likelihood that your theory that there is no God is correct, but that's still different from affirming the nonexistence of the divine.
(It's useful to consider that "atheist" is a label thrown as an insult or accusation in many fundamentalist systems. In places like Saudi Arabia, you're an "atheist" simply because you're not a Muslim. Even in some fundamentalist places in the USA, "atheist" is a deliberately hurtful brand hurled at people who support the teaching of evolution.)
Well, not entirely. People can be proudly atheist depending on where they are. Not all places persecute non-believers in such a way, and so it's not always synonymous to "infidel".
As for agnostics - most self-professed agnostics probably don't even think about the issue much. They give themselves that label because they think it's the most non-confrontational one.
Just because you think that agnosticism isn't a logical stance, doesn't mean that others don't. The word describes a belief or idea, not necessarily a truth. And others believe it. Thus, the term has relevance.
You should be careful not to think about the psychology of agnosticism merely from personal experience. More than likely, every agnostic will be especially individual in how they use the term, if at all, since there are no real agnostic organisations or institutions, pushing a cause for that belief.
To me, Agnosticism isn't a reasonable stance. I'm not agnostic about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I'm an "a-Santaist" and an "a-Bunnyist". Can it ever be proven that Santa doesn't exist? Can the Easter Bunny ever be "understood"? No. But I'm going to lead my life as if they don't exist, rather than behave as if the verdict is still out and there's 50-50 chance either way.
As for being dispassionate, that's true. Agnostic thinkers, being an unorganised group, aren't known for their attempts to really argue the point. It is, after all, a kind of middle stance. I would say, in fact, that many of them don't even know the term "agnostic", despite them fitting it. The term is probably more often used on religious surveys, in academic studies of religion, and in the higher echelons of thinking in general. So it holds more ground there.
