Time would be the third dimension, no? After mags converts you, then "before" you were agnostic and "after" you were... well, you know. "before" and "after" being points in time.
But I still think there's a distinction between agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism includes the case where you don't believe (no evidence). I don't see the need to have your feet in both camps. That said, I don't know many posters here I'd consider atheists. MARIS61 is clearly one. I seriously doubt anyone with scientific training would deny existence of a deity if there were empirical evidence of one.
But Denny, you seem to be suggesting that "absence of evidence" is somehow a lesser or incomplete reason for disbelief. In fact, I'd say it is the #1 reason to "disbelieve" anything! You could tell me that you've discovered a miracle cure for arthritis based on magnetic bracelets and peppermint tea, but if you can't provide evidence, I'm afraid I will not believe you. Am I somehow "agnostic" on the possibility of peppermint/magnet remedies? "Agnosticism," in it's original definition, is a commitment to empirical evidence, and a refusal to hold as true that which cannot be objectively confirmed. It isn't a middle ground between theism and atheism -- it's a statement of knowledge, and how one should achieve it. The opposite of "agnostic" is one who believes that truth is achieved by personal revelation, rather than empirical and objective experiment. You are correct that any true agnostic would immediately convert to theism if god rode a flaming chariot down to Earth and held a press conference. This would also not violate their status as agnostics. On the other hand, there are many theists who maintain that empirical evidence such as this is completely unnecessary for achieving true knowledge, that personal revelation through prayer or meditation is the best (or only) way to find truth. This kind of magical, subjective "truth" is exactly what Huxley was originally arguing AGAINST. Now, the atheists.org position is that no theist can claim to be agnostic. I think that's a bit unfair, and disagree. But the bottom line is that agnosticism is not the fuzzy "middle ground" that has become the popular interpretation.
One thing I always hated about religious people is how they tell me what my relationship with god was supposed to be, and now they tell me about what my belief in the whole thing is/should be/how I feel. I don't care if you're religious or not religious. don't tell me how I'm supposed to feel about it, when you don't have the experience of being agnostic or atheist, and if you do, you don't have MY experience.
I don't suggest anything of the kind. I can go look in my back yard and see no people. I wouldn't think from that lack of evidence (of people) that there are no other people anywhere else. As far as agnostic about ... whatever? I think it applies only to deities. People say they're agnostic about .. cure for cancer or whatever ... but they're using the word like a metaphor. Get it? Like a metaphor. ;-) And I never considered proof or evidence or anything along those lines to have anything to do with atheism. It's like mags' irrational belief in god, but an irrational belief in no god.
Good lord. Since human concepts appear to be extensions of our motor schemas, it's more than likely our concepts will be what crumble first ... you know ... like they're doing here.
Denny, I understand your definition of "agnostic", and I know that is a commonly used one. I'm just pointing out that it is true to neither the original definition as given by Huxley, nor to the current one generally accepted by most atheists.
"I don't suggest anything of the kind." This person may have got that idea from your "irrational belief in no god" comment. You say you don't suggest, yet your words do imply that a lack of evidence is irrational, for that is the very thing many will cite as reason 1 or 2 for their atheist position." If one really wishes to understand the atheist position though, understand your own -- we're just the same, except, you draw the line one deity short of my line. I don't believe in your god for all the reasons you don't believe in any of the other gods one might happen to believe in. [the ones and yous of this last comment are not referring to DC]
You have quite a knack for saying something inflammatory at the beginning of your post and then being totally hypocritical in the rest of your post. It makes you look like a fool.
Yeah, I'm saying atheism is just anti-theism. You can see that in the root of the word. Like symmetry and asymmetry. There's no requirement for any evidence or lack of evidence or anything. It's flat out a denial of deity (deities). Agnosticism is an objective thing. Show me evidence, etc.
Thanks for proving my point. From your own link: a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
not at all. atheists might want to jump all over specifically the flaws of arguments used by theists attempting to logically validate belief, but I have not seen anyone here ridicule belief itself. ABM seems to have no interest in proving belief, yet as far as I've seen is never ridiculed.
Then you haven't been reading these forums or walk around with blinders on. Both sides ridicule the other side. And both positions are based on the belief of something they can't prove.
Post 187? Where mags says Or was it my quote in that post? Either way, I don't follow... Regardless, as I said before I understand your usage of the word. Likewise, I would understand if someone said that they were "agnostic on the question of professional baseball in Portland" (also acceptable by some dictionary definitions). Just be aware that your agnostic is another man's atheist.
atheism Syllabification: (a·the·ism) Pronunciation: /ˈāTHēˌizəm/ noun disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism)
