Why The Anger?

[rigney]

Not possible.

 

 

Not possible?

Since I have no idea what the statement relates to, perhaps you can give me a better understanding of your meaning.

[ydoaPs]

Not possible?

Since I have no idea what the statement relates to, perhaps you can give me a better understanding of your meaning.

As I said before, it's a true dichotomy. You're either a theist; or you're not. Agnosticism is a modifier of both theism and atheism.

[rigney]

As I said before, it's a true dichotomy. You're either a theist; or you're not. Agnosticism is a modifier of both theism and atheism.

 

 

So, you're saying; I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Not much of a choice is there? Well, I've seen some of the better places on this earth, and some I would much rather forget. Is this my dichotomy? Yes! And also the flux that keeps me noncommittal, while allowing me to hope for something better? Yet, I just hope that I'm not so naive as to think I won't have friends in low places, if things don't work out.

Edited August 8, 2010 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

There's little to distinguish Nazism or Stalinism from religion; this includes the fact that they kill "non believers".

What all those groups have in common is blind belief in some "faith" that gives them the "divine right" to kill others.

Science doesn't do that and nor does atheism per se.

 

The problem occurs when you start believing the dogma rather than the evidence.

[iNow]

Christopher Hitchens is somewhat famous for promoting the saying "Good people do good things and evil people do evil things; but to make a good person do evil, that takes religion". While I'm not sure I'm in complete agreement (I think there are other things that have the potential to make good people do evil things, perhaps even, in rare cases, atheism), it seems to me that if the worship of the state which was so heavily promoted in the communist ideology of the 20th century was not religion, it was certainly something very much like it. And it seems that a comprehensive view of history shows that when it comes to genocide, oppression, and other implementations of crimes against humanity, there is no easier or more effective banner to rally the people under than religion.

An overall solid post, and I tend to agree with the entire premise.

One quibble - I think the quote above came first from Dan Dennett, and was only then taken up by Hitchens. Not that it really matters, but maybe some could confirm/refute this?

[ewmon]

I generally find that people's personalities transcend the issues at hand. So, "cross" rage is like road rage ... angry people venting their anger in whatever situation that confronts them, and they happen to choose innocent Christians at their victims. These people classically know little or nothing — and don't care to know — about the modern Christian church, and they cherry-pick their criticisms, sometimes going all the way back to the times of the Crusades. Get educated.

 

And I call it "cross" rage because these people don't rage against Islam etc because Christianity is a religion one can criticize with some terrorist opening up a can of jihad on them. Think about it, after America suffered the largest foreign attack at home, these angry atheists came out of the woodwork and start criticizing the wrong people. Psychologists call this unconscious defense mechanism "displacement" ... classically described as coming home after a hard day at work and kicking the cat (because retaliating or speaking out at work might mean losing the job). Displacement is cowardly.

[ewmon]

(duplicated post removed)

Edited August 8, 2010 by ewmon

[jcarlson]

An overall solid post, and I tend to agree with the entire premise.

One quibble - I think the quote above came first from Dan Dennett, and was only then taken up by Hitchens. Not that it really matters, but maybe some could confirm/refute this?

 

 

I found it HERE and a few other places attributed to physicist Dr. Steven Weinberg from an article in the NY Times in 1999. Hitch certainly has raised its popularity however.

[rigney]

There's little to distinguish Nazism or Stalinism from religion; this includes the fact that they kill "non believers".

What all those groups have in common is blind belief in some "faith" that gives them the "divine right" to kill others.

Science doesn't do that and nor does atheism per se.

 

The problem occurs when you start believing the dogma rather than the evidence.

 

 

So apropos!. "Faith" is an intrinsic force of nature, not a fiat of some religious or atheistic doctrine. Nurturing determines its use. As to our progress of today?, makes me wonder how the first "up-rights" ever managed?

Edited August 8, 2010 by rigney

[jackson33]

I don't think this is true. There are several religious members. We just keep religion where it belongs. [/Quote]

 

ydoaPs; I understand what you mean, but what your saying makes little sense. If there are several religious members, whom keep religion where it belongs (assume to themselves), how would you know they are in fact religious or not? It's the ones that don't remain quiet or in fact become upset, at the mention of some faith, emphasizing Creationism, that bothers me the most.

 

 

I have over a dozen billion years of experience not existing, and I have no reason to think my next go at it will be any different than the last. [/Quote]

 

Now this makes sense and I'd agree with the probability. However there are billions of humans running around needing something to believe in other than themselves. Whether it becomes a reason to do good things to just not being destructive or ending life for some trivial reason, that faith in something more than human, WORKS...

 

As I said before, it's a true dichotomy. You're either a theist; or you're not. Agnosticism is a modifier of both theism and atheism. [/Quote]

 

I think your playing word games, although I understand your very technical point. Being a "Religious Agnostic" has long been a recognized term and used by those that openly question, yet won't deny the existence of some god or gods. Atheist on the other hand openly deny the possibility, theist openly accepting the principles.

 

Adjective: agnostic ag'nós-tik

 

Of or pertaining to an agnostic or agnosticism

Uncertain of all claims to knowledge

- agnostical

 

Noun: agnostic ag'nós-tik

 

Someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something

- doubter

 

A person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist) [/Quote]

 

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=agnostic

 

Noun: agnosticism ag'nós-ti,si-zum

 

A religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God

"agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence"[/Quote]

 

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=Agnosticism

 

However, there is a third group who, when asked whether a deity or deities exist, don't have a yes or no answer. They are the 10% of American adults who hold Agnostic beliefs about God's existence.

 

Some agnostics who enjoy religious discussion, fellowship, or ritual join a local congregation of the Unitarian-Universalist Association or an Ethical Culture group. Many others are solitary Agnostics.[/Quote]

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

 

Jackson I can hardly believe the hubris of even you saying something like that, do you really think that atheists suddenly start begging god for forgiveness on their death beds?[/Quote]

 

Moon; No Moon, I can't be overtly presumptuous to things I couldn't possibly know. However I do believe it's in the human spirit to question existence and the purpose of that existence, most settling on some form of taught religion or understanding. It would be my opinion, most TRUE and professed atheist are in fact agnostics and have had some event (experience) in their life to question religion as either taught or practiced, where ever they are from.

 

For me eternity is divided quite neatly into three parts, before my existence, during my existence and after my existence, the idea of death is no problem but i can't imagine the horror of believing in God but never quite knowing for sure what he wants or if you have failed and will therefor spend eternity in horrific agony, the constant reading and studying something with no real evidence and trying to understand what you need to do to avoid hell. The idea that anyone will spend an eternity in hell is in of it's self a horror I prefer not to think about. I seriously prefer simple death to that scenario any day.... [/Quote]

 

This is in fact an agnostic's view of religion and I see little to argue with. I would suggest however, any entity capable of creating intelligent life or life itself (through whatever process), would certainly not then discard that life to some form of eternal suffering. What's good, bad or acceptable behavior is a human concept

 

However, I can't help but think you naive to think that the fact that we would wish for an extension of our existence, equates to most of us eventually calling into question our belief that we won't get one.[/Quote]

 

jcarlson; Maybe I'm not understanding you or you my viewpoint. I personally, don't believe there is an after life, that we begin life by chance (that one in a million sperm cells) and die for whatever reason. With a desire to be wrong, based on the many good people, in my life that have passed and believing they would exist in some manner, there should be little choice for any life (spirit or whatever) and all will go on elsewhere, where ever or in whatever realm of reality that might be.

[Marat]

YdoaPs says that he can lack a belief in deities, but still also believe it is impossible to know whether they exist or not, so that he can be an agnostic atheist. But I think that it is logically impossible to maintain this position, for reasons Norwood Hanson outlined in his 1967 article, 'Why I am Not an Agnostic.'

 

Consider this analogy: I lack a belief in the fact that Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse secretly met in a New Jersey hotel many decades ago to plan the overthrow of the U.S. government and thoroughly destroyed all evidence that they ever met. I also recognize that it is now impossible to prove that they either met or did not meet, since, by the hypothesis of this analogy, the event occurred many years ago and all evidence of it was destroyed. So far the analogy with YdoaPs version of the grounds for being an agnostic atheist are perfect.

 

But the analogy breaks down once we realize that we would never go around after being confronted with the story about Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse and declare ourselves to be agnostics about whether Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse ever met to conspire about the overthrow of the U.S. government. Instead, because that hypothesis is so outlandish that it would require extraordinarily good evidence for us to entertain any serious doubts about its truth, we simply dismiss it as not worth our attention or our active doubting. So for the same reason it is utterly impossible for any rational person seriously to be an agnostic about the meeting between Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse, it is also utterly impossible to say that you are an agnostic atheist. No rational person goes around holding open a space for serious doubt in his mind about whether the Easter Bunny, Mickey Mouse, the Tooth Fairy, or God exists, so no one can be an agnostic about these things, in the same way that it is reasonable to be an agnostic about whether there are intelligent beings on other planets.

[John Cuthber]

So apropos!. "Faith" is an intrinsic force of nature, not a fiat of some religious or atheistic doctrine. Nurturing determines its use. As to our progress of today?, makes me wonder how the first "up-rights" ever managed?

 

No, faith in this context is the determination to believe in something when not only is there is no evidence for it, but there is evidence against it being a reasoanble way to behave.

Doesn't matter if it's 9/11, Stalin; the crusades; or Pol Pot. It's always a bunch of people who are so certain that they are right that they can't see why they are wrong.

 

Also, Ewmon, you cant play the "modern Christianity is different " card unless it really is different. It's still dogma rather than evidence.

[pioneer]

The reason for the anger is connected to evolution. Evolution works under the principle of selective advantage. There is no goal when it comes to evolution, such as steady progression and advancement to the future. Evolution is a more or less random process without a goal. When humans hook up with evolution, selective advantage becomes the basis of their unconscious actions, with the goals of progress not even a consideration; a progressive goal is not a concern of evolution. So when a religion, political group or philosophy pushes their values, to the point of anger and hate, they merge with evolution; selective advantage without any a goal of human progression.

 

Social Darwinism does not work very well with humans, even if it works with apes. There is a limitation to the ape parallel for humans. Selective advantage, on the social scale, without the goal of progression, does not progress humanity. Progression needs to ignore evolution, to do what evolution does not; have a progressive goal.

 

For example, nuclear weapons satisfy the spirit of evolution since they can create selective advantage. To get rid of nuclear weapons, although progressive to the future of humanity, means some will need to go against evolution and give up a valid selective advantage. Most of the resistance is animal fear in nature. The political parties might lie, cheat, steal, bride and make false accusations to maintain their advantage. This is valid in evolution, but is not progressive.

 

The atheists can not see the paradox they help to create and endorse. They wish to merge with the animal standard. This means back to evolution which is blind and has no goal beyond selective advantage. Then they are surprised when there is little progress.

 

The question becomes how do you escape the blind walk of evolution, since social Darwinism has never worked out very well? It comes back to animal anger being used to help push the primary goal of evolution; selective advantage.

 

Religions may be more prone to evolutionary animal anger, since they often repress instincts in an attempt to break away from animal evolution. Repression is a dam that builds up potential, until balance is maintained with the dam falling down in war and anger. Then they are back to evolution. Atheist approach this differently, trying to merge with the animals for evolution and their own tribe selective advantage.

 

I tend to like "love your enemy", since it checks the animal anger of evolution.

Edited August 8, 2010 by pioneer

[Severian]

As I said before, it's a true dichotomy. You're either a theist; or you're not. Agnosticism is a modifier of both theism and atheism.

 

I think it probably is possible to somewhere between the two. I certainly know people who swither between the two, having a very vague feeling that some higher power exists, but not really sure. You could of course argue that they are atheists, with brief moments of theism, I suppose.

 

As a theist myself, I find it incredible how some people can argue that theism is, in of itself, evil and responsible for persecution and murder throughout history. Theism is a very very wide brief of viewpoints, philosophies and beliefs and even within religions there is a very wide interpretation of religious teachings. To suggest that I (or my beliefs) am somehow responsible for the burning of witches in the middle ages or the decisions of the Kansas school board, is just ridiculous, and one would have thought that a scientific community like this one really ought to know better.

 

In fact, this tarring of theists all with the same brush is discriminatory and prejudiced. People who express these views are committing crass generalisations, judging people worthy or unworthy according to labels, rather than judging each individual on their own merits. We have largely gotten past such things when discussing race and gender, so isn't it time we did the same for philosophical beliefs?

 

Consider this analogy: I lack a belief in the fact that Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse secretly met in a New Jersey hotel many decades ago to plan the overthrow of the U.S. government and thoroughly destroyed all evidence that they ever met. I also recognize that it is now impossible to prove that they either met or did not meet, since, by the hypothesis of this analogy, the event occurred many years ago and all evidence of it was destroyed. So far the analogy with YdoaPs version of the grounds for being an agnostic atheist are perfect.

 

I think this is a good example of a very bad analogy, dreamed up to make religion look silly, which works only to fool stupid people. On the one hand, this sort of thing is probably just the original author (presumably not Maret) not understanding his own argument, but on the other, I suspect this is a deliberate and underhanded attempt to mislead. I also believe that Maret understands very well why this is a crap analogy, so posting this is very dishonest.

 

The reason why it is a bad analogy (in case you haven't already realised) is that Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse are 'entities' we already know a lot about. We know they are cartoon characters, and we know who thought them up, and we have evidence to back that up. Therefore our disbelief in this scenario is not based on anything to do with them meeting in New Jersey - it is to do with the fact that we know they are cartoon characters. The "evidence that they ever met" is completely superfluous and designed to distract the eye away from the obvious ridiculousness of the situation.

 

In order to make it a more appropriate analogy we need to take away our preconceptions about the perpetrators. Let's pretend their names have been removed for security reasons: "[deleted] and [deleted] met in a New Jersey hotel many decades ago to plan the overthrow of the U.S. government and thoroughly destroyed all evidence that they ever met". Do you know think that this is something it would be stupid to believe?

Edited August 9, 2010 by Severian

[jcarlson]

I think it probably is possible to somewhere between the two. I certainly know people who swither between the two, having a very vague feeling that some higher power exists, but not really sure. You could of course argue that they are atheists, with brief moments of theism, I suppose.

 

As a theist myself, I find it incredible how some people can argue that theism is, in of itself, evil and responsible for persecution and murder throughout history. Theism is a very very wide brief of viewpoints, philosophies and beliefs and even within religions there is a very wide interpretation of religious teachings. To suggest that I (or my beliefs) am somehow responsible for the burning of witches in the middle ages or the decisions of the Kansas school board, is just ridiculous, and one would have thought that a scientific community like this one really ought to know better.

 

In fact, this tarring of theists all with the same brush is discriminatory and prejudiced. People who express these views are committing crass generalisations, judging people worthy or unworthy according to labels, rather than judging each individual on their own merits. We have largely gotten past such things when discussing race and gender, so isn't it time we did the same for philosophical beliefs?

 

No one is arguing that theism in and of itself is evil or responsible for persecution and murder, nor is anyone claiming you should be held accountable for witch trials. But one can hardly argue against the fact that belief systems which make virtues of blind faith, unwavering devotion, moral absolutism, and obedience to a supreme will, have lent themselves exceptionally well to some of the most violent atrocities in history. Theism of the kind held by most people is definitely such a system, and as such, while not inherently evil, is certainly inherently dangerous.

 

 

 

I think this is a good example of a very bad analogy, dreamed up to make religion look silly, which works only to fool stupid people. On the one hand, this sort of thing is probably just the original author (presumably not Maret) not understanding his own argument, but on the other, I suspect this is a deliberate and underhanded attempt to mislead. I also believe that Maret understands very well why this is a crap analogy, so posting this is very dishonest.

 

The reason why it is a bad analogy (in case you haven't already realised) is that Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse are 'entities' we already know a lot about. We know they are cartoon characters, and we know who thought them up, and we have evidence to back that up. Therefore our disbelief in this scenario is not based on anything to do with them meeting in New Jersey - it is to do with the fact that we know they are cartoon characters. The "evidence that they ever met" is completely superfluous and designed to distract the eye away from the obvious ridiculousness of the situation.

 

In order to make it a more appropriate analogy we need to take away our preconceptions about the perpetrators. Let's pretend their names have been removed for security reasons: "[deleted] and [deleted] met in a New Jersey hotel many decades ago to plan the overthrow of the U.S. government and thoroughly destroyed all evidence that they ever met". Do you know think that this is something it would be stupid to believe?

 

Yes, without any evidence to support the idea that anyone met in a hotel in New Jersey to overthrow the government why would anyone believe it?

[Severian]

No one is arguing that theism in and of itself is evil or responsible for persecution and murder, nor is anyone claiming you should be held accountable for witch trials. But one can hardly argue against the fact that belief systems which make virtues of blind faith, unwavering devotion, moral absolutism, and obedience to a supreme will, have lent themselves exceptionally well to some of the most violent atrocities in history. Theism of the kind held by most people is definitely such a system, and as such, while not inherently evil, is certainly inherently dangerous.

 

"Blind faith, unwavering devotion, moral absolutism, and obedience to a supreme will" are not theist properties - they are things that are inherent to some religious systems. They are also inherent in political systems and philosophies that have nothing to do with theism. Your property is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for a philosophy to by theist.

 

Yes, without any evidence to support the idea that anyone met in a hotel in New Jersey to overthrow the government why would anyone believe it?

 

You can believe whatever you like, but I hope you would agree that this is no longer an unreasonable belief.

[Sisyphus]

Two guys in a hotel is not a supernatural or fantastic event, though. Perhaps the tooth fairy and a leprachaun meeting in NJ? That removes the objection of knowing who made them up.

 

Still, I disagree that it is unreasonable to be agnostic towards such a belief. I cannot, by any of the means I would normally go about proving something, prove that leprachauns or tooth fairies do not exist. I just firmly believe they don't, for various reasons which I think make it difficult to justify a reasonable belief that they do exist, but which I'm aware do not constitute proof. I think it's mostly just a matter of what you choose to call that.

 

And getting more on topic, I think anger would be a weird reaction towards such beliefs. Unless, I guess, someone who believed them were demanding others alter their behavior because of those beliefs.

[Ophiolite]

How many times do I have to say this? Agnosticism is not a middle ground. It is a modifier of both theism and atheism; there are agnostic theists and there are agnostic atheists.

Say it as often as you like, it won't make it true. I am an agnositc, a devout agnositc, because I don't fucking know. I don't know if there is or if there isn't. I am certain of my uncertainty.

[rigney]

Say it as often as you like, it won't make it true. I am an agnositc, a devout agnositc, because I don't fucking know. I don't know if there is or if there isn't. I am certain of my uncertainty.

 

 

I like your stand on the issue since it's similar to mine. So, why the anger when God is in question, and so mush consternation? What happens down the road when; "empirical perfection" ceases to instill the mindset that there is absolutely no God? And what if, What if, becomes again, only "What if?"? That in itself scares me more than to find out at this very moment there is no such thing as God. Everyone can, and should believe as they see fit since our stay here is such a short span. Perhaps in a few life times our solar system and even the Milky Way may be explored to its fullest. But even in mans wildest thoughts, I don't believe there is a way of ever escaping this galaxy.

[Ophiolite]

I like your stand on the issue since it's similar to mine. So, why the anger when God is in question, and so mush consternation?

There are two points here, perhaps.

 

First, a general point: that humans are uncomfortable with people who hold contrary views. This can usually be overlooked or accomodated, but when this contrariness is aired, prehaps flaunted, as it is on a discussion forum, then this becomes threatening. I suspect this underpins, to some degree, many of the negative responses.

 

The second one is simultaneously deeply emotional and profoundly intellectual. I have suffered from it repeatedly. I am not agnostic on evolution. Evolution is a reality. The Modern Synthesis is a fairly good stab at describing much of the process. The evidence for it is so enormous, so interweaved and self supporting, so brilliant in its detail, so exciting in its complexitty, overlain by simplicity, that anyone who rejects it is - in my far from humble opinion - a ****ing idiot. I simply cannot conceive how anyone with a functioning brain and an honest heart can ignore this. Yet some do and it frustrates me, saddens me, and so enrages me. Sometimes I express that rage. I think then of the words of Oliver Cromwell - "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ think it possible you may be mistaken?" (Which was pretty rich coming from Cromwell, but that's another story.)

[Marat]

Severian, I believe the analogy between Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse meeting in secret and God existing in the infinite beyond is perfect, since in both cases we come to the assertion equipped with a lot of knowledge about the phantasmogoric character of the entities asserted to exist. We know that intelligent, talking rabbits and mice would have to be beings with miraculous powers, just as we know that a mind-reading, universe-creating, infinite, eternal Nobodaddy in the sky would be an entity with miraculous powers. Given their miraculous nature, we would not for a second entertain sufficient serious doubt regarding any assertion about them -- whether it be that they met in a hotel in New Jersey or that they gave their only begotten son to save the world from damnation -- without equally stunning evidence that there was a good reason to carve out a logical space in our intellect for serious doubt about their reality. But in the absence of some stunning evidence to induce us seriously to begin wondering about their reality, to set us on the path of bothering to think of ourselves as agnostics about their existence, we just dismiss them and move on.

 

I can think of no decisive experiment which could conclusively prove or disprove that the Tooth Fairy or the Sandman exist, since they seem only to come at night when everyone is asleep, and if the observer is not asleep, they stay away, so no observer could in principle ever see them. But even though we now have to admit that the Tooth Fairy and the Sandman, defined as beings with miraculous powers who stay away from awake observers, are beyond human knowledge and cannot be proved or disproved to exist by our puny brains, we still never hear people professing themselves to be Tooth Fairy agnostics or unwilling to say that the Sandman doesn't exist. This is because they are miraculous entities, and no one is agnostic over anything miraculous unless there is very good evidence that we should entertain serious doubt about its existence, which is lacking in the case of these two nocturnal visitors.

 

The only reason people are agnostics about the equally miraculous and untestable God is that the long history of cultural belief in a deity seems falsely to suggest that there is some substantial evidence for his existence, making serious doubt sensible, though there is not.

[ydoaPs]

Say it as often as you like, it won't make it true. I am an agnositc, a devout agnositc, because I don't fucking know. I don't know if there is or if there isn't. I am certain of my uncertainty.

Congratulations, you're an atheist! If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist; that's what the words mean.

[rigney]

Congratulations, you're an atheist! If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist; that's what the words mean.

 

 

ydoaPs, I like your style, but if I may; just where do you stand on the issue? You inject a lot of judgmental conjecture, yet are so aloof as to make me wonder? Are you a religous zelot, perhaps a real die hard athiest or maybe one of us stuck in the middle who don't know which fork in the road to take when we get there? C'mon, let's hear from you and your feelings?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Congratulations, you're an atheist! If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist; that's what the words mean.

 

What if someone hasn't decided if they're a theist or not?

[ydoaPs]

ydoaPs, I like your style

Thanks!

but if I may; just where do you stand on the issue? You inject a lot of judgmental conjecture, yet are so aloof as to make me wonder? Are you a religous zelot, perhaps a real die hard athiest or maybe one of us stuck in the middle who don't know which fork in the road to take when we get there? C'mon, let's hear from you and your feelings?

I'll just quote my post from the first page of this thread:

How many times do I have to say this? Agnosticism is not a middle ground. It is a modifier of both theism and atheism; there are agnostic theists and there are agnostic atheists.

 

It is a true dichotomy. You are either a theist or your are that which is not a theist; it is that simple.

 

Atheism is an umbrella term that encompasses a gradient of positions. Atheism is just a response to theism. Theists say "One or more deities exist". And atheism is just people saying "I don't believe you." This can take on varying degrees of forcefulness(ranging from Weak Atheism: "I don't believe deities exist" to Strong Atheism:"I believe that no deities exist.") Weak Atheism(the core of atheism) obviously requires no faith and as such is often blatantly ignored by theists. Strong Atheism, on the other hand, requires just as much faith as theism. All that defines an atheist is that they do not answer "yes" when asked "Do you believe in the existence of one or more deities?".

 

"Agnostic" is a term that is misused as nausium. I suspect that it is mostly due to the social stigma(which is thankfully somewhat receding) of the term Atheist. Agnostic is a modifier of the terms Theist and Atheist, and as such cannot stand on it's own. You either believe in the existence of one or more deities, or you don't; there is no middle ground. Atheism and Theism are the only options. Agnosticism is just one flavour of the choices. "Agnostic" means that one believes that one cannot know whether or not deities exist. Thus, one can be an Agnostic Theist(believe one or more deities exist, but it is impossible to know for a fact that this is the truth) or one can be an Agnostic Atheist(lack a belief in deities, but also believe it is impossible to know whether or not deities exist), but one cannot JUST be an Agnostic. There is no middle ground between belief and disbelief; you either believe or you lack belief.

 

As for myself, I am an Ignostic Agnostic Weak Atheist.

Ignostic is the key part here, as the rest, for me, fall from it. Ignosticism is the belief that the question of whether or not a deity exists is meaningless until an agreed upon coherant definition of 'deity' is made. After all, you can't have a fruitful discussion of the merits of the 'floofloogan hypothesis' unless both parties agree upon what 'floofloogan' is taken to mean.

 

What if someone hasn't decided if they're a theist or not?

Then they're not a theist, are they?