“Lack of belief” blurs the line between atheist and agnostic

[gcomeau]

76. Not to put too fine a point on it...

... and to be clear *I* am an agnostic... but the way the majority of self identified "agnostics" I know use the term "being an agnostic is just being an atheist without guts" is *exactly* what being an "agnostic" means. The *clear* majority of all people I have ever encountered who call themselves agnostics do not use the term properly to mean that they believe that the nature of God, as that entity is defined, renders absolute knowledge about whether it exists or not impossible to attain (which is a *completely separate question* from whether or not you believe such an entity exists). If they were using the term that way it would be fine, and that quote would be nonsense.


However I would say in my own experience at least 8 out of every 10 "agnostics" I encounter use it to mean "I am neither a theist nor an atheist, I am somehow nobly "neutral" and not taking sides in this silly bickering". Which is bullshit since every person on the planet either does (theist) or does not (atheist) possess a belief that a deity exists. Binary solution set. You are one or the other regardless of whether you also happen to be an agnostic. And the vast majority of that vast majority who use the term that way clearly do not believe in God when pressed on the issue, they just won't identify with it because they want to avoid the discussion. The definition of "agnostic" they attempt to use is purely irrational and dishonest.

If I were to extend the full benefit of the doubt I would accept that it is possible for a person to be, temporarily, in a state of uncertainty about the *content of their own damn thoughts* and actually really not know *if they believe* God exists. But that is not a philosophical position, that is a state of confusion and ignorance. You do not slap an "ism" on it and stake it out as your philosophical ground. If that condition persists you aren't deep, you need counseling.