What does "agnostic" mean?

[Earle Jones27]

*
What does the word "agnostic" mean?

If I say, "I am an agnostic" does it mean...

1. That I have no knowledge whether any God exists.

or

2. It is not possible to know whether any God exists.

In my opinion, these are very different statements.

Which definition is good?

earle
*

[jillery]

I agree your two statements above are different, but that difference
doesn't mean both aren't useful. What you describe above is similar
to the difference between

1. methodological naturalism, which says that science is limited to
studying natural elements, principles, and relations, and can't say
anything about supernatural equivalents.

and

2. metaphysical naturalism, which says that only natural elements,
principles, and relations exist.

Both 1.s describe practical personal limits. Both 2.s describe
axiomatic, ie assumed and unprovable, limits to reality. All four
definitions have their uses, and so all are good.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[eridanus]

it depends on your mood. How deep had been engraved in your brain the
believe in god? If you had not go very far from the idea that god do not
exist, or that you have not any reason to believe in god, then you can say
"I am agnostic".
Sometimes, if I want to be polite towards some believer, I can tell
"I am agnostic". Fearing it would look too strong to tell "I do not
believe in god".

If I am in the mid of atheists there is not any reason to say, I am atheist.

Basically, the normal attitude is to believe in "objective" questions,
more or less trivial, that do not require a great deal of effort to
understand. But is someone is telling you about the theory of strings
and you are not any sure with those maths, it is correct to doubt, or to
be a little skeptical. Why only a little? Because the question is out
of the reach of your intelligence. You have not any obligation to accept
something you are not sure of its reasoning basis. Someone would allege
that you do not understand how a plain works, or a car, and you fly in a
plane or drive a car. Yeah. But a plane is an objective machine, like
a car, or a handgun, by example. You have a lot of references about the
objectivity of planes, cars, fridges, washing machines, and all sort of
arms. If someone threatens you with a handgun, you better believe the guy
is dangerous. Even if you do not understand how a handgun works.

But god, do you know any normal friend or relative, or neighbor that had
any experience with god? No. Have you ever any experience with gods?
Probably not, or you would not be asking about the meaning of "agnostic".

eri

[eridanus]

a good comment, Jill
Eri

[RonO]

What about: I do not profess that any type of god exists, or that I have
not or cannot determine at this time if any type of god exists or not?

Those are what we normally see agnostics claiming.

Denton claims to be an agnostic, but he thinks that his designer got the
ball rolling with the big bang and it all unfolded as planned. Nyikos
claims to be an agnostic that goes to church regularly, and who
obviously supports the IDiot/creationist claims. I put up a quote from
Berlinski that the other ID perps had cited talking matter of factly
about God as if that God existed, and he claims to be an agnostic.

So "agnostic" obviously means different things to different people, so
what does it matter. Let them define it if it matters.

Ron Okimoto

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 22:04:48 -0700, Earle Jones27
<earle...@comcast.net> wrote:

I always understood it as undecided either way due to lack of evidence
- i.e. not necessarily *not possible* to know at some point in the
future.

Nowadays, however, it seems to have become one of those words that
means whatever the user wants it to mean.

[Bill Rogers]

Like most words, it has a range of related meanings. If you want to know exactly what someone means by it, all you have to do is ask them.

[Burkhard]

Different but related. In particular, 1 is an implication of 2. So with
as with all definitions, it depends what you need them for. For some
contexts the more demanding 2 is right, for others the more inclusive 1

[Glenn]

"Earle Jones27" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:2016101622044844500-earlejones@comcastnet...

Whichever one or any combination of the two that flips your skirt.

[Glenn]

"Bill Rogers" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8ad9f0ee-578f-4dc6...@googlegroups.com...

And they will alway tell you the truth.

[Kalkidas]

(1) is correct, since "agnostic" literally means "ignorant"

(2) is an assertion of knowledge rather than ignorance.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:50:02 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:

It seems to have, but Huxley's original definition was #2.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 22:04:48 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones27
<earle...@comcast.net>:

The first is a subset of the second (obviously), but
oxforddictionaries.com says it's the second.

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:30:03 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 10/16/2016 10:04 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> > *
> > What does the word "agnostic" mean?
> >
> > If I say, "I am an agnostic" does it mean...
> >
> > 1. That I have no knowledge whether any God exists.
> >
> > or
> >
> > 2. It is not possible to know whether any God exists.
> >
> > In my opinion, these are very different statements.
> >
> > Which definition is good?
>
> (1) is correct, since "agnostic" literally means "ignorant"

For Burk: See that? It's true. So your claim that Agnostics accept **some** evidence offered by Theism and Atheism is manifestly false. They might say some arguments are good, but that's a far cry from saying they accept knowledge for or against to exist, which would contradict and falsify their position.

Ray

[snip....]

[jillery]

Even if Kalkidas is an authoritative semantic source, which is at best
arguable, ignorance does not imply *total* lack of knowledge. So
people can be aware of *some* knowledge and still be considered
ignorant, and some of their knowledge may be conflicting, and so they
have insufficient information to establish whether God exists.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:30:03 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 10/16/2016 10:04 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>> *
>>> What does the word "agnostic" mean?
>>>
>>> If I say, "I am an agnostic" does it mean...
>>>
>>> 1. That I have no knowledge whether any God exists.
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> 2. It is not possible to know whether any God exists.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, these are very different statements.
>>>
>>> Which definition is good?
>>
>> (1) is correct, since "agnostic" literally means "ignorant"
>
> For Burk: See that? It's true.

No, that's just Kalkidas being contrarian and using a questionable (that
is, ahistoric) literal translation to score rhetorical points.

> So your claim that Agnostics accept **some** evidence offered by Theism and Atheism is manifestly false. They might say some arguments are good, but that's a far cry from saying they accept knowledge for or against to exist,

really? What is the difference between saying that some arguments are
good, and that there is "knowledge for or against" (your formulation, I
haven't said anything about knowledge, just about evidence)

[Kalkidas]

On 10/18/2016 5:41 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:30:03 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2016 10:04 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>> *
>>>> What does the word "agnostic" mean?
>>>>
>>>> If I say, "I am an agnostic" does it mean...
>>>>
>>>> 1. That I have no knowledge whether any God exists.
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> 2. It is not possible to know whether any God exists.
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion, these are very different statements.
>>>>
>>>> Which definition is good?
>>>
>>> (1) is correct, since "agnostic" literally means "ignorant"
>>
>> For Burk: See that? It's true.
>
> No, that's just Kalkidas being contrarian and using a questionable (that
> is, ahistoric) literal translation to score rhetorical points.

Agnostic is an ancient Greek word, which has always primarily meant
"ignorant". So I don't know where you're getting the "ahistoric" idea.
Moreover, the common secondary meaning in religious context has always
been to refer to someone who says he "I don't know" if there is a God or
not, not to someone who asserts that "it is impossible to know".

The OP asked for a decision on one of two possible meanings of
"agnostic", and I rendered my decision with evidence to back it up.
What's the difficulty?

[Burkhard]

Kalkidas wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 5:41 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:30:03 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2016 10:04 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>> *
>>>>> What does the word "agnostic" mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> If I say, "I am an agnostic" does it mean...
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. That I have no knowledge whether any God exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. It is not possible to know whether any God exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion, these are very different statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which definition is good?
>>>>
>>>> (1) is correct, since "agnostic" literally means "ignorant"
>>>
>>> For Burk: See that? It's true.
>>
>> No, that's just Kalkidas being contrarian and using a questionable (that
>> is, ahistoric) literal translation to score rhetorical points.
>
> Agnostic is an ancient Greek word, which has always primarily meant
> "ignorant". So I don't know where you're getting the "ahistoric" idea.

because it is a mid 19th century word - a neologism made to look Greek.

[Kalkidas]

On 10/18/2016 6:09 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 10/18/2016 5:41 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:30:03 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> On 10/16/2016 10:04 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> What does the word "agnostic" mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I say, "I am an agnostic" does it mean...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. That I have no knowledge whether any God exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. It is not possible to know whether any God exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my opinion, these are very different statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which definition is good?
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) is correct, since "agnostic" literally means "ignorant"
>>>>
>>>> For Burk: See that? It's true.
>>>
>>> No, that's just Kalkidas being contrarian and using a questionable (that
>>> is, ahistoric) literal translation to score rhetorical points.
>>
>> Agnostic is an ancient Greek word, which has always primarily meant
>> "ignorant". So I don't know where you're getting the "ahistoric" idea.
>
> because it is a mid 19th century word - a neologism made to look Greek.

The English words "ignorant", "ignorance", etc. are obviously
transliterations from the Greek. They are not "neologisms", like
"scientology", or "dianetics" for example.

ἄγνωστος, ον, unknown, τινί Od.2.175; unheard of, forgotten, Mimn.5.7;
ἄ. ἐς γῆν E.IT94; unfamiliar, Arist.Top.149a5 (Comp.).
2. not to be known, ἄγνωστόν τινα τεύχειν Od.13.191; πάντεσσι ib.397;
ἀγνωστότατοι γλῶσσαν most unintelligible in tongue, Th.3.94.
3. not an object of knowledge, unknowable, ἄλογα καὶ ἄ. Pl.Tht.202b; ἡ
ὕλη ἄ. καθ’ αὑτήν Arist.Metaph.1036a9; in Comp., harder to know, ib.
995a2. Adv. ἀγνώσ-τως Procl.in Alc.p.52C.
4. as the name of a divinity at Athens, νὴ τὸν Ἄγνωστον
Ps.-Luc.Philopatr.9, cf. Act.Ap.17.23; in pl., θεῶν . . ὀνομαζομένων ἀ.
Paus.1.1.4. II. Act., not-knowing, ignorant of, ψευδέων Pi.O.6.67 (v.l.
ἄγνωτον), cf. Luc.Halc.3. Adv. ἀγνώσ-τως inconsiderately, Phld.Lib.p.29 O.

[John Bode]

The way I learned it was closer to your second definition - the nature of
God, including whether or not He exists, is unknowable.

I see agnosticism as orthogonal to theism/atheism (i.e., you can be an
agnostic yet still believe or disbelieve), but that may be just me.

[jillery]

"Agnostic" is a neologism coined by Thomas Huxley in 1869, based on
the Latin "a" (without) + "gnosis" (knowledge). So your claim that it
literally means "ignorant" is literally false.

More to the point, the etymology of a word can help to clarify its
meaning, but it doesn't determine it. And the word's meaning has
expanded over time even beyond Huxley's definition.

So, even if your statement were true, which it isn't, it would still
be insufficient to support your decision. And the facts show your
statement isn't even relevant to your decision, another case of "not
even wrong".

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 5:45:03 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:30:03 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
> >> On 10/16/2016 10:04 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> >>> *
> >>> What does the word "agnostic" mean?
> >>>
> >>> If I say, "I am an agnostic" does it mean...
> >>>
> >>> 1. That I have no knowledge whether any God exists.
> >>>
> >>> or
> >>>
> >>> 2. It is not possible to know whether any God exists.
> >>>
> >>> In my opinion, these are very different statements.
> >>>
> >>> Which definition is good?
> >>
> >> (1) is correct, since "agnostic" literally means "ignorant"
> >
> > For Burk: See that? It's true.
>
> No, that's just Kalkidas being contrarian and using a questionable (that
> is, ahistoric) literal translation to score rhetorical points.

False as false gets.

The primary concept defining Agnosticism is what Kalkidas pointed out: ignorance. There's no dispute among any reputable source. Agnostics claim knowledge as whether a God exists or not does not exist. And when the concept is used in a general or generic sense Agnosticism means ignorance concerning what is specified. Countless people, countless times, have used the concept in this exact manner.

Not too long ago I attended an astronomical lecture presided over by Dr. Laura Danly, curator of the Griffith Park Observatory. During the lecture she played some clips of Fundamentalist prophecy teachers making silly predictions about the end of the world. The audience got a good laugh. Then she took a 15 minute break. When she returned she hushed the audience by saying she wished to issue an apology to those Fundamentalist Christians. Science, she said, doesn't know if those claims are true or false? Science is Agnostic about the claims of religion. She then apologized, saying she would never again make fun of the claims of any religion under a pretense of speaking for science.

Burk's opposition to the main concept defining Agnosticism (ignorance) is silly, loony, and egregiously subjective.

>
> > So your claim that Agnostics accept **some** evidence offered by Theism and Atheism is manifestly false. They might say some arguments are good, but that's a far cry from saying they accept knowledge for or against to exist,
> >
> really? What is the difference between saying that some arguments are
> good, and that there is "knowledge for or against" (your formulation, I
> haven't said anything about knowledge, just about evidence)
>

As if evidence and knowledge are not synonyms, when they are. As if knowledge isn't based on evidence, when in fact it is.

Whatever nice things Agnostics may say about their worldview opponents, Theism and Atheism, the same does not constitute acceptance of any evidence or knowledge that supports Atheism or Theism. To do so would contradict their view that knowledge and evidence, supporting the existence or non-existence of God, doesn't exist. And this final point is the exact point that Burk has repeatedly failed to understand.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

False; Huxley obtained his insight not from the Latin, but New Testament Greek.

> So your claim that it
> literally means "ignorant" is literally false.

Ridiculous as it gets.

There's literally no dispute that the primary concept defining Agnosticism is unknowability and/or ignorance.

Ray

[....]

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 5:45:03 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:30:03 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2016 10:04 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>> *
>>>>> What does the word "agnostic" mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> If I say, "I am an agnostic" does it mean...
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. That I have no knowledge whether any God exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. It is not possible to know whether any God exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion, these are very different statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which definition is good?
>>>>
>>>> (1) is correct, since "agnostic" literally means "ignorant"
>>>
>>> For Burk: See that? It's true.
>>
>> No, that's just Kalkidas being contrarian and using a questionable (that
>> is, ahistoric) literal translation to score rhetorical points.
>
> False as false gets.
>
> The primary concept defining Agnosticism is what Kalkidas pointed out: ignorance. There's no dispute among any reputable source. Agnostics claim knowledge as whether a God exists or not does not exist.

Don't think anyone disputed this. Just that some agnostics claim
something stronger, that it cannot exist. But all that is by the by as
we were disussing evidence, not knowledge.

> And when the concept is used in a general or generic sense Agnosticism means ignorance concerning what is specified. Countless people, countless times, have used the concept in this exact manner.
>
> Not too long ago I attended an astronomical lecture presided over by Dr. Laura Danly, curator of the Griffith Park Observatory. During the lecture she played some clips of Fundamentalist prophecy teachers making silly predictions about the end of the world. The audience got a good laugh. Then she took a 15 minute break. When she returned she hushed the audience by saying she wished to issue an apology to those Fundamentalist Christians. Science, she said, doesn't know if those claims are true or false? Science is Agnostic about the claims of religion. She then apologized, saying she would never again make fun of the claims of any religion under a pretense of speaking for science.
>
> Burk's opposition to the main concept defining Agnosticism (ignorance) is silly, loony, and egregiously subjective.

I've given you the dictionary definition, that is as objective as it comes.

>
>>
>>> So your claim that Agnostics accept **some** evidence offered by Theism and Atheism is manifestly false. They might say some arguments are good, but that's a far cry from saying they accept knowledge for or against to exist,
>>>
>> really? What is the difference between saying that some arguments are
>> good, and that there is "knowledge for or against" (your formulation, I
>> haven't said anything about knowledge, just about evidence)
>>
>
> As if evidence and knowledge are not synonyms, when they are.

Of course they aren't. Synonymous terms can be substituted salva
veritate in all contexts. "The DNA evidence that let to the conviction
was misleading" is a meaningful sentence that can be true or false. The
knowledge of the DNA was misleading" is a contradiction in term.

so provably not synonymous.

A popular (but as per Gettier problematic) definition of knowledge is
"Justified true belief". Evidence only comes in in the "justified" part
- it is a condition for knowledge , but not the same as knowledge.

But then you never really understood what "synonous" means, 9 times out
of ten you use it wrongly.

> As if knowledge isn't based on evidence, when in fact it is.

Knowledge is based on evidence, which pretty much entails that they are
not synonymous. And that means that claims about evidence do not equal
claims about knowledge.

[jillery]

You're right about the language. Thank you for your correction.

What I wrote about the root meanings remains valid, as well as who
created the word and when.

>> So your claim that it
>> literally means "ignorant" is literally false.
>
>Ridiculous as it gets.

So you assert without evidence or argument. Is anybody surprised.

>There's literally no dispute that the primary concept defining Agnosticism is unknowability and/or ignorance.

One can only wonder why Huxley diagrees with you.

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:nu92v4$o8f$1...@dont-email.me...

> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 5:45:03 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:30:03 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> On 10/16/2016 10:04 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> What does the word "agnostic" mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I say, "I am an agnostic" does it mean...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. That I have no knowledge whether any God exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. It is not possible to know whether any God exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my opinion, these are very different statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which definition is good?
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) is correct, since "agnostic" literally means "ignorant"
>>>>
>>>> For Burk: See that? It's true.
>>>
>>> No, that's just Kalkidas being contrarian and using a questionable (that
>>> is, ahistoric) literal translation to score rhetorical points.
>>
>> False as false gets.
>>
>> The primary concept defining Agnosticism is what Kalkidas pointed out: ignorance. There's no dispute among any reputable source. Agnostics claim knowledge as whether a God exists or not does not exist.
>
> Don't think anyone disputed this. Just that some agnostics claim
> something stronger, that it cannot exist. But all that is by the by as
> we were disussing evidence, not knowledge.
>

Knowledge is evidence. Discuss knowledge.

[Ray Martinez]

K

>
> What I wrote about the root meanings remains valid, as well as who
> created the word and when.
>
>
> >> So your claim that it
> >> literally means "ignorant" is literally false.
> >
> >Ridiculous as it gets.
>
>
> So you assert without evidence or argument. Is anybody surprised.
>
>
> >There's literally no dispute that the primary concept defining Agnosticism is unknowability and/or ignorance.
>
>
> One can only wonder why Huxley diagrees with you.
>
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.

We who have researched the matter know that the Oxford definition is lifted from the writings of Huxley almost verbatim. In fact, any correct definition must convey the key concepts (unknowability/ignorance), and they do. Opposing these rudimentary facts makes you look ignorant, or something even worse.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Examples:

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a fact based on evidence. Thus Evolutionists are fond of saying "We know (or have knowledge) that evolution is true."

Creationists claim that design is a fact based on evidence. Thus Creationists are fond of saying "We know (or have knowledge) that design is true."

Theists claim that the evidence supports Theism, and in the case of Christianity the evidence supports the Bible. Thus Christians are fond of saying "We know (or have knowledge) that God exists."

Atheists claim that no evidence exists supporting Theism----the claims of Theism are false; therefore the evidence that does exist supports Atheism. Thus Atheists are fond of saying "We know (or have knowledge) that God does not exist."

Agnostics claim that evidence supporting the existence of God and non-existence of God does not exist; therefore the case for God is unknown? Thus Agnostics are fond of saying "We know (or have knowledge) that both Atheism and Theism are false."

In each example "knowledge" is based on a claim of "supporting evidence." One can say, based on these examples, that "evidence" and "knowledge" are synonyms.

Note the fact that I have remained silent about your claims in which these examples are offered.

>
> A popular (but as per Gettier problematic) definition of knowledge is
> "Justified true belief". Evidence only comes in in the "justified" part
> - it is a condition for knowledge , but not the same as knowledge.

The key concept defining "knowledge" is "experience." When a person becomes experienced with reality then they obtain knowledge about reality. Note the fact that I chose a very general concept in "reality."

Specific Examples:

"My experiences in the jungles of Brazil led me to know (or have knowledge) that life was designed."

"My experiences in the jungles of Indonesia led me to know (or have knowledge) that life evolved."

Note the fact that in both cases, or claims, knowledge is based on evidence found in reality: Indonesian or Brazilian jungle.

>
> But then you never really understood what "synonous" means, 9 times out
> of ten you use it wrongly.

Ridiculous.

>
>
>
> > As if knowledge isn't based on evidence, when in fact it is.
>
> Knowledge is based on evidence, which pretty much entails that they are
> not synonymous.

Everything written after the comma contradicts what's written before the comma.

> And that means that claims about evidence do not equal
> claims about knowledge.

Addressed above; depends.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Yup. Evidence is a precondition for knowledge, or maybe even causes
knowledge. That is different from saying that evidence and knowledge
are synonymous.

Indeed, if A and B are synonymous, then A does not cause B and B does
not cause A That's because you can always replace synonymous terms for
each other.

Assume that A causes B,
Assume furthermore that and B are synonymous.

From this it would logically follow that A causes A (because you can
always replace synonymous terms in a sentence for each other without
changing the truth value of the sentence)

But there is no such thing as self-causation, A never causes A.
Hence, If A causes B, then A cannot be synonymous with B
q.e.d.

>
> Creationists claim that design is a fact based on evidence. Thus Creationists are fond of saying "We know (or have knowledge) that design is true."

Indeed. And the same analysis as above applies. Here too evidence is
cited as support for a knowledge claim - which means that they are not
synonymous

>
> Theists claim that the evidence supports Theism, and in the case of Christianity the evidence supports the Bible. Thus Christians are fond of saying "We know (or have knowledge) that God exists."
>
> Atheists claim that no evidence exists supporting Theism----the claims of Theism are false; therefore the evidence that does exist supports Atheism. Thus Atheists are fond of saying "We know (or have knowledge) that God does not exist."
>
> Agnostics claim that evidence supporting the existence of God and non-existence of God does not exist; therefore the case for God is unknown? Thus Agnostics are fond of saying "We know (or have knowledge) that both Atheism and Theism are false."
>
> In each example "knowledge" is based on a claim of "supporting evidence." One can say, based on these examples, that "evidence" and "knowledge" are synonyms.
>
> Note the fact that I have remained silent about your claims in which these examples are offered.

Not sure what you mean with that. In any case, in none of these examples
are evidence and knowledge used synonymous. Indeed, they are all
perfect illustrations that the terms are not synonymous.

>
>>
>> A popular (but as per Gettier problematic) definition of knowledge is
>> "Justified true belief". Evidence only comes in in the "justified" part
>> - it is a condition for knowledge , but not the same as knowledge.
>
> The key concept defining "knowledge" is "experience."When a person becomes experienced with reality then they obtain
knowledge about reality. Note the fact that I chose a very general
concept in "reality."

The problem is not your use of the word "reality", your problem is your
use of the word "define" and "synonym". Experience is one way n which
knowledge claims can be justified. That means experience can be a part
of the definition of knowledge (in the definition I gave, as one form of
justification) but that's all.

>
> Specific Examples:
>
> "My experiences in the jungles of Brazil led me to know (or have knowledge) that life was designed."
>
> "My experiences in the jungles of Indonesia led me to know (or have knowledge) that life evolved."
>
> Note the fact that in both cases, or claims, knowledge is based on evidence found in reality: Indonesian or Brazilian jungle.

yup. knowledge is based on evidence. Which means that evidence and
knowledge can't be synonymous, since a term can't be based on a
synonymous one - that would be a tautology.

>
>>
>> But then you never really understood what "synonous" means, 9 times out
>> of ten you use it wrongly.
>
> Ridiculous.

Possibly. I might have been ridiculously generous. You use the term a
lot, but I can't remember a single post where you do it correctly. So
getting it wrong ten times out of ten might be closer to the truth,

>
>>
>>
>>
>>> As if knowledge isn't based on evidence, when in fact it is.
>>
>> Knowledge is based on evidence, which pretty much entails that they are
>> not synonymous.
>
> Everything written after the comma contradicts what's written before the comma.

See, another example of you not understanding what synonymous means.

"Being synonymous" is a relation between terms or words, that is
linguistic entities.

"Being based on" is a relation between objects (which can include
processes etc)

So they are different categories to start with.


The logical form for "Evidence is based on knowledge" in first order
modal logic would be something like

"K(x) -> nec(E(x))"
(If you know something, you must have evidence for it)

The logic form for "Evidence and Knowledge are synonymous" would be

nec(K(x) <-> E(x))
(It is necessarily the case that whenever you know X, you have evidence
for X and if you have evidence for X, you know X)

two very different formula (admittedly, both are simplified a lot - you
need second order logic to to it properly, but they remain just as
different whatever formalism you chose)

In particular, "A is based on B" expresses a contingent truth (a fact
about the world), whereas "A is synonymous with B" expresses a necessary
truth (a statement about word meaning, not about the world)

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:59:01 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

Then right here would have been a good place for you to have posted
that Oxford definition you claim supports your definition. Since you
failed to do so, and since your trademark style is to refuse to back
up your claims, I'll do it for you.

From https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic

**********************************************
noun: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of
the existence or nature of God.

adjective:
1. Relating to agnostics or agnosticism.

1.1 (in a non-religious context) having a doubtful or non-committal
attitude towards something.

1.2 Computing [usually in combination]Denoting or relating to hardware
or software that is compatible with many types of platform or
operating system.

Origin
Mid 19th century: from a- ‘not’+ gnostic.
**************************************************

IMO the above does not support your gratuitous personal attack against
me, that they make me look ignorant or worse. Prove me wrong.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:00:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by John Bode
<jfbod...@gmail.com>:

It's not just you; agnosticism is about knowledge, not about
faith or its lack.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:16:38 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

Knowledge is not evidence, nor is evidence knowledge; one
may have masses of evidence of *something*, and zero
knowledge of whatever produced the evidence.

Saying knowledge is evidence, or the converse, is like
saying data is knowledge. At best, it's the limited
knowledge that the data exists; big whoop.

[Ray Martinez]

What happens if we say knowledge produces evidence? Is your argument harmed?

Knowledge does enable the production of evidence.

[Burkhard]

A bit unusual, I would not object but don't you mean the inverse?
Evidence produces knowledge?

>Is your argument harmed?
>
> Knowledge does enable the production of evidence.

Not harmed, strengthened.

I'm perfectly happy with "knowledge produces evidence". What I argue is
that "knowledge" and "evidence are not synonymous. And this is in fact
another reason.

1) "Knowledge produces evidence" ( statement agreed by everybody)
2) "Knowledge" and "evidence" are synonymous (Ray Martinez only)

from these two premises it follows with necessity by the substitution
rule for synonymous terms:

3a)Knowledge produces knowledge. Knowledge produces itself
and
3b) Evidence produces evidence. Evidence produces itself.

Since 3a and 3b are patently absurd, and the inference is logically
valid, one of the premises must be false. Could be that we all,
including you, are wrong in claiming knowledge produces evidence. Or it
could be that only you are wrong in claiming that they are also synonymous.

An easy decision to make in my view.

[Ray Martinez]

I might be short-changing myself by not giving this more thought, but I accept your argument that "evidence" and "knowledge" are not synonyms. So I retract the claim.

Since this was an aside issue, although important, now is a good time to address the damage, if any, to the main issue: definition of Agnosticism.

Ray

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:35:57 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Well? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:17:56 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>I might be short-changing myself by not giving this more thought, but I accept your argument that "evidence" and "knowledge" are not synonyms. So I retract the claim.

And you have now expanded your own knowledge, well done!

[Burkhard]

An agnostic is someone who says they don't know whether there is a god
or not. That would be the definition.

The reasons for this assessment can however differ. It includes people who

a) say there is currently no evidence for or against the existence of god(s)

b) say that there can't be any evidence for or against the existence of
god(s) (for instance because they argue that the question is ill defined)

c) say that while there is some evidence for or against the existence of
god(s), it is too weak or circumstantial to allow any knowledge claims.

d) say that while there is some evidence for and against the existence
of god(s), both sides make a more or less equally strong case, so there
is currently (or maybe never) a good enough reason to decide between the
two, and hence no affirmative knowledge claim either way can be made.

Your argument only allows for agnostics of type a), but b, c and d all
fall equally under the definition of agnostic.



>
> Ray
>

[jillery]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 23:15:59 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

Uh oh. Since your comments above are substantially similar to
comments I made, Ray should assert that your words make you look
ignorant or worse, and summarily ignore them.

[eridanus]

a god question is to know why Ray thinks a god exist.
eri

[jillery]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 00:49:33 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>a god question is to know why Ray thinks a god exist.
>eri

That's not only a god question, but it's a good question, too!

[Robert Carnegie]

I think I've been firmly contradicted in the past,
but my impression still is that Huxley invented the
word and concept to ridicule a sort of "gnostic"
whose religious doctrine comes from just mysteriously
"knowing" about God. An agnostic asserts /firmly/
that any gnostic's belief does not come from
"just knowing".

One problem is that this isn't really what "gnostic" means,
although I propose that in Huxley's day the meaning of
the word "gnostic" was another of the beliefs of "gnostics"
that offended him. I recognise this argument is circular.

I've decided personally that "atheist" really means someone
who doesn't worship gods, which might be obvious but
also allows me to be an atheist without having to
defend /my/ theory of who it is that makes rainbows
if it isn't God as the bible says, for instance.

This might annoy Huxley as well, but I hold that any
god will use the same definition, i.e. if you aren't
in the temple with your nose pressed to the floor at
the appointed time then you are an atheist and will
be treated accordingly. For which, gods usually have
carefully considered and elaborate plans all ready.
Perhaps this is why Jesus hasn't come back yet - he
has spent all this time on designing and building
the new Hell to be as unpleasant as possible to be in.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:20:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:

>On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 17:05:03 UTC+1, John Bode wrote:
>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 12:05:03 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>> > *
>> > What does the word "agnostic" mean?
>> >
>> > If I say, "I am an agnostic" does it mean...
>> >
>> > 1. That I have no knowledge whether any God exists.
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> > 2. It is not possible to know whether any God exists.
>> >
>> > In my opinion, these are very different statements.
>> >
>> > Which definition is good?
>> >
>> > earle
>> > *
>>
>> The way I learned it was closer to your second definition - the nature of
>> God, including whether or not He exists, is unknowable.
>>
>> I see agnosticism as orthogonal to theism/atheism (i.e., you can be an
>> agnostic yet still believe or disbelieve), but that may be just me.
>
>I think I've been firmly contradicted in the past,
>but my impression still is that Huxley invented the
>word and concept to ridicule a sort of "gnostic"
>whose religious doctrine comes from just mysteriously
>"knowing" about God. An agnostic asserts /firmly/
>that any gnostic's belief does not come from
>"just knowing".

That may well be, but he may have also seen that a belief
regarding *actual* knowledge of the existence of deities is
orthogonal to a belief in deities.

>One problem is that this isn't really what "gnostic" means,
>although I propose that in Huxley's day the meaning of
>the word "gnostic" was another of the beliefs of "gnostics"
>that offended him. I recognise this argument is circular.
>
>I've decided personally that "atheist" really means someone
>who doesn't worship gods, which might be obvious but
>also allows me to be an atheist without having to
>defend /my/ theory of who it is that makes rainbows
>if it isn't God as the bible says, for instance.

Sounds reasonable to me, and I'd classify such non-belief as
what is generally referred to as "weak" atheism (no belief
for, but no strong belief against, the existence of
deities).

>This might annoy Huxley as well, but I hold that any
>god will use the same definition, i.e. if you aren't
>in the temple with your nose pressed to the floor at
>the appointed time then you are an atheist and will
>be treated accordingly. For which, gods usually have
>carefully considered and elaborate plans all ready.
>Perhaps this is why Jesus hasn't come back yet - he
>has spent all this time on designing and building
>the new Hell to be as unpleasant as possible to be in.

Possibly, but the NT is about forgiveness, not revenge (as
was the OT), and according to how I interpret it says that
only acceptance of Christ is required for salvation.

[John Bode]

Are we talking Big-G Gnostics (Aeons, demiurges, and all that jazz)?
Or just people who claim to know the nature of God?

> I've decided personally that "atheist" really means someone
> who doesn't worship gods, which might be obvious but
> also allows me to be an atheist without having to
> defend /my/ theory of who it is that makes rainbows
> if it isn't God as the bible says, for instance.
>

That's what I call little-a atheism - simple lack of belief (and which is
how I class myself).

> This might annoy Huxley as well, but I hold that any
> god will use the same definition, i.e. if you aren't
> in the temple with your nose pressed to the floor at
> the appointed time then you are an atheist and will
> be treated accordingly. For which, gods usually have
> carefully considered and elaborate plans all ready.
> Perhaps this is why Jesus hasn't come back yet - he
> has spent all this time on designing and building
> the new Hell to be as unpleasant as possible to be in.

I'm in no way qualified to discuss the finer points of Christianity, but
that's never how Jesus comes across to me. He hung out with sick people,
criminals, hookers, etc., and had little use for the priests and the self-
righteous. I don't remember the name of the song, but it had the line

Buddha wasn't a Christian, but Jesus would've made a good Buddhist

I think your and my problems with many (not all!) Christians come from
all the people I call "Old Testament Christians", who are more likely to
cite Leviticus than Luke.

[John Stockwell]

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 11:05:03 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> *
> What does the word "agnostic" mean?
>
> If I say, "I am an agnostic" does it mean...
>
> 1. That I have no knowledge whether any God exists.
>
> or
>
> 2. It is not possible to know whether any God exists.
>
> In my opinion, these are very different statements.
>
> Which definition is good?

gnossos = to know
agnossos = to not know

I would prefer to say that "so far it seems that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists". The God hypothesis then becomes a "not even wrong" statement.


>
> earle
> *

[Robert Carnegie]

I don't know. Probably the latter, because I think
that the first-millennium big-G "Gnostics" didn't think
anything like I described.

> > I've decided personally that "atheist" really means someone
> > who doesn't worship gods, which might be obvious but
> > also allows me to be an atheist without having to
> > defend /my/ theory of who it is that makes rainbows
> > if it isn't God as the bible says, for instance.
>
> That's what I call little-a atheism - simple lack of belief (and which is
> how I class myself).

I think a larger definition of "atheism" - such as
"the belief that no gods exist" - runs into trouble
in the absence of a definition of gods. This is
where usually I invite you to consider a belief that
the sun is a god. I think you and I would not doubt
that the sun exists. We may also agree that human
beings would not have come to exist on the earth
without the sun, and would not continue to exist
without the sun. I think basically what disqualifies
the sun from being a god is that I don't worship it.
Or perhaps that I believe that worshipping it wouldn't
earn me any advantage - but that's getting more
complicated again.

A god may additionally be required to have supernatural
authority, but what is that anyway and how is it tested?
I suppose that ultimately it is, or it may be, the power
to command the natural world to behave as you want
instead of according to the natural laws.

But - for instance, to predict the future seems to be
impossible. But if I tell you now who will be the
winner of the American presidential election, and it
turns out to be as I said, will you believe that I
used supernatural power to see the future? Or that
I caused it to happen as I had said?

Besides "god" we also would need a definition of
"worship", but I've decided that essentially it means
"do what you're told you should do".

> > This might annoy Huxley as well, but I hold that any
> > god will use the same definition, i.e. if you aren't
> > in the temple with your nose pressed to the floor at
> > the appointed time then you are an atheist and will
> > be treated accordingly. For which, gods usually have
> > carefully considered and elaborate plans all ready.
> > Perhaps this is why Jesus hasn't come back yet - he
> > has spent all this time on designing and building
> > the new Hell to be as unpleasant as possible to be in.
>
> I'm in no way qualified to discuss the finer points of Christianity, but
> that's never how Jesus comes across to me. He hung out with sick people,
> criminals, hookers, etc., and had little use for the priests and the self-
> righteous. I don't remember the name of the song, but it had the line
>
> Buddha wasn't a Christian, but Jesus would've made a good Buddhist
>
> I think your and my problems with many (not all!) Christians come from
> all the people I call "Old Testament Christians", who are more likely to
> cite Leviticus than Luke.

I have read the bible and it has Jesus saying a lot about Hell.
Hell does not appear to have been switched off. Except the lights
because in some descriptions it's gone dark.

I do not think that the bible is a book actually written by
Jesus, but I'm not aware of one that is, so bible Jesus really
is the only Jesus that we know, unless you have Hispanic friends.
Or you believe that the original, so to speak, is still going
around making personal appearances. And if we disregard the
bible then we would still have to decide whether Jesus is a
god or is something else. If Jesus is a Buddhist then I think
he probably can't be a god, isn't it against the rules?

[*Hemidactylus*]

There's the problem of the aloof creator who cares not a bit for us so
prayer and worship are pointless endeavors as talking to a painted drywall
surface daily would have as much effect.

Atheists could be wrong about origins but not about the necessity of church
attendance. I guess that equates to thanking the sun for facilitating
photosynthesis. What's the point. Eventually the sun will fry the Earth in
an inevitable end times scenario.
No point in bringing evil forces into that.

>>> This might annoy Huxley as well, but I hold that any
>>> god will use the same definition, i.e. if you aren't
>>> in the temple with your nose pressed to the floor at
>>> the appointed time then you are an atheist and will
>>> be treated accordingly. For which, gods usually have
>>> carefully considered and elaborate plans all ready.
>>> Perhaps this is why Jesus hasn't come back yet - he
>>> has spent all this time on designing and building
>>> the new Hell to be as unpleasant as possible to be in.
>>
>> I'm in no way qualified to discuss the finer points of Christianity, but
>> that's never how Jesus comes across to me. He hung out with sick people,
>> criminals, hookers, etc., and had little use for the priests and the self-
>> righteous. I don't remember the name of the song, but it had the line
>>
>> Buddha wasn't a Christian, but Jesus would've made a good Buddhist
>>
>> I think your and my problems with many (not all!) Christians come from
>> all the people I call "Old Testament Christians", who are more likely to
>> cite Leviticus than Luke.
>
> I have read the bible and it has Jesus saying a lot about Hell.
> Hell does not appear to have been switched off. Except the lights
> because in some descriptions it's gone dark.

I imagine a glow from the fire lake and burning heretics are candles. Just
a place to burn refuse. Said refuse believe differently.

> I do not think that the bible is a book actually written by
> Jesus, but I'm not aware of one that is, so bible Jesus really
> is the only Jesus that we know, unless you have Hispanic friends.
> Or you believe that the original, so to speak, is still going
> around making personal appearances. And if we disregard the
> bible then we would still have to decide whether Jesus is a
> god or is something else. If Jesus is a Buddhist then I think
> he probably can't be a god, isn't it against the rules?

Jesus is the ultimate outcome of the Persians influencing the Jews. But
these days the Persians are more concerned with the hidden imam or madhi.

[Earle Jones27]

On 2016-10-17 05:04:48 +0000, Earle Jones27 said:

> *
> What does the word "agnostic" mean?
>
> If I say, "I am an agnostic" does it mean...
>
> 1. That I have no knowledge whether any God exists.
>
> or
>
> 2. It is not possible to know whether any God exists.
>
> In my opinion, these are very different statements.
>
> Which definition is good?
>
> earle
> *

*
I raised this question a couple of weeks ago and received quite a few
answers and other comments.

The best answer In my humble opinion, was from (of all people) Kalkidis.

He said:


(1) is correct, since "agnostic" literally means "ignorant"

(2) is an assertion of knowledge rather than ignorance.

Thanks, Kalkidis.

(KALKADİS Osmanlıca ne demek?)

[Ray Martinez]

Based on Burk's claim that "logic" and "mathematics" are synonyms, I retract my retraction.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Pity, you would have been right for once to stick with it. Though I did
not claim that mathematics and logic are synonymous, just that they
denotate the same thing (certain set theoretical structures)

[Ray Martinez]

You did in fact argue they were synonymous. You did so in the topic about RMNS and Alan Kleinman, remember?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/z_tLJcMNYYQ/M3zbJui2CAAJ

Ray

[Burkhard]

And you should re-read what I actually wrote there.
>
> Ray
>

[Burkhard]

Quite. And now re-read what I said there with a modicum of
understanding. They do convey "sameness" - that is they denotate (are
names of) the same thing.

And I said they in addition "get as close to" being synonyms as you can
get - "getting close to", even if it is very close, is not the same as
"being identical with"