Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[Beth]

That wasn't the comparison I cared about. Is belief in religion more or less reasonable that belief in "witchy powers"?

About the same I think.

ETA: Actually, I still didn't answer the right question. I think belief in witchy powers is about as reasonable as belief in supernatural gods. You asked about religion, not deities. I think belief in religion is more reasonable than belief in witchy powers, as religion has some well documented beneficial effects for people. Not all religions require belief in the supernatural.

Yes, I want terms that actually define positions, rather than terms that simply confuse people.

But how people "self-identify" is no help at all if the terms they use can't be adequately defined. If person A says "I'm a theist--I don't believe in the existence of any god" and person B says "I'm an agnostic--I believe in the divinity of Jesus" then someone is simply confused. I don't see what is wrong with saying that you, by your description, are an atheist who hopes for evidence of a deist or pantheist god.

It certainy fits with the definition of atheist that you are using. But by that definition, you have an awful lot of athiests filling the pews in churches around the world. You're basically saying that only category 1 on Dawkins scale is a theist, everyone else is an atheist.
Further, since I don't self-describe as atheist myself and am a member of Christian church, what is the point of putting me in the atheist group? It seems a poor fit to me.

 

[Rasmus]

You want to divide everyone into one of two complementary groups. If you're a member of one, you're not in the other.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but: YES!

And since nobody suggested that those two groups would be sufficient to fully describe the people in them, I see no problem with it.

There are only two kinds of people in the world. Germans, and Non-Germans.

It may sometimes be interesting or relevant to compare these two groups. But that doesn't suggest that each group by itself would be entirely homogeneous. They are not.

You can change your nationality. In some rare cases, you can have a double-nationality. Non-Germans in particular can have I think around 180+ different nationalities. Or none at all, in a few cases. Some might have nationalities that aren't recognized as such by some Government or other.

Still, every person on the face of the planets falls neatly into one of these two groups, whether they like it or not. They don't have to agree, they don't have to understand it, they don't need to even know about it. A baby born somewhere in Estonia will - in most cases - be a Non-German.

But no one can reliably determine what someone else believes regarding the existance of god. You have to depend on how people self-identify themselves. But not everyone knows into which group they ought belong. I don't. I have no firm conviction that any god exists. I kinda sorta lean towards deism or maybe pantheism or maybe....well, you get the picture. I think agnostic makes sense as the self-identification for those people who do not know which group they belong to.

The aforementioned baby will most certainly not know that it is a Non-German. I once met a little boy who was maybe three years old in Canada. He was decidedly Non-German. He had never heard of Germany, though. I don't know or recall if he understood the idea of different countries, but he didn't know Germany existed. So, in addition to "Non-German" he could have accurately be described as "ignorant".

If you do not know which group you belong to, you are ignorant, too. You lack information about a certain aspect of yourself. But that doesn't magically create a new position.

I am ignorant about my weight (other than that it's "too much".) Still there is a precise value n that corresponds to my exact weight. I don't have to like it, I don't need to know it, and I can hold my breath until I'm blue in the face: I do have a definite and precise weight.

 

[Apology]

You're still confusing knowledge with belief. Is there any instance where you could know there's a God, but still not believe in Him? I don't see how that's even logically possible.

It really is this simple: If you cannot say, "I believe in a God", then you are an atheist. You appear to be a weak atheist who doesn't want the label. That's fine if you want to change the labels, but you should understand why many people object.

It's not about recruitment to the cause (haha), but adhering to the definitions.

Maybe I want to use one of the many other definitions of atheism. Which definition have we all agreed to "adhere" to? I don't remember signing an agreement to "adhere" to any specific definition. How about we "adhere" to this one from dictionary.com that I posted earlier:

2. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I neither deny nor disbelieve in a supreme being or beings, I simply don't know. By this definition, I am categorically not an atheist. You cannot object to my use of the word agnostic until you have chosen one and only one definition of atheism and gotten everyone to agree to it. Doing so would be rather dogmatic of you, don't you think? Who are you to say that Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com are wrong?

It seems you have "accepted" and "agreed" and "adhered to" a dogma. This dogma includes that I am an atheist. However, I do not accept, agree to, or adhere to the dogma, and yet I'm presumptively and by default supposed to be an atheist. I disagree with your agreements and reject atheism. I'm not an atheist and I don't have to accept your dogma that attempts to qualify away agnosticism by converting agnostics to presumptive atheists via changes in dictionary definitions. Even if you change the definition of atheism to fully incorporate agnosticism, I'm still going to use the word agnostic because that way, I still don't have to accept presumptive atheism or atheist babies or any other such nonsense that you've all "agreed" upon.

I am not "confusing" knowledge with belief. I am saying that without knowledge, I cannot make a decision either in favor of or against belief. You are saying "Since you will not decide, you are an atheist because you haven't formed a belief system." I'm saying "Stop rushing me, I'm not going to make a leap of faith or a leap based on a lack of faith because I don't have enough information to decide yet." I suggest that you are the one who is confused. You chose to lack belief without any additional knowledge other than that which is already available. I find that choice unacceptable for myself. I am entitled to withhold my judgment until such time as more knowledge is available.

As for your question, "Is there any instance where you could know there's a God, but still not believe in Him?" for myself, no, if I knew there was a God I could not fail to believe in God. However, I think there are plenty of other people who could pull this off. Beliefs are totally irrational and illogical and rarely based on facts. That's why I try to not form beliefs without knowledge. I also reject all groups that attempt to presumptively recruit me as a member in spite of the available real evidence: my statement "I am not an atheist" is an example of such evidence.

 

[Apology]

Actually your question is a really fascinating one. Imagine God suddenly appeared before all of us. Everyone knows it's there.How could one not believe in that instance? Well, I imagine there's a few ways:

1. "I don't see anything."
2. "Yeah, I see it, but there's no proof that it's a God."
3. "You haven't shown it's Jesus/Krishna/Allah/Vishnu/Yaweh/omnipotent yet so I don't believe that's God."

I think one of the major mistakes that all people make, including myself, is expecting beliefs to be rational. That's why atheism takes such pains to avoid saying "I don't believe in God."

 

[Btodd]

Maybe I want to use one of the many other definitions of atheism. Which definition have we all agreed to "adhere" to? I don't remember signing an agreement to "adhere" to any specific definition. How about we "adhere" to this one from dictionary.com that I posted earlier:

2. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I neither deny nor disbelieve in a supreme being or beings, I simply don't know. By this definition, I am categorically not an atheist. You cannot object to my use of the word agnostic until you have chosen one and only one definition of atheism and gotten everyone to agree to it. Doing so would be rather dogmatic of you, don't you think? Who are you to say that Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com are wrong?

I bolded your most important sentence, which clearly shows that you again confuse knowledge with belief. Your sentence is a non-sequitur. You start talking about belief, and then equate it with knowledge.

It seems you have "accepted" and "agreed" and "adhered to" a dogma. This dogma includes that I am an atheist. However, I do not accept, agree to, or adhere to the dogma, and yet I'm presumptively and by default supposed to be an atheist. I disagree with your agreements and reject atheism. I'm not an atheist and I don't have to accept your dogma that attempts to qualify away agnosticism by converting agnostics to presumptive atheists via changes in dictionary definitions. Even if you change the definition of atheism to fully incorporate agnosticism, I'm still going to use the word agnostic because that way, I still don't have to accept presumptive atheism or atheist babies or any other such nonsense that you've all "agreed" upon.

I made these same arguments many months ago (not on this forum). Like you, I didn't want people telling me what I am or what I believe. I wanted to be free of a label that people can use to wrap up my beliefs in a tidy little package. I wanted to avoid the 'dogmatism' you speak of.

Unfortunately, I was changing the meaning of definitions to do so, as you are doing now. Being described as 'atheist' doesn't mean you have definitively decided 'there is no God'. It means that as of present time, you don't see enough to believe in one. If that is the case, you are an atheist. It doesn't matter if you resent it or not.

I am not "confusing" knowledge with belief. I am saying that without knowledge, I cannot make a decision either in favor of or against belief.

Knowledge and belief are two different things. You keep making statements that regard knowledge as necessary for belief. If it is knowledge, belief isn't required. Until you have knowledge, you have a belief. No amount of semantical games will change this.

You are saying "Since you will not decide, you are an atheist because you haven't formed a belief system." I'm saying "Stop rushing me, I'm not going to make a leap of faith or a leap based on a lack of faith because I don't have enough information to decide yet."

Again, if you lack belief in God, you are an atheist. It has nothing to do with knowledge. There is no 'leap' in disbelieving something. Did you make a 'leap' in disbelieving 9/11 Conspiracies, or did you evaluate the evidence and simply end up not believing?

I suggest that you are the one who is confused. You chose to lack belief without any additional knowledge other than that which is already available. I find that choice unacceptable for myself. I am entitled to withhold my judgment until such time as more knowledge is available.

Wait a second.....I CHOSE to lack a belief? Are you serious? Do you think I can actually CHOOSE to believe or not? I wholeheartedly disagree with that idea, and ironically, it is a main point used by Christian apologists, that I'm willfully denying God. You don't choose what you believe.

As for your question, "Is there any instance where you could know there's a God, but still not believe in Him?" for myself, no, if I knew there was a God I could not fail to believe in God.

Thank you for admitting my point. If that is true, then there is no point in calling yourself an agnostic to the exclusion of atheism.

However, I think there are plenty of other people who could pull this off. Beliefs are totally irrational and illogical and rarely based on facts. That's why I try to not form beliefs without knowledge. I also reject all groups that attempt to presumptively recruit me as a member in spite of the available real evidence: my statement "I am not an atheist" is an example of such evidence.

As you said, to pull such a thing off would be irrational, but it is precisely the thing you are arguing for. And I agree...it is irrational.

Please stop assuming this is a recruitment. I used to feel that way when I refused to adhere to the definitions. If you want to change the definitions of words to avoid a perceived dogmatism, then that is your right.

It's also my right to correct you.

 

[Beth]

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but: YES!

And since nobody suggested that those two groups would be sufficient to fully describe the people in them, I see no problem with it.

There are only two kinds of people in the world. Germans, and Non-Germans.

It may sometimes be interesting or relevant to compare these two groups. But that doesn't suggest that each group by itself would be entirely homogeneous. They are not.

You can change your nationality. In some rare cases, you can have a double-nationality. Non-Germans in particular can have I think around 180+ different nationalities. Or none at all, in a few cases. Some might have nationalities that aren't recognized as such by some Government or other.

Still, every person on the face of the planets falls neatly into one of these two groups, whether they like it or not. They don't have to agree, they don't have to understand it, they don't need to even know about it. A baby born somewhere in Estonia will - in most cases - be a Non-German.




The aforementioned baby will most certainly not know that it is a Non-German. I once met a little boy who was maybe three years old in Canada. He was decidedly Non-German. He had never heard of Germany, though. I don't know or recall if he understood the idea of different countries, but he didn't know Germany existed. So, in addition to "Non-German" he could have accurately be described as "ignorant".

If you do not know which group you belong to, you are ignorant, too. You lack information about a certain aspect of yourself. But that doesn't magically create a new position.

I am ignorant about my weight (other than that it's "too much".) Still there is a precise value n that corresponds to my exact weight. I don't have to like it, I don't need to know it, and I can hold my breath until I'm blue in the face: I do have a definite and precise weight.

Sure you do. But you don't know exactly what it is. You only know it to the precision of the last scale you stepped on and it might have changed since then. There is always going to be a fuzzy area about your precise weight.

Am I a german or a non-german? My mother's family is almost complete composed of descendants of german immigrants to America. I can identify villages in Germany my great-grandparents came from. But I was born and raised in the U.S. So, am I german or non-german? Depends how you define the word 'german', which you no doubt thought had a very clear definition when you brought it up.

That fuzzy area isn't an issue for most purpose you might need to know you own weight, nor is it terribly important for the german/non-german classification, but it is an issue on the question of atheism and agnosticism. You can call everybody who isn't a solid believer in some sort of god an atheist, but that just means it's not a particularly useful definition for most people. It isn't for me. So that's not what most people mean by theist, agnostic and atheist.

If you go back to Dawkins categories, I think I informally use the words as follows: categories 1-3 are theist, categories 2-6 are agnostic and categories 4-7 are atheist. With this scale, it makes sense to designate someone as purely agnostic rather than theist or atheist.

 

[Apology]

I made these same arguments many months ago (not on this forum). Like you, I didn't want people telling me what I am or what I believe. I wanted to be free of a label that people can use to wrap up my beliefs in a tidy little package. I wanted to avoid the 'dogmatism' you speak of.

Unfortunately, I was changing the meaning of definitions to do so, as you are doing now. Being described as 'atheist' doesn't mean you have definitively decided 'there is no God'. It means that as of present time, you don't see enough to believe in one. If that is the case, you are an atheist. It doesn't matter if you resent it or not.

What definition did I change? Every definition I've used has been pre-existing and none has been written by me. I'm merely reserving the right to withhold judgment before forming beliefs until I receive additional knowledge on the subject. Changing the definition of atheism so that weak atheism = agnosticism is a more significant redefinition than anything I've attempted to do.

Knowledge and belief are two different things. You keep making statements that regard knowledge as necessary for belief. If it is knowledge, belief isn't required. Until you have knowledge, you have a belief. No amount of semantical games will change this.

I am saying that I lack the knowledge that I need in order to believe or disbelieve. I'm not confused. I personally require knowledge in order to make that decision. My failure to make a decision is not the same as presumptive disbelief.

Again, if you lack belief in God, you are an atheist. It has nothing to do with knowledge. There is no 'leap' in disbelieving something. Did you make a 'leap' in disbelieving 9/11 Conspiracies, or did you evaluate the evidence and simply end up not believing?

Please show how disbelief does not require an intellectual leap without evidence. I'm fascinated to see how one can believe or not believe without making an intellectual leap, since knowledge isn't a requirement of belief.

Wait a second.....I CHOSE to lack a belief? Are you serious? Do you think I can actually CHOOSE to believe or not? I wholeheartedly disagree with that idea, and ironically, it is a main point used by Christian apologists, that I'm willfully denying God. You don't choose what you believe.

Yes, you evaluated the available evidence and chose to not believe it. I'm saying that you can choose what to believe, and by trying to subsume me into atheism, you are trying to deny me that right to choose. I examined the available evidence and chose to withhold judgment until further evidence is available.

Please stop assuming this is a recruitment. I used to feel that way when I refused to adhere to the definitions. If you want to change the definitions of words to avoid a perceived dogmatism, then that is your right.

It's also my right to correct you.

It's hard to see it any other way, since I'm being presumptively categorized. I haven't changed any definitions. You seem to feel that there are accepted, agreed-upon definitions of atheism that incorporate agnosticism to the point that agnosticism is non-existent. I have shown you that there is not an accepted, agreed upon definition by citing three different definitions from three different sources, one of which says atheism is "The belief that God does not exist." The whole "it's not a belief, it's a lack of belief" line of reasoning isn't supported by everyone. I think the fact that some people think that there is a standard, widely accepted definition of atheism is part of the problem. There simply isn't.

 

[Rasmus]

Sure you do. But you don't know exactly what it is. You only know it to the precision of the last scale you stepped on and it might have changed since then. There is always going to be a fuzzy area about your precise weight.

No! Just no.

My weight isn't fuzzy. At any given point of time, I have a precise and definite weight. Whether I know how much it happens to be has nothing to do with it.

Let us assume I would weigh 198.5 pounds.

Is that, or is that not my weight?

Of course it is! That was our assumption. Could anyone reasonably say it was NOT my weight? No, because they would be wrong.

Does it in any way matter if I or anyone else knows that the my weight is 198.5 pounds? No! That is my weight no matter what.

Am I a german or a non-german? My mother's family is almost complete composed of descendants of german immigrants to America. I can identify villages in Germany my great-grandparents came from. But I was born and raised in the U.S. So, am I german or non-german? Depends how you define the word 'german', which you no doubt thought had a very clear definition when you brought it up.

Yes: There are laws that define who is and isn't a German. I would have to look up these laws and probably know more details about your family.

That fuzzy area isn't an issue for most purpose you might need to know you own weight, nor is it terribly important for the german/non-german classification, but it is an issue on the question of atheism and agnosticism.

How so?

You are either an atheist, or a theist. You might not know which it is. So?

You can call everybody who isn't a solid believer in some sort of god an atheist, but that just means it's not a particularly useful definition for most people.

How is it not a useful definition?

Does it give a complete picture of the person? No, of course not. But why should it have to?

It isn't for me. So that's not what most people mean by theist, agnostic and atheist.

So.... because it is not a definition you like it follows that most other people don't use it?

If you go back to Dawkins categories, I think I informally use the words as follows: categories 1-3 are theist, categories 2-6 are agnostic and categories 4-7 are atheist. With this scale, it makes sense to designate someone as purely agnostic rather than theist or atheist.

No.

Just because there exists a scale doesn't necessarily useful to map it to three arbitrarily chosen terms.

ETA: Nobody argues agaisnt the existence of the scale, nobody says you have to know or be sure where you stand. But at the end of the day: You do belive in a god, or you don't. There is no possible middle ground.

 

[Yoink]

What definition did I change?

Apology, you didn't change a definition. You chose to cling to one which makes atheism an absurd position. You object to people saying that you are "really an atheist" but at the same time you are saying that I am "really an agnostic."

If I accept your definition of atheist as "someone who 'knows' that there are no gods" then "atheist" becomes a completely useless term to me. I'm sure there are people who make this claim, but I would argue that they are simply confused about the meaning of the word "know."

So, essentially, you agree with my position in the OP--you agree that there are not two distinct valid positions called "atheism" and "agnosticism." It just so happens that the term that you want to toss out of useful philosophical discussion is "atheism" (which, in your formulation, becomes as useful as "people who believe that God is a unicorn orbiting Saturn in a teapot"). As I've said countless times, that would be o.k. (it reduces the terminological confusion) except that "agnostic" seems (etymologically and by tradition) a less clear labeling of the difference between the two groups. "Theist" and "atheist" seems to me to give us nicely contrastive terminology.

But in any case, you do seem to agree (without realizing it) that it is impossible to define a non-absurd position that is "atheism" such that it clearly contrasts with a non-absurd (or non-meaningless) position that is "agnosticism." So as much as anyone else you're trying to recruit people to your "team." All that's left is the question of what label we apply to the team. Perhaps "believer" and "unbeliever" would get us away from the all the intense emotional investments people seem to have in what is merely a deliberate terminological unclarity.

 

[Btodd]

What definition did I change? Every definition I've used has been pre-existing and none has been written by me. I'm merely reserving the right to withhold judgment before forming beliefs until I receive additional knowledge on the subject. Changing the definition of atheism so that weak atheism = agnosticism is a more significant redefinition than anything I've attempted to do.

You are using the definition of strong atheism to encompass all of atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. It can get more specific, as in 'the belief that God does not exist', but at that point it is a more specific subset of atheism (strong atheism). You have it backwards.

By way of comparison, if you believe in God as a general idea, but don't believe in a specific God (like the Christian God), then it doesn't make you any less a theist. If you believe at all, you are a theist. If you cannot say that you believe, then you are an atheist.

I am saying that I lack the knowledge that I need in order to believe or disbelieve. I'm not confused. I personally require knowledge in order to make that decision. My failure to make a decision is not the same as presumptive disbelief.

You lack the knowledge in almost every aspect of life. Are you assuming you have complete knowledge of all other subjects in which you believe or disbelieve? Of course not. You're creating a different standard for the subject of God, because you wish to avoid being called an atheist or theist.

Please show how disbelief does not require an intellectual leap without evidence. I'm fascinated to see how one can believe or not believe without making an intellectual leap, since knowledge isn't a requirement of belief.

What 'leap' did you make to disbelieve in fairies? Is it based on knowledge?

And this brings up an interesting point: If something DOESN'T exist, what possible knowledge would you be waiting on? With God, I can always claim that 'you don't know yet'. Does that mean you should claim agnosticism regarding every mythological construct ever invented?

Yes, you evaluated the available evidence and chose to not believe it. I'm saying that you can choose what to believe, and by trying to subsume me into atheism, you are trying to deny me that right to choose. I examined the available evidence and chose to withhold judgment until further evidence is available.

Regarding your gender: If you are a man, you have been given a definition of the parts necessary for manhood. If you possess the proper genitalia, then you notice your parts, and that they fits the definition of a man. Thus, you are a man.

Now, did you CHOOSE to be a man, or did you simply notice that you are?

It's hard to see it any other way, since I'm being presumptively categorized. I haven't changed any definitions. You seem to feel that there are accepted, agreed-upon definitions of atheism that incorporate agnosticism to the point that agnosticism is non-existent. I have shown you that there is not an accepted, agreed upon definition by citing three different definitions from three different sources, one of which says atheism is "The belief that God does not exist." The whole "it's not a belief, it's a lack of belief" line of reasoning isn't supported by everyone. I think the fact that some people think that there is a standard, widely accepted definition of atheism is part of the problem. There simply isn't.

You are using the most specific tenet of atheism as the whole of atheism. It's the other way around. Atheism is broad, and includes weak atheism and strong atheism. You wish to present strong atheism as ALL of atheism.

I have also categorized you as a human. Whether you can find a single definition that allows you to exclude yourself from humanity in your own mind will NOT change the fact that you are human. You will have simply denied it, like you are doing with atheism.

For the record, I'm not trying to badger you into atheism. This isn't personal, and I appreciate the discussion.

 

[Yoink]

About the same I think.

ETA: Actually, I still didn't answer the right question. I think belief in witchy powers is about as reasonable as belief in supernatural gods. You asked about religion, not deities. I think belief in religion is more reasonable than belief in witchy powers, as religion has some well documented beneficial effects for people. Not all religions require belief in the supernatural.

Probably best to leave this discussion for another thread. I'll simply say that "beneficial effects for people" of religion has no probative value whatsoever as to the truth claims of the metaphysical underpinnings of the religion. I.e., belonging to a church and sharing a belief system can have psychologically beneficial effects even if there is no god.

It certainy fits with the definition of atheist that you are using. But by that definition, you have an awful lot of athiests filling the pews in churches around the world. You're basically saying that only category 1 on Dawkins scale is a theist, everyone else is an atheist.
Further, since I don't self-describe as atheist myself and am a member of Christian church, what is the point of putting me in the atheist group? It seems a poor fit to me.

Well, no--I don't think there are a lot of people in churches around the world who do not believe in their God. There are many who believe despite knowing that they do not have proof of God's existence--but that's a different matter.

Let me be clear: I'm saying that there are people who do not believe in the existence of god/gods. These people are atheists. There are people who do believe in the existence of god/gods. These people are theists. Of the theists, the vast majority say that they believe despite the lack of any supporting evidence (this is what they call "faith").

There is nothing in any reasonable definition of atheism that precludes people from hoping for, looking for, expecting to find some future evidence that will make them believers. There is nothing in any reasonable definition of atheism that precludes people from speculating that one day they might choose to believe in the absence of evidence. But I can't imagine a coherent description of a state that lies somewhere "between" belief and non-belief.

 

[Apology]

You are using the definition of strong atheism to encompass all of atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. It can get more specific, as in 'the belief that God does not exist', but at that point it is a more specific subset of atheism (strong atheism). You have it backwards.

Actually, dictionary.com chose the definition.

By way of comparison, if you believe in God as a general idea, but don't believe in a specific God (like the Christian God), then it doesn't make you any less a theist. If you believe at all, you are a theist. If you cannot say that you believe, then you are an atheist.

What if you have not chosen to believe or to disbelieve yet? What if you are unsure as to whether or not a non-specific God exists, but you're not sure enough of its non-existence to choose to disbelieve it? What if you are completely unaware of the controversy in its entirety?

You lack the knowledge in almost every aspect of life. Are you assuming you have complete knowledge of all other subjects in which you believe or disbelieve? Of course not. You're creating a different standard for the subject of God, because you wish to avoid being called an atheist or theist.

On other subjects, I have evidence with which to make a knowledgeable choice based on the preponderance of the evidence. I have no such evidence for or against the existence of God.

What 'leap' did you make to disbelieve in fairies? Is it based on knowledge?

It is based on preponderance of the evidence. Fairies are supposed to co-exist on earth with us. No one has ever found evidence such as bones or fairy-droppings to show that they are here on earth, ergo I feel safe in making the intellectual leap to simply believe that they don't exist.

And this brings up an interesting point: If something DOESN'T exist, what possible knowledge would you be waiting on? With God, I can always claim that 'you don't know yet'. Does that mean you should claim agnosticism regarding every mythological construct ever invented?

I don't posit that God doesn't exist. If someone thinks that they can prove that God does exist I will certainly examine their evidence at that time and choose to believe or disbelieve it. I don't have a problem with eternally claiming that we just don't know if no one ever produces such evidence. To claim that such evidence doesn't, or cannot exist, we're assuming knowledge that we don't have (God does not exist, so there will never be evidence). We don't have to consider every mythological construct ever invented because some of them are more clearly and demonstrably false than others. For instance, someone's been up to the top of Mount Olympus. Unfortunately Valhalla wasn't there.

Regarding your gender: If you are a man, you have been given a definition of the parts necessary for manhood. If you possess the proper genitalia, then you notice your parts, and that they fits the definition of a man. Thus, you are a man.

Now, did you CHOOSE to be a man, or did you simply notice that you are?

If I am a man, I have a Y chromosome. If I am a theist, I don't have a "T" chromosome (for theist). If I'm an atheist, I don't have an AT chromosome, and as an agnostic, I don't have an AG chromosome.

You are using the most specific tenet of atheism as the whole of atheism. It's the other way around. Atheism is broad, and includes weak atheism and strong atheism. You wish to present strong atheism as ALL of atheism.

The tenet was created by atheism and repeated in a common, non-biased dictionary. The fact that atheism now wants to distance itself from that claim by redefining itself does not change my definition of agnosticism, which is separate from atheism.

I have also categorized you as a human. Whether you can find a single definition that allows you to exclude yourself from humanity in your own mind will NOT change the fact that you are human. You will have simply denied it, like you are doing with atheism.

For the record, I'm not trying to badger you into atheism. This isn't personal, and I appreciate the discussion.

Humanity is indeed a presumptive category, and fairly so. I'm not trying to change the definition of agnosticism or atheism. Atheism is attempting to change the definition of atheism in order to distance itself from previous claims. I wouldn't mind a bit if this didn't involve insisting that agnostics are atheists because atheists have changed their mind about the tenets of atheism.

 

[bignickel]

I don't have a problem with that. Michael Shermer can call himself whatever he likes. Agnosticism is open to anyone who has a conviction that they don't know if God exists or not.

No.

Agnosticism is a position on evidence, not on belief. It posits that there is no way of knowing if there is a god; no evidence can show god/s, because we are not capable of correctly interpreting evidence of a being outside the universe. Perhaps another being outside the universe could interpret such evidence correctly, but that ain't us.

 

[Apology]

No.

Agnosticism is a position on evidence, not on belief. It posits that there is no way of knowing if there is a god; no evidence can show god/s, because we are not capable of correctly interpreting evidence of a being outside the universe. Perhaps another being outside the universe could interpret such evidence correctly, but that ain't us.

I think you skipped a few pages of this thread.

 

[Btodd]

Actually, dictionary.com chose the definition.

http://atheism.about.com/od/definit...ctionaries_Atheists_Others_Define_Atheism.htm

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38269/atheism

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.com/definition/atheism

As you should see, you are cherry-picking a definition of strong atheism as representative of ALL of atheism. Please read those definitions.

What if you have not chosen to believe or to disbelieve yet? What if you are unsure as to whether or not a non-specific God exists, but you're not sure enough of its non-existence to choose to disbelieve it? What if you are completely unaware of the controversy in its entirety?

You cannot choose to believe or disbelieve. If you do not yet believe, then you LACK belief. You cannot excuse yourself from the only options available, you can only try to confuse knowledge with belief.

On other subjects, I have evidence with which to make a knowledgeable choice based on the preponderance of the evidence. I have no such evidence for or against the existence of God.

It is based on preponderance of the evidence. Fairies are supposed to co-exist on earth with us. No one has ever found evidence such as bones or fairy-droppings to show that they are here on earth, ergo I feel safe in making the intellectual leap to simply believe that they don't exist.

You've apparently heard the wrong definition of fairies. Like God, the word fairy is used to describe that which we do not fully understand, so you could have simply rejected a faulty description in the first place, and not what fairies REALLY are. Do you see my point? I can always re-define and broaden the definition of fairies, and claim you are rejecting a strawman. I consider fairies to be spirits. As such, how will you disprove them? On what knowledge will you do such? It appears that by my definition, you are now agnostic regarding fairies.

I don't posit that God doesn't exist. If someone thinks that they can prove that God does exist I will certainly examine their evidence at that time and choose to believe or disbelieve it. I don't have a problem with eternally claiming that we just don't know if no one ever produces such evidence. To claim that such evidence doesn't, or cannot exist, we're assuming knowledge that we don't have (God does not exist, so there will never be evidence). We don't have to consider every mythological construct ever invented because some of them are more clearly and demonstrably false than others. For instance, someone's been up to the top of Mount Olympus. Unfortunately Valhalla wasn't there.

The point was that you cannot disprove a negative. If God, being a supernatural idea beyond natural detection, doesn't exist, what knowledge will you use to base your belief on? If He isn't there, nothing is to be found. It won't change the fact that in the meantime, you lack belief in Him.

If I am a man, I have a Y chromosome. If I am a theist, I don't have a "T" chromosome (for theist). If I'm an atheist, I don't have an AT chromosome, and as an agnostic, I don't have an AG chromosome.

This doesn't make sense. I showed you how you didn't choose to believe in your own gender, so your notion of choosing to believe things is hard to understand. Did you choose to believe you're a man, or did you simply notice that you are?

The tenet was created by atheism and repeated in a common, non-biased dictionary. The fact that atheism now wants to distance itself from that claim by redefining itself does not change my definition of agnosticism, which is separate from atheism.

You're ignoring all of the other definitions in order to focus on the most limited one that makes your case. Using the most specific definition of atheism does not refute the broader one that it is a part of, as the links I posted above will show you.

Humanity is indeed a presumptive category, and fairly so. I'm not trying to change the definition of agnosticism or atheism. Atheism is attempting to change the definition of atheism in order to distance itself from previous claims. I wouldn't mind a bit if this didn't involve insisting that agnostics are atheists because atheists have changed their mind about the tenets of atheism.

What you are doing, as I've stated, is confusing knowledge with belief, and applying agnosticism incorrectly. You do not want to be called an atheist, and are going to great lengths to avoid the obvious.

Being an atheist does not mean you aren't open to evidence for God, or that you don't want to believe in Him. It means you don't yet see a reason to.

 

[qwert]

What is wrong with the following definitions:
Atheist: Once who believes "there is no god"
Agnostic: One who does not believe "There is a god".
Theist: One who believes: There is a god.

This seems to do the following:
1) Agree with Apology's claim that he is an agnostic
2) Provide a useful distinction between the terms "Atheist" and "Agnostic", and a far better distinction than the clumsy "weak atheist" vs "strong atheist".
3) More closely resembles how the terms are used in society.

It does redefine the epistemological definition of agnostic somewhat ("one who believes the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable"), but that definition is fairly far from common usage anyways...

 

[Apology]

http://atheism.about.com/od/definit...ctionaries_Atheists_Others_Define_Atheism.htm

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38269/atheism

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.com/definition/atheism

As you should see, you are cherry-picking a definition of strong atheism as representative of ALL of atheism. Please read those definitions.



You cannot choose to believe or disbelieve. If you do not yet believe, then you LACK belief. You cannot excuse yourself from the only options available, you can only try to confuse knowledge with belief.



You've apparently heard the wrong definition of fairies. Like God, the word fairy is used to describe that which we do not fully understand, so you could have simply rejected a faulty description in the first place, and not what fairies REALLY are. Do you see my point? I can always re-define and broaden the definition of fairies, and claim you are rejecting a strawman. I consider fairies to be spirits. As such, how will you disprove them? On what knowledge will you do such? It appears that by my definition, you are now agnostic regarding fairies.



The point was that you cannot disprove a negative. If God, being a supernatural idea beyond natural detection, doesn't exist, what knowledge will you use to base your belief on? If He isn't there, nothing is to be found. It won't change the fact that in the meantime, you lack belief in Him.



This doesn't make sense. I showed you how you didn't choose to believe in your own gender, so your notion of choosing to believe things is hard to understand. Did you choose to believe you're a man, or did you simply notice that you are?



You're ignoring all of the other definitions in order to focus on the most limited one that makes your case. Using the most specific definition of atheism does not refute the broader one that it is a part of, as the links I posted above will show you.



What you are doing, as I've stated, is confusing knowledge with belief, and applying agnosticism incorrectly. You do not want to be called an atheist, and are going to great lengths to avoid the obvious.

Being an atheist does not mean you aren't open to evidence for God, or that you don't want to believe in Him. It means you don't yet see a reason to.

I have to go deal with a dead turkey right now, but I will get back to you on this. We simply disagree on a number of points. I'll explain them later. I'm willing to let you disagree with me without attempting to recategorize you, but not until after the turkey.

 

[slingblade]

Wait a second.....I CHOSE to lack a belief? Are you serious? Do you think I can actually CHOOSE to believe or not? I wholeheartedly disagree with that idea, and ironically, it is a main point used by Christian apologists, that I'm willfully denying God. You don't choose what you believe.

Yes, I did. I used to believe in god, took a long, hard look at it all, decided I had both fooled myself and had been fooled, and stopped believing. I chose not to believe.

Why can't one do that?

I used to believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. I don't believe in them anymore. In fact, I'd say I know they don't exist. They're fantasies. I feel the same about gods, but 20 years ago, I'd have told you the Christian God was absolutely real, and I knew that, too.

Maybe you don't choose what you believe and what you don't. I do choose, and have, more than once.

EDIT:

Wait a second. You said:

The point was that you cannot disprove a negative. If God, being a supernatural idea beyond natural detection, doesn't exist, what knowledge will you use to base your belief on? If He isn't there, nothing is to be found. It won't change the fact that in the meantime, you lack belief in Him.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! "Disprove a negative?" Don't you mean you can't prove a negative? Isn't disproving a negative just proving a positive?

If God is a supernatural idea beyond natural detection, then....it doesn't interact with our reality and as such, has no reality that we'd find meaningful. I'd even say it can't interact with our reality, and so is not the standard idea of god. Every religion that postulates a god, postulates interaction. Whatever idea of god you're trying to prove here, it isn't the one that matters to the religious.

I don't need proof that god doesn't exist. That's the default. I need proof that it does exist.

 

[qwert]

I think you skipped a few pages of this thread.

Possibly, but it looks like bignickel is providing an accurate philosophical description of what the term "agnostic" means.

I think most of the problem is in confusing the popular and philosophical definitions of these terms.

In the general public, the terms mean something like:
Atheist: One who believes god does not exist
Agnostic: One who does not believe god exists
Theist: One who believes god exists

These also seem to be similar to the terms used by the OP...which is probably resulting in most of the confusion in this thread. The issue I have with the OP is they are described in terms of knowledge, not belief. I don't think this is the popular definition.

By the above, atheism differs from agnosticism in that one is actively disbelieving in the existence of god. The other is reserving judgement.

In philosophy (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), it seems to be:
A) Strong atheist: One who believes god does not exist
B) Weak athesist: One who does not believe god exists
C) Strong agnostic: One who believes that knowledge of god is unknowable
D) Weak agnostic: One who believes they do not know whether god exists
E) Theist: One who believes god exists

IMHO, the following relationships apply
A and B are incompatible with E
C is compatible with any
D is compatible with any
C implies D
A implies B

Under this schema, Apology would be at least (D), and does not want to be labelled as (B)

Using these definitions, the answer to the OP is obvious. Atheism is significantly different that agnosticism. Atheism is belief (or lack thereof) regarding god. Agnosticism is a belief regarding knowledge.

So to answer the OP, I can't find a reasonable definition of these where atheism is NOT different that agnosticism....

 

[qwert]

Yes, I did. I used to believe in god, took a long, hard look at it all, decided I had both fooled myself and had been fooled, and stopped believing. I chose not to believe.

Why can't one do that?

I used to believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. I don't believe in them anymore. In fact, I'd say I know they don't exist. They're fantasies. I feel the same about gods, but 20 years ago, I'd have told you the Christian God was absolutely real, and I knew that, too.

Maybe you don't choose what you believe and what you don't. I do choose, and have, more than once.

That really depends on you definition of "choice". I think a better description would be: "I chose to examine the evidence critically, and as a RESULT of that examination, I was no longer able to believe".

Having "chosen" something implies that you could have chosen differently. Are you saying you could have taken a look at it all, then chosen NOT to believe?

Alternately, could you now choose to believe again?