Atheist v. Agnostic: Friend or Foe?

[The Atheist]

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.

Yep. Bang on.

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.

Rationalist/materialist works fine.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't know whether this belongs here or in the "misconceptions" thread, but it really annoys me when people assume that just because I am an atheist, I am also a secular humanist.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't know whether this belongs here or in the "misconceptions" thread, but it really annoys me when people assume that just because I am an atheist, I am also a secular humanist.

Dunno about that one - I think it's a reasonable assumption. Not to mention fairly mild, it's a bit like being accused of being good looking or intelligent.

I don't mind being mistaken for a secular humanist. The illusion never lasts long anyway.

 

[arthwollipot]

Dunno about that one - I think it's a reasonable assumption. Not to mention fairly mild, it's a bit like being accused of being good looking or intelligent.

I don't mind being mistaken for a secular humanist. The illusion never lasts long anyway.

Yeah - I've never self-identified as a secular humanist, because I've never really gone looking to find out what one is. I suspect that I probably would be one, if I ever bothered to work out what it means, but I haven't.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'm a pantheist; which, according to Dawkins, makes me a sexy atheist .

 

[tanstaafl28]

Origins of the term "Agnostic"

I'd like to throw my two cents in, if I may.

For those who many not be aware, the use of the term "agnostic" as someone who views both the position of the theist, and the atheist, as equally indefensible, was coined in the Mid-to-late-19th Century. The person attributed with coining the term was Thomas Henry Huxley.

The idea that some atheists would be highly critical of agnostics for choosing a neutral position smacks of the kind of "absolutism" that is more often associated with theism. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the agnostic's position, they can be considered fellow freethinkers, can they not?

 

[Dunstan]

I'd like to throw my two cents in, if I may.

For those who many not be aware, the use of the term "agnostic" as someone who views both the position of the theist, and the atheist, as equally indefensible, was coined in the Mid-to-late-19th Century. The person attributed with coining the term was Thomas Henry Huxley.

None of which definitively answers what those terms mean today. Language changes.

The idea that some atheists would be highly critical of agnostics for choosing a neutral position smacks of the kind of "absolutism" that is more often associated with theism. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the agnostic's position, they can be considered fellow freethinkers, can they not?

There are basically two reasons I can see why self-described "atheists" criticize self-described "agnostics" (I'm dispensing with the scare quotes from now on, but bear in mind that both those terms are subject to differing interpretations):

1. Because it appears to the atheist that the agnostic actually has the same beliefs as an atheist, but chooses to use the term "agnostic" because it is more socially acceptable, less controversial, etc.

2. Because it appears to the atheist that the agnostic really does adopt a different position from the atheist, and the atheist doesn't see why non-religious "wrong" positions should be immune from argument. If telling someone that you think they're wrong is "absolutism," then we're all absolutists. There's nothing privileged about a "middle" position: the person who thinks that 2+2=3 isn't taking a "moderate" position between the person who thinks the answer is 2 and the one who thinks the answer is 4.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You know, we're assuming an etymology of agnostic that might not be right. The Gnostics were a were a bunch of Greeks that believed certain things about a divine being and the ability to obtain knowledge about it. The a-Gnostics were simply people who didn't believe those particular things.

This is not to be confused with the ana-Gnostics.

~~ Paul

 

[arthwollipot]

I'd like to throw my two cents in, if I may.

For those who many not be aware, the use of the term "agnostic" as someone who views both the position of the theist, and the atheist, as equally indefensible, was coined in the Mid-to-late-19th Century. The person attributed with coining the term was Thomas Henry Huxley.

The idea that some atheists would be highly critical of agnostics for choosing a neutral position smacks of the kind of "absolutism" that is more often associated with theism. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the agnostic's position, they can be considered fellow freethinkers, can they not?

Of course they can! We're discussing semantic distinctions, not making value judgements.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

I think I know what you were trying to get at, but you can interpret "believe" and "know" in so many ways, that answer isn't sufficient.

I "believe" what I have currently concluded from the evidence. That doesn't mean I can't change that belief should new evidence emerge.

By the same token, I "believe" in the scientific principle that one cannot "prove" the negative. However, unlike agnostics, I don't apply that principle to god beliefs because I "believe" there is sufficient evidence to conclude all god beliefs are inventions of human imagination. It's really no different than people having concluded there is sufficient evidence to "believe" evolution theory is correct yet we haven't looked at every single genome, thus we cannot "prove" the negative that some organism exists that didn't evolve.

Obviously one needs to draw some conclusions (aka believe) in order to function. I understand the agnostic position which says, "no conclusion can be drawn because one cannot "prove the negative", and there is no current evidence of any real gods existing in the Universe, thus no reason to believe gods exist." Yet you don't hear people using some term suggesting agnosticism regarding evolution theory. Why is that?

It's a type of glass half full/ glass half empty way of looking at the god question. I think the best approach is to follow the overwhelming evidence that supports the conclusion god beliefs are fabrications rather than to take what I view as the 'ignore the evidence and the obvious' position by claiming one cannot prove there are no gods because one cannot test that claim.

There are times when it is appropriate to take the agnostic position in a scientific question. When we had a narrower view of the parameters with which life could exist many scientists would say we still couldn't rule out that life exists somewhere besides on Earth because we would never be able to test every location in the Universe. But now that we have evidence the range of environments which life can survive in is much wider. So that agnosticism is giving way to a view that, given the extent of habitable zones on Earth and the number of planets in the Universe, ET life most probably exists.


My complaint about using the agnostic approach to god beliefs is that it creates a special category or double standard so to speak for god beliefs. The same is true when skeptics apply a double standard to non-evidence based beliefs claiming "faith based beliefs" are somehow excused from the application of any evidence standards. It is claimed by some that religion and science are separate, yadda yadda, I think you all know the drill there. I see no reason to apply such a double standard.

There is evidence that god beliefs are myths. Why do we then allow this special category for some potential gods to exist when we don't think consciously of any equivalent when considering there might be some animal yet discovered that didn't evolve? The latter question never arises while the agnostic/atheist question fills pages on the forum.

I ask again, why the difference? Is it just that people don't consider following the evidence for 'god beliefs' and think they must actually look for evidence of gods? Another special category, I say. Little time is spent considering the possibility of invisible pink unicorns or fairies and leprechauns.

Time for agnostics to consider a paradigm shift, I say. Look at the evidence for god beliefs. There's plenty there to draw a conclusion about the origin of all god beliefs just as one can draw a conclusion evolution theory applies to all life. If you recognize the double standard being applied to the possibility gods might exist vs the possibility some life might exist that didn't evolve, you may recognize one can still manage the scientific principle, there is always room for new evidence to be considered, without making a special case for the possibility of gods existing. All god beliefs are fabrications. There is evidence to that effect. No need to spend more time on some special agnostic category.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Ahha, another double standard. Science may very well discover ways to extend life indefinitely. You cannot test the future, so you cannot be 100% certain. If we must be agnostic about gods, shouldn't we all be agnostic about death and taxes?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

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.

Hear hear!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah! Stamp out the fence-sitters.

I say stamp out the double standard.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Not correct. I've bolded the problem. [believe] 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.

Again, it sounds meaningful at first using these terms, belief, knowledge, and so on. But on second examination it becomes clear one can interpret the words in too many ways to make this a clear idea.

Unless we all want to agree a belief is based on faith and knowledge is based on evidence, or a belief is 100% never changing, and knowledge is subject to scientific principles, then your point can easily be muddled by any reader. I find it more precise to spell out the specifics.

There is a scientific principle which says one cannot prove something does not exist if it involves being unable to test every circumstance where it could possibly exist.

There is no more reason to point that principle out regarding potential gods in the Universe than there is a reason to point out there is a possibility some life didn't evolve when you speak about a belief evolution theory is correct.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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"?

Hooray, yet another rational thinker approaching the agnostic vs atheist problem!

 

[arthwollipot]

I think this thread has been full of rational thinkers approaching the agnostic vs atheist problem.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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. ....

Have you considered the fact there is overwhelming evidence all god beliefs are generated from human imagination?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think this thread has been full of rational thinkers approaching the agnostic vs atheist problem.

If you can give me a good reason for the double standard re god beliefs, then I might reconsider my position.

 

[arthwollipot]

If you can give me a good reason for the double standard re god beliefs, then I might reconsider my position.

I have no interest in getting you to reconsider your position. I think your position is perfectly valid. I just objected to your use of the word "rational" to mean "agrees with me".

I think this thread has been full of very rational ideas - some of which I agree with, some of which I don't. But I consider them all to be valid ideas.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have no interest in getting you to reconsider your position. I think your position is perfectly valid. I just objected to your use of the word "rational" to mean "agrees with me".

I think this thread has been full of very rational ideas - some of which I agree with, some of which I don't. But I consider them all to be valid ideas.

You seem to have missed the point. If you think the agnostic position has been presented here as a rational point of view, then address the rationalness of using a double standard for evidence regarding gods vs evidence applied to other scientific theories, conclusions, etc., and to other woo topics.

Rational does not mean "to agree with me". There are many things which I have drawn a conclusion about that rational people might come to a different conclusion looking at the same evidence.

I find it irrational to apply a double standard to god beliefs when it comes to making such a point of adding that one cannot "know" with 100% certainty yet the same caveat is rarely if ever heard when skeptics are discussing evolution theory. And it is a double standard that cannot be justified to claim so called 'faith based beliefs' when discussing god beliefs vs evidence based beliefs for everything else.

Support the rationalness of this double standard if you can. I say it is not rational.