Huxlean Agnosticism isnt the only definition of agnostic and certainly not the oldest.

@Stuttrboy

Based on what? Huxley's coinage of Agnosticism is literally where the word came from.

@DZhukovin the term was coined by Huxley but it was used used by Greeks and early Christians. The ideas were echoed in Hindu philosophy and English translations referred to it as agnostic. Aristotle Aquinas Descartes etc all talked about it and while the word was sometimes used it was never mainstream. Huxley just made it popular.

@Stuttrboy Greeks and early Christians didn't use that word, because the time period being referenced is before the coinage of the word "Agnostic". Remember, no one here is talking about meanings. "Word" is what is being talked about, here.

@DZhukovin the word was used but it wasn't mainstream. They weren't labeling anything as agnosticism like Huxley did. The word existed before he created his Agnosticism capital A.

@Stuttrboy It changes absolutely nothing. It's the true source of the word. Your assumption is based on the idea that if a person cannot process the definition for whatever reason, then it can create an understanding. It's nonsensical.

What we CAN do is play with "is" dynamics, and talk about how the definition is, necessarily, an effect of an image that can be pieced together.

@DZhukovin it was originally used as the negation of the knowledge claim particularly from a religious point of view. This definition is still in common usage. Huxley even acknowledges this. I quote:

"I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that 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. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."

This is the null proposition. He talks about certainty aka the knowledge claim and calls it unproven. Its where he takes it after that that he falls apart.

@Stuttrboy

Who cares? It still changes nothing.

I tend to disagree I'm an atheist when it comes to Christianity Islam and Judaism but anything else who the f*** knows. We as humans may never have proof of anything. Yes we do need proof that nothing exists. For me it's like the argument of there being life on other planets. There is a possibility, but there are some things that we do not have the ability to know for sure. Perhaps one day we will.

@Kojaksmom Fair enough but if you can proclaim full atheism on all the religions and their claims of a god, how much of a stretch is it to just proclaim atheism on the concept of any god at all? It's, like, just one step furhter. There's no evidence of anything beyond nature out there even on a cosmic scale. No unseen, unprovable, inexplicable "something" just nature.and the physical laws that govern the universe. I thnk no magical deities known or unknown is the most reasonable stance. It's what the evidence, or lack of it, supports.

Think what you want, no matter how wrong.

But we do know: We know there is no evidence. Got evidence? Come back and see those of us who are atheists. Til then, we know there is no evidence of any and all gods. Is that so hard to understand now?

@David1955 Blah, blah. Blah.
WE have no evidence?
Neither do YOU.
Come back and see us when you do.
There is no evidence either way.
Is that so hard to understand?
The gnosis of unbelief
Is exactly the same as belief
So you and your enemies are one.
We have no enemies.
Or, maybe you BOTH are.
I don't know.
I DO know THAT.

@Storm1752 You are exactly why I have one more reason not to be an agnostic: I prefer to struggle against religionists, not fellow non-believers.Some agnostics, not all, prefer to argue with atheists. How futile. You are only about the millionth agnostic who has raised this divide here. Futile.

@David1955 I'm sorry but you engaged ME. It's the old "evidence" thingie. You seem to think I need evidence there IS a god (I'm not at all convinced there IS), but YOU need no evidence there ISN'T one (or two, or five billion trillion).
I have no desire to argue with you or anyone else, but you keep insisting we're practicaly cousins, and I wholeheartedly disagree. I'm not even in the same galaxy.
The poster asked a question and I was trying to answer. The only way to do so is to mention you and yours. If you want to say something, by all means, but, I'm going to respond.
I wish you were agnostic. Sorry I'm yet another reason you're not.

@Storm1752 "*but you keep insisting we're practicaly cousins, and I wholeheartedly disagree."

That is such a sad statement. Only religion wins.

@David1955 It's to the point: the two mindsets are completely different. The fact we're both "anti-religion" isn't the right way to look at it, in my opinion. Atheism is much closer to theism than to agnosticism. Both are "belief syatems" with absolutist viewpoints.
Some people HAVE to KNOW, even about something as unknowable as "god."
That need must box a person in and narrow his or her vision. I feel I see the world around me so much more clearly when I keep my mind open.
Atheists are always talking about a prospective god as an entity, a being, with a separate consciousness, especially the Abrahamic ones but it applies to all religions; they all anthropomorphise. What do I think of? Nothing, really. Certainly not a PERSON!
Anyway, I hate to compare atheists and theists, but I hate it even more when an atheist talks as if agnostics are somehow "atheist-lite," like we're going to wake up one day, snap our fingers and go, "Oh yeah! Now I get it!"
Maybe some do, but I have a feeling more are moving in the opposite direction.
And no, I doubt religion will ever "win" in the long run...but, you never know!

@Storm1752 You make so many false generalizations about atheism, it's pointless to engage with you. It's you, projecting your own absolute opinions. How many times have I read this stuff here, propelled by the poor site name, agnostic.com. Atheist are and have been the greater number here. I must try to avoid toxic agnosticism on this site.

@David1955 I don't think I make false generalizations. If anything, a lot of self-proclaimed 'atheists' are really agnostic' and mislabel themselves. I think they regard "agnostics" as too wishy washy, not macho and shocking enough, not appealing enough to their sense of the dramatic...'Atheist' is more rebellious, in-your-face anti-establishment, more of a clean break with societal norms! Am I wrong? (Btw, I'm about as radically anti-establishment as they get.)
But for the sake of discussion, what generalizations are you talking about?
Look, the reason this subject comes up so frequently is because atheists won't stop making insulting false generalizations about agnostics, not the other way around. We're not going to let you get away with it.
As far as there being far more 'atheists' on here, I agree, and like theists they're more stridently loud, sarcastic, and obnoxious. But like I said, some of it is branding. They think 'atheist' is sexier.
Well, I guess that's why some people like the Raiders, not the Dolphins. I just like good football.

@Storm1752 merely go back and read every statement you have made about atheism. All false or questionable generalizations. Atheism is a belief system...atheists are always talking about an entity...being...atheists regards agnostics as wishy washy not macho...etc etc really, read yourself, generalizer. None is original.. you seem threatened by the confidence and clarity of atheism. Heard it all before many times, and better argued. Be an agnostic. Be my guest. Try not to be so insecure in your position, however.

@David1955 Okay, I WILL remain as I am, thank you. I've been one my entire life.
I didn't know my thoughts weren't original...that's disappointing, but that just goes to show I'm not the only one who has the impressions I happen to have. I'll just add, atheists DO always refute any possibility of the existence of 'god' by saying no PERSONAL god-entity---who answers prayers and even knows we exist, etc.---is possible, which is a sentiment I wholeheartedly share, as do ALL agnostics. But atheists insist on setting up this straw dog to shoot down CONSTANTLY. It's extremely annoying.
But that's one of those unoriginal things I harp on...well it's true.
One final thing: I WOULD envy the "clarity" of atheism if there was any chance said clarity was justified, but it is not. That "confidence" is the same confidence of any deluded true believer, including Christians. They are supremely confident in their lord and saviour, and like atheists they enjoy a totally bogus "clarity" which is obviously misplaced.
That's ALL agnostics are saying. You have no evidence there is no god by any definition. You stick the "entity" label on the subject and insist that's the only one relevant, and it is not.
So anyway, enjoy your inappropriate confidence in your clarity. I'll just stagger along with the burden of my insecure sense of the mystery of it all and try to get by.

Of course they are different. By god people in the west invariably mean the Judeo/Christian god or do you think there is a chance that some Greek gods still inhabit mount Olympus ?
Is there any difference in believing that the Greek gods controlled your life or that an invisible diety in Palestine helped a warmongering tribe to defeat their enemies ?

@OwlInASack What people believe or don't believe is really no concern of mine but when someone says he/she thinks there may be gods I wonder how they came by that conclusion. Because they were told so, because some holy books say so or is it because they cannot or will not accept our current understanding of cosmology and evolution.

@OwlInASack Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say

@OwlInASack Had a look at your comment again, Firstly Gnosticism is not knowledge in the modern meaning of the word but was belief in certain religious ideas.
"Atheism refers to belief" ??/.No it doesn't. Atheism is just a label put on non believers by believers.

Huxley joined this idiot Noah Webster conspiracy to defame Atheists and Atheism. The xian institutions of xmas are 100% wrong and misleading away from the fiction of faith. Two lies do not equal one truth. Huxley invented A - gnostic to betray his friend Darwin hounded by believers for alleged bible genesis. There is zero third possibility regarding an alleged gawd. We can know if the allegation of a cosmic creator is true or not. To be agnostic is to be trapped in search of evidence of a negative. Because zero believers have ever rationally defined their fictional baby gawd as the triune miracle of raping a Jewish virgin married to a Joseph Palestinian birthing from her alleged pristine vagina on every December 25th their insane delusions, we Atheists need not disprove such impossible annuities. We Atheists are not going to accept the liar definition we : " deny " an extant gibberish sound gawd as a word. We Atheists do not capitalize nonsense. There is no such thing as agnostic Atheist. We are not believers and we know evidence is absent for fictional faith. Fuck the dictionary. Fuck xians. Our Atheism is a proud word of 28 centuries declaring all idol worship as stupid. I am like the first Greek sailor who just said no to temple PROSTITUTES luring him into religion and sex. I spend my tithes on cat food.

Does that not depend on the definition of atheism we choose? (strong or weak).

If we are using the weak definition then I am definitely an atheist. If we are using the strong definition I can't describe myself as an atheist. Though I would be a strong atheist to all sorts Gods, Norse, Roman, Greek, Hindu and Abrahamic.

While most dictionaries have both the weak and strong definition these days, my 1990 Oxford Concise only has the strong. I think the Humpty Dumpty was accurate in some ways ...

When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all.

One of my best friends describes himself as an Agnostic but I think it is mostly because of his job, many Christians do not understand that term but are fully aware they are supposed to revile Atheists. He hates that I describe myself as an Atheist but hey, I truly do not believe any gods exist and the older I get, the more educated, the surer I am of my position.

@CrazyQuilter What are you talking about? Existence? Justice? GROG

'Thinking' and 'believing' are very similar. Neither makes it so.
Both are meaningless to me. It's all conjecture, speculation, guesswork, argumentation.
As an agnostic, I simply don't know.
Atheists HAVE to know. Uncertainty makes them crazy!
Agnosticism isn't some "intermediate step" on the way to something else. It is a permanent, stable, unchanging state of mind.

@CrazyQuilter So, believers want an afterlife because that is where justice prevails?????

@CrazyQuilter, @Storm1752 Why do you quibble over two words when both mean the same thing. The word agnostic was invented to replace atheist because atheist was too harsh for sensitive ears. Why don't we just us a non-loaded word like "nonbeliever"? GROG

No do not withdraw, there are always new people coming along who have not heard these things before, and may find them interesting and useful. We were all new once and grateful that people who had gone ahead could still bother to talk to us.

Faith.