There's a difference between "consistent with" and "defined by". Your description of your beliefs is also consistent with being a vegetarian. Again, "agnostic" is not a statement of belief.
Why wouldn't it be? If someone says "I'm agnostic"; they are just admitting they don't have enough evidence to be either a theist or atheist. I don't understand why that couldn't be a belief? This reminds me of what you said yesterday. It's just arguing semantics of the word.
Merriam-Webster: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god If you're not committed to believing, you don't believe. Consistent with and defined by are equivalent. "Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty." Follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations (e.g. faith). No evidence for god. Do not pretend the conclusions are certain. If there's a chariot of fire... Once a person is certain of the objective truth (there is no god) without evidence to justify it, he becomes an atheist. MARIS61.
Because belief is not always based on evidence. =) And you're right that it is semantics, to a certain extent. I understand what Denny in describing -- it's almost exactly how I would describe my own beliefs. For whatever reason, though, he is uncomfortable expressing his disbelief directly (using the word "atheist") and would rather express it indirectly (by stating that he believes knowledge is achieved through empirical methods). I think that comfort with "atheism" is really what this all boils down to. There's a negative stigma attached to the word, as if all atheists are grumpy, evangelical old cranks who regularly go on tirades about the word "God" appearing on money. But the limited definition that y'all seem to prefer would reduce the usefulness of the word to almost nothing. By Denny's own admission, if "atheism" only meant the strictest and strongest form of disbelief ("there is no god, and nothing could possibly convince me otherwise"), there would be essentially no atheists, statistically speaking. I certainly wouldn't know any. So why neuter a perfectly reasonable word by limiting it to a population of almost zero? Why shoehorn the milder form of disbelief ("I don't believe, but I could be convinced otherwise with enough evidence") into a word that doesn't, strictly speaking, directly address belief in god at all?
"Consistent with" is absolutely not the same as a "definition", and there is simply no direct statement of belief in the original definition of "agnostic". As I've said before, of course you are free to use the popularized, Merriam-Webster version of the word -- we all know what you are talking about. Just be aware that the vast majority of atheists you meet would consider your statement of belief to fit into the category of "agnostic atheist".
There was a famous tight-rope walker name The Great Sandoni. He once had a big show whereas he was going to walk across Niagra Falls. Thousands of people showed up for the event. Sandoni was also a great showman. He loved to whip the crowds into a frenzy. He made exclamations such as, "Who believes The Great Sandoni can walk across this (fill in the blank here)?!" The crowds would often respond with, "We believe! We believe!" On this particular day, The Great Sandoni went through the same routine. Only, he added a wheelbarrow to the act. He asked out, "Who believes The Great Sandoni can walk across Niagra Falls rolling this wheelbarrow in front of him?!!" The crowd chanted back, "We believe! We believe!" He then asked out, "OK, who will be my first volunteer to get into the wheelbarrow? You could here a pin drop. As an example, that is the difference between belief and "true" belief.
I don't see a negative connotation to atheism. It's just a very different mind set. There absolutely are actual atheists. Marxism rejects religion. I don't at all mean to suggest atheists are marxists. Ayn Rand rejected religion, too, and she's no marxist. MARIS61 seems to be one. Maybe he was touched by some pedophile priest as a child. Or he simply is angry about the involvement of religious institutions in past (and current) wars. For whatever of these sorts of reasons, I wouldn't call them Reasoned or based on anything resembling absolute convincing evidence.
For what it's worth, I consider many of the great philosophers such as Descartes and Aquinas to fit into the "agnostic theist" category. They believed in a creator that was completely evident to the rational mind, and minimized the importance of secret, personal revelations. Of course, they were condemned for this by many of their not-so-agnostic peers, but cest la vie. DISCLAIMER: I know this is getting far off of the beaten path of common terminology -- I don't know of anyone who calls themselves an "agnostic theist". It's just my way of combining the actual, intended definitions of the words to complex belief systems. Your mileage may vary.
Yes, it's a different mind set. There's absolutely zero requirement for anything related to evidence, empirical or otherwise, in atheism. The outright rejection of deities is the mind set. MARIS61's negative reasons clearly preclude him from being agnostic, according to Huxley's description. I am quite close to being outright atheist myself. All evidence and reason tell me there's no deity or deities, period. The odds are zero. Yet, the nature of how deities are described, not being bound to the laws of nature, etc., along with the very long lived and wide spread belief in some sort of deity or deities suggests it would be foolish to deny some possibility outside the realm of our senses.
Do you think Ayn Rand would have converted if she had witnessed incontrovertible evidence of god's existence?
Agreed -- I don't know Maris personally, but if he believes as you describe, he would probably be considered a "gnostic atheist".
But don't you think this had more to do with her commitment to taking strong positions than to an actual unwillingness to accept new evidence? I don't know -- I'm certainly no expert on her life or personality -- but she doesn't strike me as one who would reject strong evidence outright... Anyway, I'll defer to your expertise on this one.
I think you offered up a hypothetical that is nonsensical. Do you agree? I mean, if the nature of "god" is metaphysical, then there would be no empirical evidence he exists. If his nature is within the laws of nature, we'd be finding physical evidence all over the place.
Which is why atheism isn't a sound belief. I think a true atheist would be the one that has God himself manifest in front of him and tell him "I am your creator!" Then the atheist said "well anyone can do magic!"
Exactly. If god is outside the realm of our natural world; how can we find evidence unless part of us is not part if this natural word and it separates from this world and into his/her/its.
A nonsensical hypothetical? In what way? Many of the great philosophers believed they had found empirical evidence for the existence of god, and absolutely thought that his nature was to be found within the laws of nature. I disagree with their conclusions, but their methods were absolutely inline with the assertions of Huxley. They rejected mysticism and revelation as keys to understanding god, believing that the mind was the strongest tool for achieving knowledge. This is the fundamental difference between gnosticism and agnosticism.
