20 7

There are basically two types of agnosticism:

the first one takes place and participates in the debate between theists and atheists, the agnostic stance consisting in the suspension of judgment.
Typically (and certainly historically) the theists put forward the claim "There exists a God, and He has the following characteristics...".
Then the atheists deny that such a God exists.
The agnostics accept the definition of "God" but do not side with either the theists or the atheists.

And then there is another sort of agnostic, but "agnosticism" in this case is but an euphemism for intellectual laziness. Such an agnostic refuses to participate in the debate and his or her stance can be summed up as follows:
As for "God" : anything goes
I do not know anything
I do not care

The essential difference between the two is that the former takes the debate seriously by accepting the common ground of this debate: the notion of God that is being asserted by the theist and denied by the atheist. In the absence of such a common ground, a meaningful discussion is impossible. A person who calls him- or herself "agnostic" should accept this common ground, or they should stay out of the debate altogether.

Matias 8 July 13

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


The problem with professional philosophers is that their love of philosophy leaves them without a love life. The resultant frustration is then displaced into their theorizing.


The fragmentation continues, someone has to be right, right ?


So the fact that I spend lots of time thinking about and discussing topics not related to god or religion apparently isn't good enough to win me a place outside the realm of intellectual laziness because I refuse to participate in one particular debate. Good to know.

Might want to look up the definition to the term "false dichotomy."


Sorry but the point of the debate is - god exists, or doesn;t exist - and neither side of the debate can ever be proven ---- unless the sky parts and a quaint old white headed guy drifts down on a fluffy cloud.... it is a circuklar debate doomed to be inconclusive - so what is the point


First your definitions are narrow and exclusive. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in god. I don't deny that god might exist, but in the absence of further evidence, I follow Occham's razor. Hitchens' razor also seems sensible in this case. I don't care what you believe or what label you choose, but quit telling me what the fuck I believe and don't try to redefine these terms to fit your story.

As too those "intellectually lazy agnostics" I think they are wise to not waste time pursuing evidence that cannot exist. If god's existence is irrelevant to them, so what? Who are you to tell them what they should or shouldn't discuss. Your position is extremely arrogant.

JimG Level 8 July 14, 2019

Thanks for expressing my thoughts better than I'd have ! The end of the post sounds terribly sectarian to me. Be like this're out. Some people really need rigor in their lives...

@Nathalie_Quebec I'm glad you appreciate it.


I disagree.
The agnostic tells that the question about God given what we can know is useless. Even if there is a good it don't show itself, there is no way to know what it wants. So simply go on with life as if don't exists, because in the end what we can rely is what we build.
The difference of agnostic and atheust is that for the agnostic there is no sense in discussing about a question that is by definition impossible to answer (because it it no fasiable).


As an agnostic, I do not participate in the discussion.
The main reason, is that if there is no god, then theists are all delusional. There is no point to argue with a delusional person.

rzig Level 2 July 14, 2019

Although this text makes sense, I have a problem with you using the word "should". As an agnostic, I have the freedom of choice to participate or not in any discussion. Accusing an agnostic of "intellectual laziness" because of that is ignorance. Some of them might be very intelligent and highly intellectual but they choose not to participate, which is a legitimate choice. I know I'm not highly intelligent and I don't dare to claim that I'm more enlightened than others because I'm agnostic. As you said, and very well, I don't take any of the sides, like any agnostic, as I don't accept the arguments and proof as facts. I don't think that atheists and even theists are less enlightened than the others in general. I know people from all these categories that are quite well informed and open minded. So it's not about how religious or not, it's about the person itself.

@Matias, good explanation. Not only that, we don't have enough time to participate in each and everything, both here and in life in general. Most of the time, yes, I'm non-participant, you're right. I just participate in debates /discussions where I can relate to the situation in particular. What shocks me a bit in this site is most people see religious people straight away as closed minded and not intelligent. My experience tells me otherwise. Ok, maybe I'm a lucky bastard with people when it comes to this or, in the universe of people around me I'm getting this experience where in the universe of people of others it doesn't happen.


I think an agnostic can examine and refute a particular definition offered for a particular God and remain an agnostic. The claims of the existence of a diety are not something that can be readily verified and so we have numerous definitions for God - even within a single religion - with no means for determining which is correct and which aren't. Evidence is completely lacking and very often the evidence offered by believers is of an unreliable nature (such as a feeling). Believers also don't typically address how to differentiate between their God and an imposter who possesses the defined characteristics of their God, but is not God. While the agnostic may side with the atheist in refuting one definition of God, it does not exclude that God may exist, just not under an offered definition.

As I read the definition of agnostic, it says "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience." This is very much how I feel about my agnosticism.


I agree but with one caveat. Some agnostics and atheists think they are accepting common ground, but actually they've assumed a-priori what "God" is under discussion. They assume things about theism that are not true from the point of view of the theist, and, consequently, debaters on both sides miss each other in the debate.
In any debate there needs to be clarity as to what it is one is debating, and that means making no a-priori assumptions.
But thanks for a helpful post!


Having grown up with no religion and no understanding or knowledge of god I find the whole thing baffling. I suppose for me, ignostic fits best


And then there's the ignostics. We don't participate in the debate either, because the word God is undefined.


Personally, I don’t care about labels. I neither believe nor disbelieve, and I sure as heck don’t want to debate about it. Call it what you will ... though, to me, it matters very little.


Did you come up with the two types of agnostics yourself?

(Edit) I didn’t mean for this question to sound confrontational.

@Matias yeah odd. I refuse to label myself with any term that I don’t define for myself. Saying I’m “x” without having a definition for x is downright dumb.


I was a Jehovah's Witness and got involved in the ex-JW community online for some time. Many have made it their vocation to try to bring down the Watchtower organisation and challenge JWs online. Some, like myself, don't want to give the organisation any more of my time. So I can relate to what's described here as the 'lazy' approach.

I'm an ex JW too. I don't think your attitude is liked to laziness at's being clever ! Time is precious, why spend it thinking about what they did to us or anything else ?


does the agnostic in your first definition hold the suspension of judgements for all different religions, or is it suspension only in the case of their religion? i believe in most cases it is them coming to terms with their own religion. i read your post as the same. agnostic about a christian god. or a muslim god, mormon god... pick one.

i disagree with you. if you are an anti-theist first and believe that all known religions and myths are man made and disprovable and therefor don't believe their gods are true, you can still believe that an unknown, undiscovered god may exist. suspension of judgment without accepting any theist's definition of a god. defining the new god or giving it attributes is an issue. not much different than inventing a religion (cult), so good luck arguing your point if you come up with a definition to test against a theist or an atheist, but, the stance is not intellectually lazy. imo, there is not common ground between an agnostic anti-theist arguing with an agnostic theist.

i actually think it is odd to be an atheist about ALL OTHER gods and hang on to agnostic belief about the one your parents likely assigned. cannot get my head around it.

@TheMiddleWay semantics. you can, and i, do think the words are defined by belief and by knowledge. i am an atheist. argue against that all you want. i don't believe in god(s) by the definition of the word or as defined by theists. what else would you be if you reject all of that? if there were a device to measure this belief, it would register 100%. i think that Knowledge is an asymptote. the truth about this one is likely in the space between the curve and infinity and our time runs out before the plot gets to it.

i just allowed that something is above the curve, but it is NOT defined and in my example UNKNOWABLE. until someone can define a god concept that is that is not tied to a current false religion, i am fine with my parameters. nothing other than utter lunacy has been presented to me to date. science given the time will figure out what happened, or it won't. no set of tenets, dogma, rituals, belief, ALL of it that currently exists is worth the debate, imo. i don't believe a "god" exists, as an anthropomorphic entity or even a conscious entity that cares for us in some way as she does not care to involve herself in anyone's day to day. until she does, the man made crap will persist. and i will continue to be an atheist. i am agnostic about which is yet undefined. call it god and i'll argue with you. semantics.

Surely the point is that, for the purposes of a debate, one needs to understand the theist's definition of God. In that sense, for the purposes of the ensuing discussion, one accepts their definition, but to refute the existence of the God that they claim they believe.
If one doesn't accept their definition of God in that sense, then there can't be meaningful debate.

@Doubting which theist's definition of god? again are they agnostic within their religion? if that is the case ido not argue with what I see is lunacy. i do not believe there is common ground between an agnostic antitheist and an agnostic theist. most of the debates i see are not framed by agnostic antitheists. barely any. the debate referenced in the original post i believe said that i have to buy a theist's definition of god to be agnostic. i disagreed. if that was your point, i still disagree.

@larsatrg You don't have to buy their definition, but you can't refute something that you each define differently.

@Doubting I believe my point is that they are two separate debates. And agnostic to an antitheist is a position and not intellectually lazy. I am not however interested in arguing agnostic with a theist. I might if my ears actually bled. Then they might get scared and leave me alone.


I try to stay out of the debate but it is not because of laziness. I sincerely think that it is futile to debate about a higher level of reality that can not be understood or known.

The debate is over existence, right? Our human concept of existence involves sustenance over time, but time is nothing but an illusion according to modern physics. Clearly we do not even know what it means to exist. We do not understand our own existence—how can we have an intelligent discussion about the existence of this God figure?

It is perfectly reasonable to point out the mythical nature of old scriptures, to disbelieve the many far-fetched tales of the Bible, to ridicule the idea of hell. But when it comes to ultimate reality beyond the sense world we are totally in the dark and to pretend otherwise demonstrates a lack of basic awareness.

@TheMiddleWay I had to look that up, but yes, that describes my position. I go further and say that “existence” has no clear definition either, so it is doubly futile to argue over the existence of God. Since I have no clear idea of what it is that I am supposed to be it is triply not appropriate for me to engage in an argument that concerns higher reality.

Actually I am an atheist with respect to the God concept presented by many religious organizations. But atheism is not my mantra. There is something of overwhelming proportions behind nature, beyond our reach. There is much more to this life situation than meets the eye. Anyone who shrugs it off simply has their head in the sand.

@TheMiddleWay Exactly, "Do you believe in God?" is no different that "Do you believe in Fod?" say what?

@TheMiddleWay One doesn't have to believe in a God that is defined by a theist in a particular way. However, surely there can be some rational discussion and debate over the God that person claims to believe in; one can refute the evidence for the God as defined by the theist, or, at the very least, one could, as an ignostic, cast serious doubt over the certitude of the definition proposed.


Labels don’t make a person! From my experience many religions and the atheist position are trying to sell something. I understand the religious product but not the atheist.

Both positions open debate which provides an intellectual exercise in critical thinking. Right or wrong is irrelevant unless you want to sell your product.

It’s an intellectual tragedy when one argument must be right or wrong. This isn’t agnostic disinterest. It’s enabling a position within the debate without the investment in an outcome.

I agree! I feel like some atheists can be as bad as theists in pushing their beliefs/agenda. I don’t care for any of it, and I don’t have much care what label I have.

@TheMiddleWay For what it may be worth, your posts are very thought provoking, and you make for a good interlocutor as I think things through for myself.


The atheist and the deist are talking about an anthropomorphic, personal god-entity, one says it exists, the other says it doesn't.
The agnostic agrees THAT kind of god could not and does not exist, in all likelihood, so in that narrow sense agrees with the atheist.
He or she does NOT agree, however, with the assertion NO god exists. Maybe yes, maybe no.
After a few go-arounds, the "debate" becomes repetitious and boring, which is why if you've been coming to this site for long, you eventually yield the floor and let the next "generation" of agnostics carry on the fight.


Your opinion is noted.

...and mostly dismissed as well... 😉

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:373476
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.