Originally posted by divegeester
And I know dozens of atheists who have "taken a position".

I have taken a position on the topic, that doesn't demonstrate that ALL atheists have or
must have done so.

I know plenty of atheists that have, and plenty that have not, taken a position on the subject.
Whether you know any that have not is irrelevant to the question of whether they exist.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Why?

Why what?

Talk in complete sentences like a grown-up or shut the hell up.

Originally posted by divegeester
And I know dozens of atheists who have "taken a position".

Of course. But you essentially claimed that everyone must necessarily take a position once they have heard the proposition. That is clearly not the case. You were wrong. Pointing out that some people have taken a position doesn't help your case. In fact, one wonders why you would mention it at all.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Thank you for clarifying your position. However, it would appear that Googlefudge is at fault as agnosticism is solely the position that you cannot know, or at a bare minimum, the claim that nobody currently knows, and should not include people who simply do not know. Thus you are not an agnostic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thank you for clarifying your position. However, it would appear that Googlefudge is at fault as agnosticism is solely the position that you cannot know, or at a bare minimum, the claim that nobody currently knows, and should not include people who simply do not know. Thus you are not an agnostic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

From your link...

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine, or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.
.................................
Types

Agnosticism has sometimes been divided into two categories in academic and philosophical treatment:

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism" )
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."[33][34][35]
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism" )
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."[33][34][35]

Agnosticism is sometimes used colloquially to refer to plurality of beliefs. An agnostic in this case might claim, "The concepts of a universe with or without a God represent intellectual tools that aid our exploration of reality; neither of these ideas are inherently wrong and both bear a useful conceptual utility."

Just as there are weak and strong versions of atheism, there are so with agnosticism.

There are agnostics [that I know] that simply claim that it is unknown whether gods exist.
And then there are those that go farther and claim that it cannot be known whether gods exist.
[naturally I disagree with that position 🙂 ]

Originally posted by googlefudge
Why what?

Talk in complete sentences like a grown-up or shut the hell up.

When in doubt, be kind.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
When in doubt, be kind.

I wasn't in doubt.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Just as there are weak and strong versions of atheism, there are so with agnosticism.

There are agnostics [that I know] that simply claim that it is unknown whether gods exist.
And then there are those that go farther and claim that it cannot be known whether gods exist.
[naturally I disagree with that position 🙂 ]

There is a difference between a person who claims to know know if God exists, and a person who claims that it is not known if God exists. The former is not agnostic, the later is. Agnosticism is more about the possibility of knowing if God exists than the actual belief of the person. Agnostics may be theist or atheist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is a difference between a person who claims to know know if God exists, and a person who claims that it is not known if God exists. The former is not agnostic, the later is. Agnosticism is more about the possibility of knowing if God exists than the actual belief of the person. Agnostics may be theist or atheist.

I agree that claiming not to know whether a god or gods exist is not the same as claiming
that nobody knows if gods exist which is not the same as claiming that it cannot be known
if gods exist.

Nevertheless, all of those positions are agnostic.

Just as atheist and theist are exclusive and exhaustive, so is agnostic and gnostic.

A gnostic theist or atheist will claim to know that a god or gods do or do not exist.
An agnostic thus is anyone who is not making such a claim.

For you to be right there would have to be some middle ground between agnostic and gnostic
which is just as incoherent as claiming a middle ground between atheist and theist.

Now Agnosticism as a movement, a philosophical position, that might well be more specific.

However when asking if a person is or is not an agnostic about the existence of gods their merely
claiming not to know if a god or gods exist is sufficient.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Just as atheist and theist are exclusive and exhaustive, so is agnostic and gnostic.

I disagree.

Now Agnosticism as a movement, a philosophical position, that might well be more specific.
But that is where the word comes from. An agnostic is someone who hold to a form of agnosticism. An agnostic is not a 'not gnostic'.

However when asking if a person is or is not an agnostic about the existence of gods their merely
claiming not to know if a god or gods exist is sufficient.
I disagree. That is an abuse of the word, just as using 'atheist' to strictly mean 'doesn't believe in God' is an abuse. I realise that both words have a long history of abuse, and agnostic is typically used by atheists who do not wish to admit to being atheists.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree.

However, the site you linked to as support agrees with me, as I demonstrated with the quoted sections.

I am afraid that on the same principle as the meaning of atheist I can't agree with you.
I know of plenty of people who either call themselves agnostic by my definition and not yours, or use
the word to mean the same thing I do... Including those of a philosophical bent.

I see people using it the way I describe to describe themselves and I see absolutely no compelling
reason to tell them they are wrong.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You can get around such a problem if you do face it by simply explaining what it is
you do or do not believe or claim to know without using any of those labels.

So you might [for example] state that "you lack belief that gods exist but don't claim to know
if they do or they don't."

You could follow by saying that that makes you an "agnostic weak atheist" if you did feel like
bringing in those terms, but that is not always necessary or expedient.

The first statement clearly expresses your position [again in this example] in a way difficult
to misconstrue without mentioning any of these labels.

Here on these forums the topic has been dealt with often enough that everyone should know
what you mean and accept it if you use the standard definitions I use.
As I see it your use in this thread has been perfectly correct, and confusing only to those who
want to confuse themselves.

Originally posted by googlefudge
However, the site you linked to as support agrees with me, as I demonstrated with the quoted sections.

And I do not believe the quoted sections support your case. In fact, quite the opposite.

(and 'the site I linked' is Wikipedia by the way).

I am afraid that on the same principle as the meaning of atheist I can't agree with you.
I know of plenty of people who either call themselves agnostic by my definition and not yours, or use
the word to mean the same thing I do... Including those of a philosophical bent.
And I suspect they do so solely because they don't like the label 'atheist'.