Agnostics are not Atheists and they deserve their own forum.

[dmallind]

101. And now, we can address the initial question, in a better manner than the OP.

Should agnostics have their own group? And perhaps more significantly, is there a need for one on the basis of divergence as it applies to religion - the overall section of groups in which this one resides?

I can only answer the latter - I simply don't care much about how DU awards groups. But as we agree agnostics are indeed different from atheists. However, correctly defined as we again agree it seems, most atheists are agnostics and most agnostics are atheists, even if eschewing the label. A rather strained analog might be masculinity and militarism. Most men are militaristic, and most militarists are men, while neither is definitional or universally true of the other.

But what about those who are not both?

Agnostic theists - those who accept that they have no way of knowing that a god exists but choose to believe in one or more from pure faith, certainly are unlikely to be happy or well-served in this group. I'm unsure how many of these people gladly adopt the agnostic label in any case however, but suspect it is few. I very strongly suspect they are and will be much better served by the progressive Xians/other faiths group.

Gnostic atheists (a rarely used term that equates to strong or explicit atheism here used for continuity) who believe that it is possible to know for sure that no gods exist anywhere in reality, despite the lack of universal knowledge, are likely to be happy and well served here. While some explicitly deny agnosticism and others ignore it, I can't recall one who complained about being lumped in with them in a group. I suspect they see it as an alliance rather than a conflation.

A good portion of agnostic atheists like me, who lack any belief but remain open to the possibility however remote and consider the question unanswerable objectively, are fine with either label used correctly, and are perfectly suited here. Some agnostic atheists may not want to be called agnostics themselves, most likely because of the very widespread misuse of the term as an ontological rather than epistemological view (I rarely use it myself for this reason except in detailed discussions like this), but pretty much universally accept the alliance as above.

So far so good with a unified group.

BUT

The issue remains that some who use the label agnostic, even if they accept the definitions as above and will when pushed accept that they are atheists, strongly dislike the term. Reasons vary from fear of offending to a distaste for well-known atheists to a willingness to accept the prevalent misuse and just go along with agnosticism as if it really were a position on god belief like most people believe - sort of a "polite" word for weak atheism. As we have seen some like the OP will continue to twist the meanings to pretend, maybe even to themselves, that agnosticism really IS a belief position rather than a knowledge position. Do they have a divergent enough position on religion to form a separate group effectively?

Overall I think not. Even those repelled by the word atheism mostly accept the same alliance that gnostic atheists do - a shared view that religion should not be established or preferred by the state or normative sociologically. It's very appropriate to critique excessively combative atheism or misguided atheists here as long as that's what is being criticized (Harris' overt antagonism to Muslims is an example) so it's not that the group has a single view that excludes agnostics who prefer to avoid strident anti-religious attitudes. There is occasionally an A vs A spat where accusations of agnostic timidity are traded with those of atheistic misplaced arrogance, but other than a couple of misinformed rants from intentional provocateurs like the OP they largely blow over quickly with limited ill-will.

So - what are your thoughts? Are those who use the agnostic label - other than theistic ones - well served here or are they different enough from atheists to warrant two groups springing from this one? Obviously the inverse can be asked too - are atheists divergent enough to need a group free from those who abandon the label in favor of agnosticism as an ersatz belief position?