Tohyup, I'd like to suggest that you and JR are both correct. I haven't really looked into this, but my impression from talking to many people is that both uses are valid.

Yes any idiot can write something on wikipedia, but his information would not stay there for long because people are allowed to challenge any information and change it.

I find Wikipedia to be a valuable and unbiased source of information for the most part..

You mean - here is a dictionary definition. There is more than one. (Cue line from Highlander...) Here is another, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic



Why would two dictionaries disagree? Maybe the language is in flux, maybe educated people disagree on the meaning, maybe one (or both) of those dictionaries opted for brevity over thoroughness, maybe one (or both) hired inferior researchers. (Insert public service announcement warning against 'trusting biased dictionaries'.)

Good video by Sam Harris.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLIKAyzeIw4&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Very basically,,,

atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deity or the doctrine that there is NO deity

whereas agnosticism is the insistence that there IS NO GOD



one has a definite stance and one takes no stance

Its been shown quite in depth in this thread that both have multiple meanings, however your concept of agnosticism is not even close, which skews your concept of the distinction between the two.

They are not mutually exclusive.

you are right, I had a brain fart and misposted,,lol

meant to say agnosticism is basically the stance that one is not sure if there is or is not a God

Aren't "deity" and "God" basically the same thing?

huh?

I am an aetheist PURE and simple. That religious stuff is hype.

From the perspective of a Theist, yes. From the perspective of a Deist, no.

Tell them you are an aetheist and DON'T be afraid.
An agnostic "plays it safe," because that person wants to be PC. But, believing in yourself and what you can see and feel and hear and KNOW with your senses, is the FIRST step towards "finding the truth."

Agnostic is NOT denying the existence of a god, it is saying, "I don't know" if God exists...but IF he/she/it/them does or do, then...I am WILLING to "see the light."

An aetheist says "that God stuff is BS and I do not believe what I cannot see evidence for."

Yeah,

"God" is within the person. Kind of like the "Buddhist" perception of IMPROVING self to the point of reaching a "higher state of consciousness" (therefore closer to God-like) in thought and action.

Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens (to name several of the most prominant) are ALL intelligent enough to QUESTION the "god-speak."
Logic and evidence, facts and knowledge are elements that PROHIBIT a "wise person" from seeking an external source for a REALITY based world.

Most of the preachers are uneducated con-men, or TRULY lost in their own inflated sense of importance.

A deity could be anything sacred to the beleiver. A ROCK could be a deity.

God is undefined. For example, ask yourself does "God" have a gender?
Most people will say "he" that is because THEY are under the impression that MANkind is a reflection of God (in HIS image).

How do WE know what GOD looks like?

That question alone should lead one to beleive "there is something wrong with the whole premise" of God.

Anyone who says he "knows God" or has "seen God" or anything like that is a LIAR.

That is THEIR warped ego talking.

not quite. an agnostic thinks that the human mind is not capable of knowing if god exists. as agnostics, we never see the possibility that we are "willing to see the light". just can't happen.

not even close. an agnostic insists that god is unknowable. gnostic-regards what can be known. agnostic-regards what cannot be known. neither has anything to do with god and religion. has to do with what is knowable. a pure agnostic like myself thinks that nothing is knowable other than what i myself experience. i cannot insist that "there is no god" if i cannot know can i?

how do you see that i am playing it safe as an agnostic when i think god is unknowable? me thinks you need to bone up on the definitions of "gnostic" and "agnostic". then you just might be correct at least if not politically so.

Emm I feel any truly objective Skeptic is going to question, now what they accept as evidence is a whole other story.

Agnostic speaks to the nature of epistomology, and what can be known.

JR has pointed this out however I think even he tends to place the burden on the human mind, I do not place the burden on the human mind and it capabilities, I withhold placing the burden on any one factor until we have a good reason to say these things.

Its possible that its not our minds that are the reason we cannot know, its possible we cannot know becuase it simply does not exist, you cannot prove something does not exist, no amount of lack of evidence is supportive of the non existence of a thing.

Its also possible its a matter of frame of reference that to understand anything outside of this frame is not possible regardless of the power of the mind. This would place the burden on perspective, not on mental capability.

Anostic speaks to knowledge; whereas theism, deism, atheism, pantheism are all about beliefs, or lack of beliefs.

A Deist's believe that god is the sum total of all phenomena, all forces, all matter, all nature.

A Pantheist believes that all the characteristics assigned to any deity are valid for various aspects of god. Essentially that all deities are really the same god seen through differing perspectives.

An atheist either lacks a belief that god exists for whatever reason, has never thought about god and thus lacks the belief for practical reasons, or holds a positive belief that god cannot exist.

Agnostic however is a whole other game, the only belief present is one regarding knowledge of a god, or a creators existence.

So in regards to that you could be any kind of -ist, and still be agnostic.

Examples.

A Theist that believes god is outside of this frame of reference and cannot be objectively known, yet on faith believes that god exists, would be an Agnostic Theist.

An Atheist who does not see evidence for gods existence, that feels its unlikely we will ever known for sure (given that you cannot disprove a negative), is an Agnostic Atheist.

Thus the terms are not mutually exclusive.

If JR does not hold a positive belief in a deity, then regardless of claiming he is strictly an agnostic, is really an agnostic atheist.