Alex, rather than answer your questions, I'll comment on the use of words such as "should" and "should not".
A bumper sticker-type remark got my attention; it said "Don't should on yourself."
Does it get your attention?
I believe there is a place for shoulds in life. A relatively peaceful society is based on the concept of the greatest good for all involved. In order to realize this in practice there are things we should do and things we shouldn't do (though there are exceptions to the rule of shouldn't). For example, we should follow the axiom treat others the way you like to be treated. A shouldn't would be you shouldn't kill anyone (but there are exceptions to this rule, such as defending your own life or the lives of loved ones). Religion does not hold the exclusive right to these shoulds and should nots. Morality preceded religion. One doesn't need to have a religion to be moral.
"...there are things we should do and things we shouldn't do...."
In the world I would like to live in, I agree.
In the world I live in, there are things we do and things we don't do.
A true agnostic is someone who says that nothing can be known about God, whether as to his existence or his attributes. But as for me, there is not an iota of agnosticism in my atheism. I am a confirmed and convinced flat out atheist.
Anthony Jordan knows what an agnostic is.
"A true agnostic is someone who says that nothing can be known about God, whether as to his existence or his attributes."
Wait a minute. That means an agnostic can be a theist doesn't it? After all, most Christians agree that the omnipotence of god cannot be comprehended, his almighty aspect blinding to perception, his essence unknowable to mere mortals.
That’s why theists then engage faith.
By your definition of what an agnostic is, you can therefore be an agnostic Christian.
I know of no Christian who would disagree with someone who says “I can’t ‘know’ God, but I have faith in His existence and in his words”.
You still can’t be an agnostic atheist since once you reject faith in the existence of a god, the “knowability” or “unknowability” of god is irrelevant. Meaningless. Immaterial. Purposeless to even contemplate.
If you are deeply committed to agnosticism, visit the “Agnostic Nexus” website. There you can participate in the futile navel gazing of “not knowing”.
Asa, futile navel gazing?
I like my navel and enjoy the time I spend gazing at it.
About Anthony's definition, though it's close to the definition in NOAD (New Oxford American), his use of the word "true" awakens my inner skeptic.
If you’ll notice, I did not take exception to the definition. I take exception to “agnostic” being used as an adjective to describe a “type” of atheism . . . a use that I find patently absurd.
You are right, however. I should not have used the term “your definition” as if he had come up with it. I do, though, assume he embraces that definition since he cited it.
I think Anthony's is a pretty good definition of imaginary beings we refer to as "agnostics". We define a unicorn as a “horned horse, usually white”, but that doesn’t mean there are actual unicorns.
And I assume your “inner skeptic” was awakened some time ago, otherwise you probably wouldn’t be here at A/N.
And, while I am sure there is something to it, I just don’t spend a lot of time navel gazing since I learned the reason it is there.
(I’m not entirely convinced, however, that my cat has a navel.)
Asa, you stirred my "inner writer" and the other folks in my writing group will soon read of my several "inners".
Catholicism's indoctrination created an inner believer and much later an inner skeptic. The latter spoke up a few times but the former knocked him down. A remark by my mom wrecked my inner believer and, like the tiny mammals after the asteroid knocked out the dinosaurs, my inner skeptic prospered. And more....
Thanks; I'm going to have some fun at my keyboard.
Your cat's navel? Cats let us feed them and refresh their litter boxes; do they find us worthy of navel displays?
While I believe that agnosticism, agnostic theism, and agnostic atheism are real phenomena (I've met some from all three categories), I find these positions untenable. There is enough logical, philosophical, and physical evidence to unequivocally state that there is no omnibenevolent God, and anything less, if there be such a thing, is unworthy of the title of God. Maybe agnostics of all three positions are trying to hedge their bets, I don't know.
And it remains that the agnostic atheist must still have to say whether, though being agnostic about God, he nonetheless personally doesn't believe in God, in which case he would still qualify as an implicit atheist.
As for me, I'm all the way atheist. Nothing implicit in my atheism. I fall under the category of explicit atheist.