One should be an Atheist Rather Than an Agnostic.

It will be fun to take a little break from my current debate (which has continued in the comments section, thankfully - it's an important issue to me and I like fighting for it). ==ATHEISM & AGNOSTICISM== My opponent has provided some basic definitions of both atheism and agnosticism. There is nothing wrong with said definitions, but I would like to expand them. Breaking down the word "agnostic" into two parts, you are left with "A", meaning "without", and "gnostic", meaning "knowledge". Therefore, "without knowledge". It is usually used to describe "without knowledge of gods", although, rarely, can be used to describe the absence of knowledge about other things. (Example: "I am agnostic about whether abortion is right or wrong. ") >>The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. << -Gordon Stein, "The Meaning of Atheism and Agnosticism". Agnosticism is *not* just the sitting-stage between athiesm and theism. It is, as my opponent stated, a matter of knowledge concerning god/gods and not a matter of belief in god/gods. It is not correct to assume that an agnostic is someone who is undecided on the matter of god. It is not a third way - it is congenial with atheism and theism. Besides being epistemological, agnosticism can also be considered a moral principle: If there is a lack of adequate knowledge on the existence of an "ultimate reality", then it is ethical not to declare whether its existence or lack thereof is indubitable. ==COUNTER ARGUMENTS== That being said, I'd like to look at some of the statements made by my opponent. >>"Agnostics believe that absolute knowledge about God is impossible unless we had absolute knowledge of the universe. And this is true - but also pointless to state. Because ANYTHING that is not a posteriori can not be known with 100% certainty unless one has absolute knowledge of the universe. "<< Perhaps you see no point in it, but I would argue otherwise. Recognizing the absence of absolute knowledge is recognizing humanity's flaws and the depth of the universe. Just because I believe there are aspects that cannot be understood concerning god does not mean that I am content with never pursuing that knowledge. My belief only enforces my curiosity. Until absolute knowledge exists (assuming that it could exist), there is a point to agnosticism. >>God's epistemological position should be no different from any other thing out there, which is why Agnosticism shouldn't be heralded as a separate position. If this were valid, then we would have a million more things to be "agnostic" about. God's epistemological position should be no different from any other thing out there, which is why Agnosticism shouldn't be heralded as a separate position. If this were valid, then we would have a million more things to be "agnostic" about. << Agnosticism is not heralded as a separate position. Granted, it has its distinctions, but it is compatible with both theism and atheism. One could be a theistic agnostic, believing there is a deity but is aware they lack the knowledge to be certain. Atheistic agnostics believe there is no deity but are aware that they lack the knowledge to be certain. Those two forms are known as "weak agnosticism" (which is not to say that those beliefs are bad). "Strong agnosticism" is the belief that no knowledge concerning a deity is possible. Also, you would be technically correct in stating that you can be agnostic about many things, but this is irrelevant. The topic of this debate is atheism versus agnosticism, and I am assuming that what you meant by agnostic was concerning the existence of god. ==CLOSING STATEMENT== In conclusion, my opponent has not really made any statements that support his claims suggesting that agnosticism is sophistic. The decision of whether to choose a form of agnosticism or atheism depends on individual perception. It cannot be merely "wrong" or merely "right". There IS a case for recognizing the extent of our knowledge. This is what has driven the growth of human knowledge - when you recognize your limits, only then can you begin to push them. Respecting what is not yet known is anything BUT pointless. Whether you are theist, atheist, or agnostic, you can agree that there is reason to respect what isn't known. Christians often say that "God works in mysterious ways". Is that not recognizing and respecting the unknown? Science looks to the future, seeks to understand what isn't yet understood. If scientists decided that there was nothing left to explore, then would there even be a point to science? Agnosticism isn't arbitrary. It is based on our limits as humans - something that history, art, science, and other fields have always valued. I again thank my opponent and look forward to his response. =)