kickycan wrote:So would it be true that when it comes to belief in god, the agnostic point of view becomes irrelevant to both atheists and believers, because belief, faith, whatever you want to call it, has nothing to do with knowledge. God is outside the scope of knowledge, yet you choose to believe or not. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge, and nothing more or less than that.
It depends on what your view of acceptable levels of probability are.
For example, Frank is completely correct to say that I do not know whether there is a god. Despite what he says I doubt he can find one instance where I say that I "know" there are no gods.
I also do not know whether there is an invidible dwarf on my shoulder.
In short, it's impossible to "know" anything. What we assert that we "know" is just a degree of probability that we consider close enough to certainty.
My position is similar to gozmo's, he calls himself agnostic.
I don't know whether there is a god or not. Neither does he.
I doubt that there is a god, so does he.
I simply doubt it to the degree that I do not think it necessary to express as much doubt that there is no god.
When I say: "I'll see you tonight" I also do now "know" whether I'll see the person that night.
It's an accessment of degree of probability.
IMO, the difference between an agnostic position and an atheist position is largely in a perceived difference in the degree of probability about the existence of gods.
Theists on the other hand have an element of inherent fait. The evidence that leads them to believe can only be seen if they believe. Which is circular.
Some theists do not rely on the loop and they see evidence that is, to them, indicative of the likelihood of gods existence. But religions generally frown severely on doubt and tout faith.
While I'd say that agnostics and atheists simply see a different degree of probablity about god's existence I'd say that most theists (not all) are saying that if they believe it they will see it, as opposed to the converse.
As such I think your distinction isn't adequate. It's about different opinions given the knowledge at hand.
