Hyroglyphx writes:
If that is the case, then what exactly is different about them? They sound analogous without the qualifiers there.
Because there are people who are agnostic atheists and there are people who are agnostic theists. Agnostic atheists do not believe in deities but they also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable. Agnostic theists believe in deities but also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism, according to wiki, just means that certain claims are not known (there is no currently available data to support or refute the claim) or are unknowable (there can never be any data to support or refute the claim).
Hyroglyphx writes:
Unless of course from the outset their claim entails that it is an unprovable position, yet may be more likely due to any number of reasons.
A claim is strengthened, obviously, with rock solid empirical evidence. Anecdotal evidence is at least admissible, but does not have the explanatory power that empirical evidence does.
You can make any number of claims, but the claimant always needs to remember that the burden of proof ultimately lies with them.
What I meant by my example is that any person who knows for a fact, one way or the other, must provide empirical data to support their claims.
For example, I am an agnostic Deist. I am a Deist because I believe in God, although my idea of God is somewhat modified from the Judeo-Christian God. And I am agnostic because while I believe God exists, I cannot know that he exists. For me, it is a matter of faith. I'd be happy to tell you my subjective reasons for believing, but I am almost certain my subjective reasons won't convince you if you happen to not believe in God. So I feel anything unknowable shouldn't be argued as if it is, i.e. trying to convince someone of your claim because your claim is right and theirs is wrong. That, to me, shouldn't be done.
It's the difference between believing and knowing. Belief, in the context that I am using it, is faith. For me, faith is generally unknowable and so shouldn't be argued at all. People should not be trying to convince others of something that can't be proven. Once something is knowable it isn't faith, it's knowledge. And if something is knowable, then there should be empirical data that can be used to support this knowable claim.
That's why I have a lot of problems with those faux Christians who attempt to shove religion down everyone's throats. They claim to know God exists, but can't prove it using empirical data. And they need to use empirical data to prove the existence of God because we set science to the same standards since science deals with knowledge. After all, we don't accept string theory just because someone says it to be true. When the LHC starts running, we'll have data to begin to falsify string theory.
On the same token, I don't like atheists doing the same thing, although admittedly, I haven't met as many atheists who do. But if an atheist knows that God doesn't exist, then the atheist also needs to provide empirical data to support their claim.
Basically, I set any claim that is knowable to the same standard that science is set to.
Disclaimer: When I say "know," I mean know in the mental sense, as in knowledge. I don't mean "know" in the "heart", "gut", or "soul" sense which is just a metaphorical way of implying faith.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.