Agnosticism?

[BeerShaman]

What exactly is agnosticism?

[Widerstand]

The stance that there is no absolute truth about some matter. Most often this term is used referring to the question of whether or not there is a God. The agnostic stance would be that we don't know (and can't know?); to varying degrees. Some agnostics would say there's a bigger probability that he exists, some that there's a bigger one that he doesn't, some would be in the middle.

[Raúl Duke]

Some agnostics would say there's a bigger probability that he exists, some that there's a bigger one that he doesn't, some would be in the middle.This arises because agnosticism is ultimately an epistemological position. I assume the majority of the atheists are agnostic atheists and most agnostics to also be (despite their posturing on how agnosticism is "not atheism;" sure, agnosticism isn't even a theological position to begin with and if you examine the behaviors of most agnostics usually they effectively behave like atheists, they don't pray, etc.) agnostic atheists to some degree. However, one can be an agnostic theist (I've met one person who claimed to be such, someone into Kiekergaard) as well.

[NecroCommie]

As Raul Duke said. It is an epistemological position, which states that there is no absolute knowledge. Unlike UN said, agnostics can, and often do, acknowledge truth. They are simply insane nazis when it comes to reminding that the definition of knowledge only talks about likelyhood instead of universal truths.

[Widerstand]

As Raul Duke said. It is an epistemological position, which states that there is no absolute knowledge. Unlike UN said, agnostics can, and often do, acknowledge truth. They are simply insane nazis when it comes to reminding that the definition of knowledge only talks about likelyhood instead of universal truths.

I never said they don't acknowledge truth. I said they say there is no absolute truth, which is rather exactly what you said here: "definition of knowledge only talks about likelyhood instead of universal truths". I agree that I worded it badly.

[NecroCommie]

I would say that there are even agnostics who acknowledge universal truths. Just not that we can be certain what they are.

[mikelepore]

The above posts - "they say that there is no absolute knowledge" - this summary doesn't match the use of the term "agnostic" that I have encountered. I have heard people who call themselves agnostic describe their position as: do not make any assertions about a subject when there is no evidence. There's nothing there about the degree of certainty of the knowledge. Even relatively weak evidence may justify making a tentative assertion. Agnostics apply that name to themselves regarding subjects where there is no evidence at all, neither strong nor weak evidence.

[Luisrah]

The above posts - "they say that there is no absolute knowledge" - this summary doesn't match the use of the term "agnostic" that I have encountered. I have heard people who call themselves agnostic describe their position as: do not make any assertions about a subject when there is no evidence. There's nothing there about the degree of certainty of the knowledge. Even relatively weak evidence may justify making a tentative assertion. Agnostics apply that name to themselves regarding subjects where there is no evidence at all, neither strong nor weak evidence.

From what I've studied, Agnostics may or may not believe that there are objects with ''information'', but they do not believe it is possible to know it, and even that has a variety of opinions.
So an agnostic towards religion would probably be someone who thinks it isn't possible to know if God exists or not, or that it is impossible to know which religion is the right one.

However, agnosticism or cepticism (which I think is the same thing) doesn't just talk about religion. When confronted with the question ''Is it possible to know the reality of material objects?'', they argue that:
Every person or living being has different morals, and different tastes and so they view things in a different way from each other. Also, being happy, or old, sick, or afraid makes you view things in different ways. They also say that an apple is green to the eyes, sweet to taste, and with an intense smell to the nose: The same thing is seen in a different way according to which sense is used, so you must doubt the truth.

As such, many agnostics/cepticists will assume a state of ataraxy (sp?) in which they are indifferent to things, oppose to any dogmatism, abstain from stating or negating anything and don't make judgements.

[syndicat]

to be an agnostic about X one only has to believe that there is not sufficient evidence. Consider the case of god's existence. A person might feel that there are some considerations that favor this hypothesis, but taking into consideration both pro and con reasons, there is not enough reason to make it more likely than not that god exists. if there were no evidence at all, that could be taken as reason to deny existence, and hence to be an atheist.

an agnostic doesn't need to have any opinion about "absolute truth" (whatever that is...I have no idea).

[MrCharizma]

Agnosticism is a pretty laid back sort of view on religion and metaphysical views.
If you're agnostic, you basically believe that you don't believe in either view because neither has been completely proven, and that in many cases you don't want to cause conflict in your beliefs. So you simply believe that all beliefs/religions are unknown and are yet to be proven.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Another interpretation can be "without religion or religious belief" this can mea nthe belief in a god in a non religious way, etc etc.

[Thirsty Crow]

to be an agnostic about X one only has to believe that there is not sufficient evidence. Consider the case of god's existence. A person might feel that there are some considerations that favor this hypothesis, but taking into consideration both pro and con reasons, there is not enough reason to make it more likely than not that god exists. if there were no evidence at all, that could be taken as reason to deny existence, and hence to be an atheist.

But this position towards religion is nonsensical, in my opinion, since there simply cannot be evidence of God's existence (scientific evidence which functions as a dominant epistemological paradigm nowadays, though depending on the cultural and technological "development"). The agnostic shifts the focus when it comes to religion - from faith to knowledge. In this sense, it seems to me that this may be interpreted as an dishonest position, in that it may be motivated by a desire to evade the label "atheist", which is demonized in some circles.