Frustrated With Agnosticism

[Amethyst]

Been there, done that.

 

My primary experience with agnosticism was that it's a safer label to have, so to speak. Most people generally react more positively to agnostics than atheists because they think of atheists as the militant fundy sort and don't realize that one doesn't have to be a fundy to be atheist. Many people consider it somehow "better" even though it's really the same thing. There's less prejudice toward agnostics because fundies think that agnostics might still change their mind and convert. Not a lot less, but still somewhat less.

 

Until it becomes considered socially acceptable to be an atheist, I think a lot of people are still going to use the less "negative" agnostic term just because they don't want the atheist label.

 

As for labels, I'm tired of labels that define what I don't believe in. Lots of people aren't Christian. But they don't focus on themselves being non-Christians all their lives. Why must the world revolve around who is and who isn't Christian? Don't we all have enough to worry about?

[The Sage Nabooru]

As for labels, I'm tired of labels that define what I don't believe in. Lots of people aren't Christian. But they don't focus on themselves being non-Christians all their lives. Why must the world revolve around who is and who isn't Christian? Don't we all have enough to worry about?

 

Yeah, me too. I mean, we hang around on an ex-Christian site, but who here really introduces themselves as an "ex-Christian"? Or even a "non-Christian"?

 

For me personally, I couldn't give half a shit's worth if an agnostic is an agnostic either because they've deeply studied philosophy, science and religion and only after years of inner thought came to that conclusion or simply because they can't bring themselves to give a damn one way or the other. They're agnostic, so be it.

[Piprus]

Me too. I've said enough, and I really don't care anymore. 'Cause if the xians turn out to be right (unlikely), we're all future charcoal anyway.

[R. S. Martin]

No one here really knows me. You do not have any clue where I've been, what I've read, what I've understood of what I've read. I do not believe personal experiance is evidence for anyone else, but the person who experianced it. Yet, for that ONE person it can be. You do not know how or why I've come to the conclusions I have. You can disagree with me, you can say, oh yes a person CAN know. That is fine, but to make a blanket statement that "all" agnostics just don't want to think about it is ridiculous.

 

Last I checked this wasn't an atheist site. It was an ExChristian site, if this changed, please let me know.

 

Purple, I didn't take the OP as an attack on agnosticism per se but perhaps I misunderstood. I took it as an example of a conversation with a stupid person who was unwilling to evaluate the evidence when presented with it. I seldom question that anyone here at exC has given serious thought and reflection to their position. I think you have given especially deep thought to your identity, beliefs, and all that makes you You. Not everyone can go that deep.

[Amethyst]

Yeah, me too. I mean, we hang around on an ex-Christian site, but who here really introduces themselves as an "ex-Christian"? Or even a "non-Christian"?

 

Good point. If people ask me, I just say I'm not religious and leave it at that. It's usually sufficient.

[Dave]

If one states that the answer to the question is unknowable, and if that statement is accepted, of what value is further discussion?

None, because that end point is no different than the claim there is a god.

 

Not necessarily in agreement. One may claim that the answer is unknowable, which is not a claim that they know anything. Perhaps it is then more honest for the agnostic to say he/she believes the answer is unknowable.

That would be a more honest answer.

 

Would you say that agnostics are being intellectually dishonest?

According to some they would be mistaken. A friend of mine wrote a paper on the origin of the word "agnostic" Here's a Huxley quote from that paper; "Huxley said, "Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word 'Agnostic' to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with utmost confidence...."

 

Huxley also said; "Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

 

And then later said this; "That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."

 

All that taken in context seems to me that he is basically an Atheist, one that lacks a belief in gods. His objection was to those that KNOW there is a god, not to those that do not believe in gods.

[DarthOkkata]

Douglas Adams said it better, "[agnosticism] is a desire not to think about things too much"- things meaning religious dogma and its self proclaimed 'truths'.

 

I once described myself as an agnostic but then when I thought about it.. it was only a position to make my religious friends happy - implying to them that I am somehow lost with the god question. Atheism is a much stronger opinion in dismissing any religious claim on truth that doesn't measure up.

 

More from Sir Adams. This one is a better answer to the question IMHO.

 

 

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

[MrSpooky]

Since I don't consider agnosticism a mutually exclusive position from either atheism or theism, I don't quite understand why agnostics try and make their position somehow distinct and separate. The only reason I have been able to accept is the idea that atheism has too much baggage and some people don't like the negativity associated with atheism.

 

Yeah, this is precisely the problem. I'd say 90% of all the agnostics I meet are so only because they draw a false trichotomy between Atheism OR Theism OR Agnosticism.

 

Agnosticism has little to do with Atheism or Theism. It's an epistemic position, not a metaphysical one. Agnosticism is NOT a middle-ground along a continuum of belief/nonbelief.

[Piprus]

All that taken in context seems to me that he is basically an Atheist, one that lacks a belief in gods. His objection was to those that KNOW there is a god, not to those that do not believe in gods.

The quotes are familiar, having read them some time ago, and hence my own personal identity as an atheist. For although Mr. Huxley uses a lot of words, what they amount to is still wishi-washiness and fence-sitting, unable or unwilling to state that he has no god-belief. But herein shall we adhere to the principle that ignorance is not a valid excuse? If so, the conclusion is that those who are identified as agnostics, like it or not, are actually in the same camp with atheists. To not be unequivocally certain is to be an unbeliever, there being no "gray" area in this matter.

 

If we're correct then, Huxley was responding to the babble quote, "I KNOW that my redeemer liveth". Huxley was basically saying, "Actually, no...you don't."

[Dave]

The quotes are familiar, having read them some time ago, and hence my own personal identity as an atheist. For although Mr. Huxley uses a lot of words,

That was the style back then. I'm glad it's changed.

 

what they amount to is still wishi-washiness and fence-sitting, unable or unwilling to state that he has no god-belief. But herein shall we adhere to the principle that ignorance is not a valid excuse? If so, the conclusion is that those who are identified as agnostics, like it or not, are actually in the same camp with atheists. To not be unequivocally certain is to be an unbeliever, there being no "gray" area in this matter.

That's basically what I've been saying. To have no knowledge of a god is to not have a belief in a god. If one doesn't have a belief in a god then they are, by default, an Atheist.

 

Also, in my rarely humble opinion, back in Huxley's days we hadn't made all the advancements in physics and basic science that we have today. The more advances that are made the less reasonable doubt becomes and the more reasonable non belief becomes. The gaps were wider then and today are too small to hold a god.

 

If we're correct then, Huxley was responding to the babble quote, "I KNOW that my redeemer liveth". Huxley was basically saying, "Actually, no...you don't."

I'll agree with that.

[Ouroboros]

Since I don't consider agnosticism a mutually exclusive position from either atheism or theism, I don't quite understand why agnostics try and make their position somehow distinct and separate. The only reason I have been able to accept is the idea that atheism has too much baggage and some people don't like the negativity associated with atheism.

I think you got a point.

 

Most people that are not atheists think that atheism is the same as "super"-strong atheism, i.e. someone who claims to know beyond any doubts that there are no gods what-so-ever-and-case-closed attitude. Atheism isn't like that. Most atheists would agree that we don't know everything and we most likely never will be able to know everything. So most atheists are inherently to a degree agnostic in their views.

 

But we have to understand there are different versions of agnosticism too.

 

Agnostic has become to mean "doubt" to many, while I think it's original meaning was to make a stand in the arguments of what we can know for certain or not about any deity, or present a third option, there are many levels of "doubt" and there are many ideas of how far we can go with "knowledge". For instance there is a kind of agnostic that is called ignostic, but you will never have a real dialogue about god with an ignostic because they think the subject is riddled with so many linguistic problems that it's not even worth taking about a phrase like "existence of god".

 

Huxley's definition of agnosticism was to give a third option to the debate, but I think it's hard to do so, because even if you feel that you can't really know for sure, you still do think or believe one way or the other. You most likely will have an opinion when it gets down to it. What is more likely, existence or non-existence of god? If you're answer is "I don't know" you still probably feel one way or the other, and it is okay to say "I don't know, but I don't think there is a god since the evidence is lacking."

 

I think I rather prefer the term Non-Theist nowadays, i.e. I don't think or believe there is a god, but I can't prove there isn't, and I don't see any proof of the contrary.

 

Correction: During the course of this discussion I've come to the conclusion that I do believe there is NO God. I'm positively affirming my position that there is no God.

[Ouroboros]

If we're correct then, Huxley was responding to the babble quote, "I KNOW that my redeemer liveth". Huxley was basically saying, "Actually, no...you don't."

I'll agree with that.

Yes. We are all believers of some kind, but we are all un-"knowers" because there isn't much we on a personally level can prove or know for 100%. For instance, I strongly believe in what scientists say, but heck, don't ask me to prove that black holes exists! Yet I'm of a strong conviction they do exist, but that's because most of what science says (not everything all the time, but mostly) does makes sense or does fit into my new world view (the non-theistic world view) and I trust science (so far) as the best method to knowledge (or the closest we can get to it) and I trust the scientists (most of them, even though some of them also can become corrupt by greed, fame and too much in love in their ideas) to be the ones researching and presenting our understanding of the world.

 

Correction: I realize my choice of words confused people, and maybe I should have stated it as follows:

Everyone have some sort of beliefs (in a non religious, but common understanding of the word) in things that are not necessarily always fully supported or fully explained. This doesn't stop us from knowing some things, but we do "believe" many things without having a personal experience or personal observation of the things we believe. Science is viable and strongly supported, but we all assume and trust the media that convey the scientific findings to be honest and correct, and in that process we will to a certain degree "believe" what we read and what we hear based on that trust we have established with the scientific community. We don't necessarily claim that we know all the things scientists say, but we are strongly supportive of those ideas because we believe they are doing everything in their power to be correct in their theories. Compared to religious belief we know that most of the science works and has been proven to us on a daily basis in the form of technology and medicine. While religious belief still is extremely lacking of any supporting evidence for what it claims to be true. We haven't seen anything in the religious system to work or even be beneficial to society, while science consistently does prove itself to valuable to our existence.

 

Maybe that cleared it up a little more.

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, this is precisely the problem. I'd say 90% of all the agnostics I meet are so only because they draw a false trichotomy between Atheism OR Theism OR Agnosticism.

 

Agnosticism has little to do with Atheism or Theism. It's an epistemic position, not a metaphysical one. Agnosticism is NOT a middle-ground along a continuum of belief/nonbelief.

That's how I see it too. Even though I think Huxley really wanted to create the middle ground, but it's unattainable. There's a "planck space" between believing there is a god and not believing there is a god. A quantum leap of sorts. You can't be on both sides simultaneous and you can't be none of the options. You can of course "know" that you don't know (epistemological position), but you can't believe neither nor can you believe both.

 

Most Agnostics that push hard on the issue are very likely Athists without knowing so.

[Dave]

Yes. We are all believers of some kind,

I cannot agree with that statement, it's using one word with many different meanings at the same time.

 

...but we are all un-"knowers" because there isn't much we on a personally level can prove or know for 100%.

Why does anything have to be known 100%? And why can't something be known 100%? As far as I know it is 100% proven that the only source of lava is underground. As far as I know it is 100% proven that trees are plants.

 

For instance, I strongly believe in what scientists say, but heck, don't ask me to prove that black holes exists! Yet I'm of a strong conviction they do exist, but that's because most of what science says (not everything all the time, but mostly) does makes sense or does fit into my new world view (the non-theistic world view) and I trust science (so far) as the best method to knowledge (or the closest we can get to it) and I trust the scientists (most of them, even though some of them also can become corrupt by greed, fame and too much in love in their ideas) to be the ones researching and presenting our understanding of the world.

That is no reason to believe in any way that there is any kind of a god lurking out there. Black holes, and the rest of science is not based on a mythology. The sole source of information about science does not come from a mythology. Science is not twisted to conform to a mythology. Science is built on ideas and objects that are 100% proven, such as trees and lava. Religion is built on mythology. So, I just cannot accept the statement that we "believe" in science the way someone would "believe" in a religion. Some people can. I can't.

[Dave]

That's how I see it too. Even though I think Huxley really wanted to create the middle ground, but it's unattainable. There's a "planck space" between believing there is a god and not believing there is a god.

There is such a position; Atheism. All Atheists would become believers as soon as the proper proofs are presented. There would be no choice. Up until that time it is perfectly reasonable to assume that gods do not exist, are a product of mythology, and work from there. Even if one does not want to go as far as that, without claiming there is a god, even saying maybe there is a god, they still lack a belief in a god. Atheist is the term used for those that lack a belief in gods.

 

Most Agnostics that push hard on the issue are very likely Atheists without knowing so.

Most Agnostics are Atheists but just don't like the word. Even here they've said they don't like the negative connotations that have been assigned to the word "Atheist." When I come across a person, in real life, that doesn't like the word, I find it a good opportunity to teach them about Atheism and what it is and what it isn't..... that is if they seem to be educable. I tell them that an Atheist is simply a person that lacks a belief in god/gods. After that lack of belief, that ties all Atheists together, any Atheist can make any personal claims or non claims all they want and it does not change the definition of Atheism.

[Ouroboros]

Yes. We are all believers of some kind,

I cannot agree with that statement, it's using one word with many different meanings at the same time.

 

...but we are all un-"knowers" because there isn't much we on a personally level can prove or know for 100%.

Why does anything have to be known 100%? And why can't something be known 100%? As far as I know it is 100% proven that the only source of lava is underground. As far as I know it is 100% proven that trees are plants.

Okay. We know by 100% that trees are plants. That's because we've used language to classify nature. We created that certainty. We do that to make life easy to understand and overcome the fear of not knowing for sure. What would happen if we find a life form we can't figure out if it is a plant or an animal?

 

And the lava, sure, that is one of the things we do know. My intention was to say that we do believe some things, we do know some things, we do not believe some things and we do not know everything. Or do you know everything for certainty Dave? Do you take some things by trust, and hence believe what they say?

 

You know Dave, I have never seen lava in real life. I am 100% certain that it does exist, and that is mostly is located underground. So it comes as close to "knowing" something as it can. And I am just as certain about the existence of black holes, and I do so because I trust the magazines and books I've read from renowned scientists. And I trust those scientists too, and their calculations etc. But if someone ask me to prove that black holes exists, I can't, so unfortunately there are limits to my knowledge and some things have to be taken by trust instead of hands on proof.

 

That is no reason to believe in any way that there is any kind of a god lurking out there.

I don't.

 

Correction:

I meant to say: I don't believe either there is any kind of god lurking out there.

 

Black holes, and the rest of science is not based on a mythology. The sole source of information about science does not come from a mythology. Science is not twisted to conform to a mythology. Science is built on ideas and objects that are 100% proven, such as trees and lava. Religion is built on mythology. So, I just cannot accept the statement that we "believe" in science the way someone would "believe" in a religion. Some people can. I can't.

I think you're missing my point.

 

So from what I understand from you is that you don't ever believe something from someone, ever? Like you're wife tell you a story about some friend that dropped her eggs on the ground and they didn't crack, and you can not believe her? You mean you can't use the words "I believe you" or "I don't believe you"? So you don't believe your wife, since belief is a concept you can never accept in life? Do you believe what she said because you trust her? Or did you just know what she said was true through some psychic powers and you could see the events unfolding in front of your spiritual eyes? You do believe people because you trust them, don't you?

 

I'm using the word "belief" in a more generic way here, and not in the sense of "belief in GOD".

 

When you read a science magazine, do you "KNOW" the articles are true, or do you trust the source and therefore "BELIEVE" what they say is true? If you know they're true, did you also know that the news many years ago about the cold fusion experiment was wrong, even before the rest of the scientific community knew so?

 

There is a colloquial way of using the term "belief" and we all do have that kind of "belief" when we read or hear stories. You can't avoid it.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong Dave, but I believe you interpreted my usage of the word "belief" in a very religious and strict way?

[Ouroboros]

There is such a position; Atheism. All Atheists would become believers as soon as the proper proofs are presented. There would be no choice. Up until that time it is perfectly reasonable to assume that gods do not exist, are a product of mythology, and work from there. Even if one does not want to go as far as that, without claiming there is a god, even saying maybe there is a god, they still lack a belief in a god. Atheist is the term used for those that lack a belief in gods.

Funny. Isn't that what I was trying to say?

[LosingMyReligion]

I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist. I don't believe in God because there is no proof of his or her existence, at all. However, I am open to the possibility that I could very well be wrong. On that note I am 100% certain that if there is a God it sure ain't the Judeo Christian one, or any of the made up Gods out there.

[Dave]

Okay. We know by 100% that trees are plants. That's because we've used language to classify nature. We created that certainty. We do that to make life easy to understand and overcome the fear of not knowing for sure. What would happen if we find a life form we can't figure out if it is a plant or an animal?

Science has found several of those. That does not change the fact that we know 100% that a tree is a plant.

 

And the lava, sure, that is one of the things we do know. My intention was to say that we do believe some things, we do know some things, we do not believe some things and we do not know everything. Or do you know everything for certainty Dave? Do you take some things by trust, and hence believe what they say?

Again, using the word "belief" and including science and religion under that same word is just setting up a equivocation. There is more than one definition of the word 'belief'. The 'belief' in science is based on facts. The 'belief' in religion is based on faith. One cannot use the same word with both definitions at the same time.

 

You know Dave, I have never seen lava in real life. I am 100% certain that it does exist, and that is mostly is located underground. So it comes as close to "knowing" something as it can. And I am just as certain about the existence of black holes, and I do so because I trust the magazines and books I've read from renowned scientists. And I trust those scientists too, and their calculations etc. But if someone ask me to prove that black holes exists, I can't, so unfortunately there are limits to my knowledge and some things have to be taken by trust instead of hands on proof.

Why do you believe the scientists that say lava is underground instead of believing the theists when they say "god did it"? Because the scientists based their statements on known facts, on verifiable knowledge gained via the scientific method. The theists based their statements on faith. There is a huge difference.

 

 

I think you're missing my point.

My point is that science is not a belief as a religion is.

 

So from what I understand from you is that you don't ever believe something from someone, ever? Like you're wife tell you a story about some friend that dropped her eggs on the ground and they didn't crack, and you can not believe her? You mean you can't use the words "I believe you" or "I don't believe you"? So you don't believe your wife, since belief is a concept you can never accept in life? Do you believe what she said because you trust her? Or did you just know what she said was true through some psychic powers and you could see the events unfolding in front of your spiritual eyes? You do believe people because you trust them, don't you?

Again; there are several completely different definition of 'belief'. Pick one definition and stick with that one for the whole argument. I have a basic understanding of science. When a scientists tells me that lava is hot, I can look back on my understanding and understand what he is talking about. No 'belief' is necessary.

 

I'm using the word "belief" in a more generic way here, and not in the sense of "belief in GOD".

Why do that unless one is trying to conflate religious belief with other definitions of 'belief'?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong Dave, but I believe you interpreted my usage of the word "belief" in a very religious and strict way?

No, it is the conflation of religious belief with scientific 'belief' that I am concerned with. It is a very common argument brought up by christians.

[Amethyst]

I think part of the problem is that we've all been programmed to think of belief == belief in religion. But really, look at the meaning of the word:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe

 

be·lieve /bɪˈliv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bi-leev] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -lieved, -liev·ing.

–verb (used without object) 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

–verb (used with object) 2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.

3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).

4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.

5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

—Verb phrase6. believe in, a. to be persuaded of the truth or existence of: to believe in Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts.

b. to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of: I can help only if you believe in me.

 

—Idiom7. make believe. make (def. 46).

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Origin: 1150–1200; ME bileven, equiv. to bi- be- + leven, OE (Anglian) geléfan (c. D gelooven, G glauben, Goth galaubjan)]

 

—Related forms

be·liev·a·bil·i·ty, be·liev·a·ble·ness, noun

be·liev·a·ble, adjective

be·liev·a·bly, adverb

be·liev·er, noun

be·liev·ing·ly, adverb

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

 

It is possible to use the word belief without regards to religion, or even religious-like belief, especially if you are using the more common "to have confidence in" meaning.

[Ouroboros]

It is possible to use the word belief without regards to religion, or even religious-like belief, especially if you are using the more common "to have confidence in" meaning.

Thanks.

 

If anyone thinks that I tried to say that trusting a scientist is on equal footing as believing in invisible beings are mistaken, that's not what I meant. I think I'll leave this topic and maybe I'll come back to try to re-word what I said to make it less unclear.

 

I do give more credence and trust to scientists, but I do not claim that I personally can prove beyond reasonable doubt that string theory is true (and so far no one else can either, not even the scientists...).

[robbie]

How can you know that you can't know?

 

If you mean 'know' as in have absolute certainty, then, of course, you can't. But I see most agnostics who believe it impossible to know if there are any gods in much the same way as atheists. Atheists see little or no evidence to support the existence of gods, so reject the hypothesis that one exists...they're not saying they know gods don't exist, but rather that it is the best conclusion based on the evidence.

 

Agnostics that think it impossible to know the answer aren't saying they know it's impossible. Rather, it seems, they are saying they see no evidence to suggest humanity is able to come to a sufficiently conclusive answer on the subject.

 

All of us have been on some pretty serious personal journies when it comes to religion. Agnosticism may be the end result for some, and it may just be a part on the way to something else...but I don't think we should criticise anyone that has a label like agnostic. I, for one, think that, for the time being if nothing else, 'agnostic' is probably the best description of my understanding at this stage of my journey.

 

I know the OP and others weren't actually criticising all agnostics as such, but I will say that I make absolutely no apologies for calling myself agnostic and not regarding myself as an atheist. I have spent more than enough time as a Christian trying to force myself to be perfect tomorrow, drilling things into my head in a desperate attempt to believe them. Or, indeed, disbelieve them. I refuse to feel anything other than what I really do deep down, and compromise my personal and intellectual integrity.

[Dave]

I think part of the problem is that we've all been programmed to think of belief == belief in religion. But really, look at the meaning of the word:.....

 

 

It is possible to use the word belief without regards to religion, or even religious-like belief, especially if you are using the more common "to have confidence in" meaning.

That's what I've been trying to say; the word has many different meanings, some more subtle than others. Many try to equate a belief in a religion as the same kind of belief one would have in science. The two beliefs are based on entirely different usages of the word and they are not similar, or even close.

 

It is a common argument used to bring science down to the same belief, or faith, as religion is based on.

[Dave]

If anyone thinks that I tried to say that trusting a scientist is on equal footing as believing in invisible beings are mistaken, that's not what I meant. I think I'll leave this topic and maybe I'll come back to try to re-word what I said to make it less unclear.

Then I have misunderstood you. Sorry.

 

I do give more credence and trust to scientists, but I do not claim that I personally can prove beyond reasonable doubt that string theory is true (and so far no one else can either, not even the scientists...).

That's one of the great things about science; we can say we haven't figured out that part yet, we can say I don't know. Besides, it wouldn't be any fun to have all the answers.

[Dave]

How can you know that you can't know?

 

If you mean 'know' as in have absolute certainty, then, of course, you can't.

No, I do not mean it in that way.

 

But I see most agnostics who believe it impossible to know if there are any gods in much the same way as atheists.

How do they know that? What is the source of this knowledge? How can you know?

 

Atheists see little or no evidence to support the existence of gods, so reject the hypothesis that one exists...they're not saying they know gods don't exist, but rather that it is the best conclusion based on the evidence.

Right, in that definition Atheism is based on something instead of just; "you can't know."

 

Agnostics that think it impossible to know the answer aren't saying they know it's impossible. Rather, it seems, they are saying they see no evidence to suggest humanity is able to come to a sufficiently conclusive answer on the subject.

That's the problem; how do they know that one cannot know? I don't see any support for the position other than a belief based on faith.