Lack of knowledge is otherwise known as ignorance (not to be confused with stupidity). We are all ignorant in many many subjects. However, to say that I don’t know is one thing, and to say that it CANNOT be know is a completely other thing.

http://www.bizarroartist.org/gallery/albums/bizarro/agnostic-cemetary.jpg

Skepdude: I consider myself an atheist, among other things, but I don’t use either “know” or “believe”. I rely on the lack of evidence to come to the conclusion that such lack of evidence makes the probability of God’s existence very, very, very tiny, next to zero.

I’m with you here. I have no knowledge of existence or non-existence of any god(s). I have no belief either way.

However, as the minimum requisite for atheism is the absence of belief, I think I qualify as an atheist … just as my dogs and the oak trees in my yard to ;-)

However, in the popular manner in which “atheist” is understood, I’m with you.

Skepdude: Pick a side.

I’ll point out that if you ignore an individuals words and instead focus on their actions you’ll conclude they do not believe in God. The side they choose in evident by their actions. How is someone “on the fence” is he/she goes about their life as if there is/are no god(s)?

Skepdude: We can’t prove that Russell’s teapot does not exist. Does that imply that we should be agnostic about it?

Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. If you admit to a lack of knowledge then you are agnostic on the question. So it is not a matter of what we “should be” but what we are. We are agnostic on the existence of Russell’s teapot.

As far as agnosticism is concerned, regardless of how you define it, I find it to be a lazy position. Why can’t we know about God, given how God is described by the major religions? Why would a God who’s always meddling in this universe and performing miracles and such not be provable? Of course we can know about God, as long as he is supposed to have some sort of direct effect on our reality, he or she is than well within the realms of science. Science and religion are not two separate magisteria ( I think I just butchered that word).

Of course you can never prove that something does not exist, but does that justify taking the “we can not know” position? Are we to be agnostic about fairies, unicorns and Santa Claus? I don’t understand what you mean by an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Both sound like oxymoron to me. What those terms imply is that I believe or not, while at the same time knowing that I can’t know if I’m right or wrong. That just doesn’t make sense to me.

I don’t buy your whole “yes, but I don’t think it can be proven” line of reasoning, simply because it is not useful. It is meaningless. It can be applied to anything. Make up any fancy fantasy you can think of, and you can apply that line of reasoning. Agnosticism is a dialogue stopper. It is giving up, throwing your hands up in the air and saying, we can never know. The implication is that we should stop wasting our time. What if that sort of logic was to be applied to anything that’s just too hard for us to figure out currently?

Pick a side. Either you are convinced there is a God, or you’re not, or you’re on the fence. But you can’t have it both ways, and that’s what your agnostic atheist and agnostic theist terms are, having it both ways. That’s not a position any logical person should take.