So there seem to be conflicting definitions of Agnosticism floating about. Well, not entirely, but rather, what qualifies one to be an agnostic, and how exclusive agnosticism truly is. Dan Barker seems to make a great deal of sense on the subject of agnosticism when he claims that one can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist, since agnosticism deals with the subject of knowledge and theism deals with the subject of belief.
I have a good friend who would call himself an agnostic theist. I would call myself an atheist. Theism or Atheism is about belief, so since I don't believe in God, I am an Atheist. So why do some people declare themselves agnostic? Aren't most agnostics merely agnostic atheists, since they don't claim to hold a belief in a deity?
I have a good friend who would call himself an agnostic theist. I would call myself an atheist. Theism or Atheism is about belief, so since I don't believe in God, I am an Atheist. So why do some people declare themselves agnostic? Aren't most agnostics merely agnostic atheists, since they don't claim to hold a belief in a deity?