Atheist v. Agnostic: Friend or Foe?

[The Atheist]

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.

Yeah! Stamp out the fence-sitters.

 

[arthwollipot]

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

This is the commonly-accepted definition, so I'm not going to say that it's wrong. But if we consider the technical definition of the word "agnostic" it will be clear that it's hardly weak, wishy-washy, or fence-sitting.

Agnostic is the opposite of gnostic, just like atheist is the opposite of theist. Gnosticism is the belief that the deity can be directly experienced. Agnosticism is the belief that it cannot.

This means that according to agnosticism, the existence of God can never be demonstrated. It is, in a way, the strongest possible expression of non-theism.

This is certainly not a commonly-understood position though, and I wouldn't base an argument on it without first carefully defining the terms.

 

[The Atheist]

... and I wouldn't base an argument on it without first carefully defining the terms.

Lucky I'm in the thread then.

 

[arthwollipot]

 

[Dave Rogers]

I voted that the difference between "atheist" and "agnostic" is a very big deal. However, that merely reflects the fact that I'm a pedant, so the difference between anything and anything else is always a very big deal.

Dave

 

[The Atheist]

I voted that the difference between "atheist" and "agnostic" is a very big deal. However, that merely reflects the fact that I'm a pedant, so the difference between anything and anything else is always a very big deal.

Dave

Pedantry is a desirable evolutionary trait.

 

[linusrichard]

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.

Yes, this.

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

Except for the non-atheist agnostics.

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?

I wouldn't normally presume to say "should," but since you ask, yes.

Should the rational position of anything that can't be proved or disproved be "agnostic"?

Yes.

If that's the case it is not rational to believe that anything is untrue.

Not correct. I've bolded the problem. You've moved from discussing a claim about knowledge to discussing belief. I am an atheist because I believe that God doesn't exist, which I think is pretty rational. I am an agnostic because I don't pretend to know that God doesn't exist, which I think is also pretty rational.

 

[phantomb]

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.

My goal is not to increase the "market share", but to remain intellectually honest. If I was to call myself an agnostic atheist (anyone who does not believe in a god is an atheist, sorry), then I would also have to call myself an agnostic with respect to belief in everything else. The claim that "no one knows for sure, it is a matter of faith" can be applied to absolutely everything from the existence of goblins to the existence of the things that you perceive to exist in the world (there is no way to prove that any observation is objectively true). So no, in the complete lack of positive evidence for the celestial teapot, and in light of plenty of evidence for their not being one, I disbelieve in the celestial teapot, just like in the complete lack of positive evidence for the existence of any god, and in light of plenty of evidence for their not being a god, I disbelieve in all gods.

I don't just not believe in gods, I believe there are no gods.

Saying that since "no one knows for sure, it is a matter of faith" the only logical position for everyone to take is agnostic just doesn't make sense pragmatically. We are emotional, irrational creatures. Nobody actually holds no belief as to the existence of something they know about, everyone has a belief one way or the other, whether they can justify that belief or not. And since, as I have pointed out, it is impossible to prove the existence of anything (again, it is impossible to prove that your experiences are not all an illusion, a simulation you are plugged into, etc.), this whole position becomes extreme to the point of being nonsensical. If I asked you what your job is should you respond that "many people believe that I work in an office building, but that's impossible to prove, so I am an agnostic with respect to what job I have"?

 

[zaphod2016]

I don't just not believe in gods, I believe there are no gods.

That's a very interesting thing to me- that you "believe there are no gods". That position seems to give credence to those who argue atheism is a belief.

Based on the definitions provided in this thread, I am an agnostic atheist.

I can't prove or disprove a super natural God, but I don't really believe in God (as defined by Christianity) either.

However, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I'm not really sure what I believe. For example, Kurt Vonnegut, who described himself as a "humanist" once wrote about the "Church of God the Utterly Indifferent", and this always struck me as true. I sometimes describe the universe itself as "God", in the sense that we were all created, and I am pretty sure this creator was some sort of natural process.

And, in case the word "creator" causes you to cringe (i.e. creationist), I am using a Jeffersonian definition, i.e. the Declaration of Independence:

...endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

I have always interpreted this to mean that my liberty is a birthright, bestowed to me based on the simple fact I exist- not granted by the whim of any government. An important distinction, IMO.

But, alas, I am a "fence sitter" on the issue of God. For example, I do not believe God exists, nor do I believe God does not exist. I believe that God is unknowable. But is that really a belief?

And for that matter, is it fair to call me an atheist? I do not believe God exists. However, to assume I believe the opposite is a false dichotomy. As a skeptic, I am more interested in verifiable truth than belief. Whatever beliefs I do have tend to be replaced with cold hard fact as I learn more about them.

 

[Lanzy]

I'm agnostic but refer to myself as atheist when asked because it takes much less explaining. People are then free to run and flee with no further discussion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

That's the way I look at it too. I don't know there is no god, but I believe there is no god.

However, I also don't know whether Russell's teapot exists. Since there is no evidence of its existence whatsoever, I don't go around calling myself an agnostic with regard to the teapot. Similarly, I don't identify myself as an agnostic with regard to a god or gods.

 

[Steelmage]

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

So it is like Pascal's wager, if I am uncertain about it believe it anyways. It may be a poor reason for you to be atheist, but why believe in something that may be wrong in the first place and has no evidence of existing.

 

[Third Eye Open]

I don't like the word agnostic because it implies that I'm not sure. I call myself an atheist because I don't believe in gods. I am pretty sure that is what that word means.

Agnostic? Who knows. Some people say it means you're 50/50 on the matter, some say all it takes to be agnostic is to have a shred of doubt.

But everyone has a shred of doubt about everything. So I don't see how anyone can really use that definition of agnostic.

If we look at this from another angle, and someone is asking you "do you believe in god" instead of 'are you atheist or agnostic' it would go like this.

Q. Do you believe in god?
A. No.

There, your an atheist, is that so hard?

Q. Do you believe in god?
A. [anything other than no or yes]

Now your agnostic!

Even if (as of course all of us are) you are not 100% sure of your answer, you look at the evidence and decide one way or another. I am never 100% sure that my chair will support me, but I look at the evidence and decide to sit on it.

Look at the evidence and decide if you think there is a god or not, if you decide no, your atheist. Yes, theist. Other, agnostic!

Where is the confusion?

 

[phantomb]

I don't just not believe in gods, I believe there are no gods.

That's a very interesting thing to me- that you "believe there are no gods". That position seems to give credence to those who argue atheism is a belief.

I would disagree. Anyone who does not believe in a god is an atheist, and they need not actively believe there are no gods like I do. All babies are atheists because they cannot actively believe in gods, as is anyone who has never heard of gods because it is impossible to believe or disbelieve in the existence of something you have never heard of. If you accept these definitions, then it follows that it takes absolutely no faith to be an atheist, and atheism is obviously not a belief system.

This deals with agnostic atheists, but I believe our disagreement centers more around the beliefs of gnostic or strong atheists who make the statement that gods do not exist.

To sum up my position, which I got into in my last post, I admit that I cannot and do not know that gods do not exist (I can't prove that god isn't hiding behind some star where nobody has ever looked), but I believe that gods do not exist because of the mountain of evidence that there are no gods. If you want to say that because god may be hiding someplace, it is illogical to take the gnostic position with respect to belief in god then I will respond with the equally ridiculous claim that because your mind may actually be plugged into some kind of simulation (resulting in experiences that are not objectively true), it is illogical to take the gnostic position with respect to belief in absolutely everything else.

But nobody actually acts like that in the real world (as opposed to the realm of meaningless philosophical discussion). No agnostic atheist when asked what their job is will respond that because it is impossible to prove objectively what their job is, they are an agnostic with respect to belief in their job. The same can be said of the theists who are usually (always?) the ones who bring up this nonsense. Sure it might seem to make some kind of sense to accuse atheists of having faith that gods do not exist just as they have faith that they do, but the theist always forgets that he himself has the strong belief that all gods other than his own do not exist. Where are all the agnostic theists?

So there's no confusion, here are the definitions I am using:

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:

1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.

For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).

For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).

From this we get:

1. Agnostic atheist
Does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists.

2. Gnostic atheist
Believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true.
(note that this example statement is actually stronger than the standard strong atheist position because the claimant claims knowledge of the truthfulness of his beliefs)

3. Agnostic theist
Believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true.

4. Gnostic theist
Believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true.

 

[CWL]

The question is not whether you define yourself as an "atheist" or "agnostic". The question is whether or not you are prepared to believe in things that are unproven or not. Personally I'm ok with labelling myself an "atheist", in the sense that on the matter of the existence of god(s) I'm an unbeliever in the sense that I see no evidence for the existence god(s). Labelling onself as an "agnostic" might imply a hope that some form of deity exists... and I don't subscribe to or feel the need for such a hope. Of course I don't deny the possibility of a deity... but then again I don't deny the possibility of - here we go again it would seem - an Invisible Pink Unicorn. I reserve the rather reasonable right to only believe in things that can be proven - within the reasonable realm of science.

... isn't this a dead horse we are flogging by the way?

 

[The Atheist]

... isn't this a dead horse we are flogging by the way?

Not so much flogging as giving it a gentle nudge in the ribs to make sure it's really dead and not just so exhausted it can't breathe.

This is flogging a dead horse:

I would disagree. Anyone who does not believe in a god is an atheist, and they need not actively believe there are no gods like I do. All babies are atheists because they cannot actively believe in gods, as is anyone who has never heard of gods because it is impossible to believe or disbelieve in the existence of something you have never heard of. If you accept these definitions, then it follows that it takes absolutely no faith to be an atheist, and atheism is obviously not a belief system.

This deals with agnostic atheists, but I believe our disagreement centers more around the beliefs of gnostic or strong atheists who make the statement that gods do not exist.

To sum up my position, which I got into in my last post, I admit that I cannot and do not know that gods do not exist (I can't prove that god isn't hiding behind some star where nobody has ever looked), but I believe that gods do not exist because of the mountain of evidence that there are no gods. If you want to say that because god may be hiding someplace, it is illogical to take the gnostic position with respect to belief in god then I will respond with the equally ridiculous claim that because your mind may actually be plugged into some kind of simulation (resulting in experiences that are not objectively true), it is illogical to take the gnostic position with respect to belief in absolutely everything else.

But nobody actually acts like that in the real world (as opposed to the realm of meaningless philosophical discussion). No agnostic atheist when asked what their job is will respond that because it is impossible to prove objectively what their job is, they are an agnostic with respect to belief in their job. The same can be said of the theists who are usually (always?) the ones who bring up this nonsense. Sure it might seem to make some kind of sense to accuse atheists of having faith that gods do not exist just as they have faith that they do, but the theist always forgets that he himself has the strong belief that all gods other than his own do not exist. Where are all the agnostic theists?

So there's no confusion, here are the definitions I am using:

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:

1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.

For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).

For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).

From this we get:

1. Agnostic atheist
Does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists.

2. Gnostic atheist
Believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true.
(note that this example statement is actually stronger than the standard strong atheist position because the claimant claims knowledge of the truthfulness of his beliefs)

3. Agnostic theist
Believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true.

4. Gnostic theist
Believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true.

God, I hope nobody read all that. As bad as any christian wall of text.

 

[phantomb]

This is flogging a dead horse:

Well, when every few months the "dead" horse gets back up on its feet and starts moving around . . .










But yes, sorry for employing the Wall-of-Text 9000

 

[The Atheist]

Well, when every few months the "dead" horse gets back up on its feet and starts moving around . . .

Yeah, I'm going to test a new pole-axe next year - see if we can kill the bastard once and for all.

 

[Roadtoad]

Poleaxe, hell. May I suggest a 12 gauge. Loaded with double ought buck.

 

[soylent]

Theism/atheism is completely orthogonal to gnosticism/agnosticism.

It's a simple binary choice with no middle ground(save for people with multiple personality disorder, at any particular point in time you either belive in god(s) or you don't). Using agnostic as shorthand for refusing to answer the question of whether you believe in god is absurd; it's like using the number pi as shorthand for politely refusing to say what your favorite colour is.

This is a consequence of trying to load atheism with a lot of emotional baggage that doesn't belong there. Atheism is perfectly compatible with several religions(e.g. buddhism) and all sorts of crazy nonsense like astrology and homeopathy; all it really means is that you don't belive in god(s), nothing more, nothing less. There is no catch-all word for irreligious, agnostic atheists without belief in the super natural or in superstition; if you want to accurately describe your position, go down the list and tick off the boxes one by one.