Atheist v. Agnostic: Friend or Foe?

[zaphod2016]

I consider myself "agnostic", and agree 100% with Richard Dawkins when he explains that agnosticism is the only rational position in terms of super-natural belief.

Even so, "atheist" seems to be the preferred term among self-described non-believers.

As Dawkins explains, there is a difference, however, he argues it is a semantic and irrelevant difference.

Do you agree?

I would argue it is "Relevant, but not terribly important".

You may wonder: why do you prefer the term "agnostic"?

The reason is simple: when debating the issue with intelligent religious people, they are quick to tell me that "no one knows for sure, it is a matter of faith". I find I can get these people to agree with me that they are "agnostic"- however, they remain bitterly opposed to the phrase "atheist".

If the goal is to increase our "market share", I think "agnostic" is the better term. Clearly, I am in the minority. Just curious to know why that is, or if there is a reason at all.

 

[The Atheist]

As Dawkins explains, there is a difference, however, he argues it is a semantic and irrelevant difference.

He's right it is.

Agnostics, by their very nature, do not believe in god and are therefore a subset of atheism anyway.

Just a wimpy, cop-out, fence-sitting, kind of atheist.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Just a wimpy, cop-out, fence-sitting, kind of atheist.

QFT!

 

[Dunstan]

I think the definitions are so hopelessly muddled right now, with substantial numbers of people claiming that "their" definition is correct, that in a sense the distinction doesn't matter. No matter what you call yourself, you're going to need to explain which definition you're using anyway.

Personally, I go with "atheist," because that conveys the simple message that I don't believe in a god. I think "agnostic" gives some people the incorrect idea that I'm really on the fence about it.

If people are really curious about my level of certainty in that non-belief, or toss the usual "but you can't know that with absolute certainty" comes my way, I'll explain that I don't know anything with absolute certainty, but I don't see why only the word "atheist" should imply absolute 100% certainty. (When theists admit to occasional doubts about their faith, should we jump on them and exclaim "aha! You're actually agnostic, because you're not 100% positive there's a god!"?)

But I've pretty much lost interest in trying to tell self-described "agnostics" or "agnostic atheists" what terms they should use. (Except that "bright" makes me want to hurl....)

 

[The Atheist]

(Except that "bright" makes me want to hurl....)

Classic fail! How could anyone think that was going to catch on with anyone other than scarf-wearing undergraduates at Cambridge?

 

[ShowerComic]

I think the definitions are so hopelessly muddled right now, with substantial numbers of people claiming that "their" definition is correct, that in a sense the distinction doesn't matter. No matter what you call yourself, you're going to need to explain which definition you're using anyway.

I agree with the above statement. Without getting into the subtle difference between strong and weak atheism, (defined ad infinitum on the old alt.atheism usenet group) or what it means to "believe in god." Going by proper and exact definitions, atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. One can hold that they do not believe in the existance of god, while strictly speaking do not know if god exists or not.

I find that position quite comfortable blending with a personal idea of atheistic deism. I don't believe in the personal god(s) of the major religions (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Pastafarian, Scientology ....) strictly speaking I can't say that a deistic god of some sort is not responsible for the creation of this universe. Any such deity would be outside the realm of evidence, and experimentation. Finally for all intesive purposes I live my life not viewing any religious book as 'holy' and beyond skeptical review.

 

[Ratiocination]

Agnostic/gnostic and atheist/theist answer two different questions. Atheist/theist answers "What do you believe?" Agnostic/gnostic answers "What do you know?"

I am an atheist and an agnostic.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I consider agnosticism to be an epistemology rather than a via media between theism and atheism or subset of atheism. Particularly in the latter case, concerning agnosticism as a subset of atheism, I would argue that the existence of agnostic theists refutes that notion as it possible to assert that the existence of metaphysical deities is unknowable (in terms of certainty) yet continue genuinely believing in one or more for any number of reasons. The same with atheism; it is possible to assert that the existence of metaphysical entities is unknowable yet do not believe in them for any number of reasons. By referring to agnosticism as a via media I believe we cause unwarranted confusion. I also believe it's important to differentiate between atheists and apatheists, or individuals who simply don't care about the problems of whether or not there is a god.

I recently read Vox Day's book The Irrational Atheist; in it he claims that atheists are four times more likely to commit a crime than theists. Now he does this by grouping every inmate who checks "no religion" when asked and inflating their population to match that of the normal population; he also groups atheists as high church and low church atheists; high church being the intellectual elite and low church being the scum. I believe he's confusing high church with atheists in general and low church with apatheists who aren't atheists nor theists.

The point of this rant was to bring my opinion that clearly defining these terms is important; and I'll stop myself here before I end up writing a dissertation on the issue.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Agnostic/gnostic and atheist/theist answer two different questions. Atheist/theist answers "What do you believe?" Agnostic/gnostic answers "What do you know?"

I am an atheist and an agnostic.

Or rather: "Do you have belief or not" and "Can you know of the existence of a diety or not"

In these discussions I always enjoy when someone brings up that other word...ignostic. We really don't have the means to frame a serious question about whether or not there is a deity that can or cannot be known...even ruling out the usual suspects still leaves many unforeseen potentials.

Science may(emphasize may) reveal the large scale structure of the universe to be some kind of "God" beyond our complete grasp. Some would argue that this type of god is meaningless and trivial because it isn't "supernatural", or that it is just simply powerless and thus irrelevant. I might disagree however. Denoting meaning is what is irrelevant as far as I can tell.

In reference to the OP, I have to agree. When in the company of preachy religious types I tend to take the path of least resistance and go with a simplified version of "agnostic".

 

[zaphod2016]

He's right it is.
Agnostics [are] a subset of atheism anyway.

Disagree. As Kthulhut Fhtagn said:

I would argue that the existence of agnostic theists refutes that notion as it possible to assert that the existence of metaphysical deities is unknowable (in terms of certainty) yet continue genuinely believing in one or more for any number of reasons

I think the best definition I have seen so far was Ratiocination's:

Agnostic/gnostic and atheist/theist answer two different questions. Atheist/theist answers "What do you believe?" Agnostic/gnostic answers "What do you know?"

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Exactly Zaphod; it isn't irrational to assert that an individual can be an agnostic theist the statement made essentially boils down to "I'm certain the existance or nonexistance of metaphysical entities cannot be proven true or false but I believe metaphysical entities do exist" the same as a gnostic atheist can state "I'm certain that the existance or nonexistance of metaphysical entities can be proven to be true or false and I believe metaphysical entities do not exist".

 

[Steelmage]

If people are really curious about my level of certainty in that non-belief, or toss the usual "but you can't know that with absolute certainty" comes my way, I'll explain that I don't know anything with absolute certainty, but I don't see why only the word "atheist" should imply absolute 100% certainty.

But isn't agnostic a form of Pascal's Wager, you do not know 100% certainty so it is better to believe there is something there then not?

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

But isn't agnostic a form of Pascal's Wager, you do not know 100% certainty so it is better to believe there is something there then not?

Uncertainty on the existance of gods is a poor reason for acting contrary to atheism and assuming that gods do exist.

 

[Roadtoad]

The fallacy is that 100% certainty is even possible. The only thing which we can be 100% certain of is that at some point, we'll be dead.

 

[Tricky]

The fallacy is that 100% certainty is even possible. The only thing which we can be 100% certain of is that at some point, we'll be dead.

I would even mark that as only approaching 100%. The only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure.

As for the question, none of the poll answers fit. I am technically an agnostic atheist. I don't know with 100% certainty whether or not there is a god, and I also lack belief in a god.

 

[KingMerv00]

"Agnostic" and "atheist" both carry unwanted baggage for me. I just say I'm an agnostic atheist and explain if needed.

 

[Roadtoad]

"Agnostic" and "atheist" both carry unwanted baggage for me. I just say I'm an agnostic atheist and explain if needed.

I think it's damned arrogant for anyone to demand an explanation from you in the first place. You don't believe? Probably there's a reason for it, Merv. Before anyone demands you explain yourself, it would seem to me that your interrogator show they have any right to ask.

 

[bobcarp]

Agnostics are the "Luke-Warm Christians" of the Atheist community.

If "Agnosticism" is the only rational position in terms of super-natural belief, then should I be "Agnostic" in terms of astrology or mediums or psychics or good luck charms, etc? Should the rational position of anything that can't be proved or disproved be "agnostic"? If that's the case it is not rational to believe that anything is untrue.

 

[KingMerv00]

I think it's damned arrogant for anyone to demand an explanation from you in the first place. You don't believe? Probably there's a reason for it, Merv. Before anyone demands you explain yourself, it would seem to me that your interrogator show they have any right to ask.

Wow, intense response. You must have a lot of angry conversations involving religion.

I tell others I am "agnostic atheist" because it is true AND because it is a good opportunity to educate the ignorant. The vast majority of people I talk to seem to have no idea such a philosophical stance exists and get a look on their faces. I'm more than happy to spend 60 seconds explaining. If it takes longer, that's fine too.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I'm an agnostic. I know that "atheist" does not describe me and my system of belief. Or rather, does not describe my particular lack of a system of belief.

It's a philosophical difference but a not too important one.

As it happens, I would say I'm agnostic on astrology, psychic powers, etc. That's what being a skeptic is all about.

Carl Sagan had a very nice quote about how skepticism always involves keeping an open mind and never saying "this does not exist" and rather always holding open the possibility of it.

Sadly, I can't find it now.