Atheist v. Agnostic: Friend or Foe?

[KingMerv00]

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.

All of my beliefs (evolution included) are tentative. No evidence is perfect and I hold no double standard.

You might hear me say "I am certain" every once in a while but that is only shorthand.

 

[arthwollipot]

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

Well, I am labouring under the conceit that my own point of view was rational, and did not involve any kind of double standard:

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.

You're welcome to point out any double standard you perceive there.

 

[arthwollipot]

And just because,

What does "extremely unimportant" mean?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

All of my beliefs (evolution included) are tentative. No evidence is perfect and I hold no double standard.

You might hear me say "I am certain" every once in a while but that is only shorthand.

The point is most of us know this is the correct skeptical position and have no need to point it out when we speak of all the other woo besides god beliefs and other scientific evidence besides evidence which supports the fact all god beliefs are mythical in nature.

 

[The Atheist]

The point is most of us know this is the correct skeptical position ...

Quite right, and only self-labelled agnostics, theists and other stupityists feel the need to debate the point.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"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."

You're welcome to point out any double standard you perceive there.

Well on the one hand you've made a declaration that there is only one definition of agnostic when there are several.

But, here you are simply noting the technical definition of agnostic. It is not the definition of agnostic used in the discussion, atheist vs agnostic, but that's beside the point. This is not what I applied my complaint of a double standard to. And my comment to you was about defending my assertion agnosticism as defined in the typical atheist vs agnostic debate requires a double standard.



Agnosticism defined

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

Both these definitions require god beliefs be treated differently than either scientific conclusions or woo, thus a double standard.


Religious Tolerance has a discussion of the agnostic atheist position. (You may have to hit "skip this ad".) The following is much chopped up. I recommend you read the actual source but I've picked out the points to highlight for those with no time and/or interest.

Agnosticism: Uncertainty about whether God exists

Agnosticism is a concept, not a full religion. It is a belief related to the existence or non-existence of God. ...

Agnosticism implies uncertainty about the existence of God. The basic problem here is that there are many answers to the question "Does God exist?" However there is only this one term available to cover all of the meanings. Some of today's possible overlapping answers to the question are:

* I don't personally know.
* I don't know but will lead my life in the assumption that no God exists.
* I don't know but will lead my life assuming that God does exist.
* I cannot give an opinion because there is no way that we can prove the existence or non-existence of God given currently available knowledge.
* I cannot give an opinion because there is no way to know, with certainty, anything about God, now and in the future.
* Yes, God exists. But we do not know anything about God at this time.
* Yes, God exists. But we have no possibility of knowing anything about God, now or in the future....

Three main meanings have been associated with "Agnostic" since Thomas H. Huxley invented the term in the mid-19th century

* Huxley defined agnosticism as follows: "... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." 11
* "... an agnostic is someone who not only is undecided concerning the existence of God, but who also thinks that the question of God’s existence is in principle unanswerable. We cannot know whether or not God exists, according to an agnostic, and should therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in him." 12
* An agnostic is undecided about whether or not God exists.

Are Agnostics also Atheists?

...Agnostics do not believe in ... Gods... However, some Agnostics consider themselves to be Atheists. That is because the term "Atheist" has two slightly different meanings:

1. A person who positively believes that no God(s) or Goddess(es) exists. ...

2. A person who has no belief in a God or Goddess. Just as a newborn has no concept of a deity, some adults also have no such belief. ....

Some Agnostics feel that their beliefs match the second definition, and thus consider themselves to be both Atheist and an Agnostic....

As currently defined, an agnostic usually holds the question of the existence of God open, pending the arrival of more evidence. They are willing to change their belief if some solid evidence or logical proof is found in the future. ...

Another category of Agnostic is "empirical Agnostics." They believe that God may exist, but that little or nothing can be known about him/her/it/them....

So again, it is not the scientific principle of always including the possibility of new evidence to which I object, but rather, I object to the double standard defining god as something unknowable because it is outside the realm of science just as 'before time' and 'outside the Universe' are considered outside the realm of science. We don't define the 'unknowable' mechanisms of acupuncture or homeopathy this way. We don't define the science of evolution as uncertain because we have yet to test every single organism.

How many investigations of god beliefs does it take to declare god beliefs are as woo as homeopathy and the origin of god beliefs is as certain to be human imagination as evolution theory is certain to apply to all life?




**On a side note, RT also points out

Such confusion is common in the field of religion. We have found 17 definitions for the term "Witch," eight for "cult," and six for the "Pagan." -- all different. A lack of clear, unambiguous definitions for religious terms is responsible for a great deal of confusion and hatred. It makes dialog among Agnostics, Theists, and Atheists very difficult. In fact, when such a dialogue is attempted, it should be preceded with a long session to resolve definitions.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'll have to get back to this sometime when it isn't quite so late...

 

[Richard Masters]

I disagree with all the above posts.

While I'm agnostic in regard to God and unicorns, I use agnostic to mean, "show me some evidence". Since there are no Unicornians to challenge, I don't use the word agnostic when I talk about unicorns.

I apologize in advance if my position is too logical for atheists to understand

 

[Dunstan]

I use agnostic to mean, "show me some evidence".

I find that the phrase "show me some evidence" serves that function admirably, thus avoiding the need to invent a new definition for an existing word.

 

[phantomb]

I disagree with all the above posts.

While I'm agnostic in regard to God and unicorns, I use agnostic to mean, "show me some evidence". Since there are no Unicornians to challenge, I don't use the word agnostic when I talk about unicorns.

I apologize in advance if my position is too logical for atheists to understand

I agree with your post.

I use I agree with your post to mean "What? How is it logical to take an existing word, make up a completely new definition for it, then criticize everyone else for using the word as it is actually defined and understood.". Since your post makes no sense, I use I agree with your post when talking to you.

I apologize in advance if my position is too logical for people who make up their own definitions of words to understand

 

[Radrook]

I find the agnostic stance far more rational than the atheistic one which of necessity requires the claim of omniscience.

 

[Uncle Otto]

Over the years have come to the conclusion that "agnostic" really doesn't say much of anything about a person's actual beliefs. That is, other than in a strictly social sense. Everyone in here knows better, but then a message board for skeptics doesn't represent the general population out in the real world either.

I perceive it as being used mostly as a more socially acceptable substitute for "atheist" by those who want to avoid being ostracized or worse. That is how I have mainly encountered it out in society myself. While I am aware that there is a distinct difference between the two words, I have found that using "agnostic" to describe oneself to someone not well read in the subject confuses them more than anything else, and is even more misunderstood and misused than "atheist".

I used to identify as an agnostic atheist, which from a purely semantic POV is quite correct in my case. IMO, and based on real world experience, I'd say that most people who identify as atheist are also probably agnostic. Strong atheists are a minority among our ranks it seems to me, although I've never seen any hard and fast numbers to prove it.

So in order to avoid unnecessary explanations, I simply self identify these days as an atheist. Cuts out a lot of the BS and dancing around the subject. I have also developed my own basic rule of thumb for what constitutes an atheist, regardless of any sub-categories. It is this-------

If you hold forth no positive belief in any one or more gods or deities-----you are an atheist, period. You are without theism. That I am also agnostic only helps to explain why I am an atheist.

As one or two others have pointed out, agnosticism is frequently used to try to describe someone as a "fence-sitter", when in reality there is no such thing. You either believe in something called "god" or you do not. There is no middle ground of belief.

Agnosticism deals with a lack of knowledge about something. Atheism deals with the lack of belief about something. They are two different yet frequently overlapping terms, and are in no way mutually exclusive of each other.

My 2¢ worth.

 

[yy2bggggs]

I find the agnostic stance far more rational than the atheistic one which of necessity requires the claim of omniscience.

I find the atheistic stance far more rational than this stance which of necessity requires a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of and relationships between belief, certainty (including it's fundamental relevance), belief revision, and possibility.

 

[Richard Masters]

I find that the phrase "show me some evidence" serves that function admirably, thus avoiding the need to invent a new definition for an existing word.

Can you think of a demonym that comes closer? I don't think I'm really redefining the term.

 

[Richard Masters]

I agree with your post.

I use I agree with your post to mean "What? How is it logical to take an existing word, make up a completely new definition for it, then criticize everyone else for using the word as it is actually defined and understood.". Since your post makes no sense, I use I agree with your post when talking to you.

I apologize in advance if my position is too logical for people who make up their own definitions of words to understand

What a coincidence! I agree with your straw man argument

 

[CORed]

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.

It seems to me that a lot of the argument here simply comes down to definition. I prefer to describe myself as an agnostic, and feel that the term "atheist" implies some degree of certainty about the non-existence of God.

Many others define atheism to include what I call agnosticism. I would agree that what I call agnosticism is the rational point of view. The existence and non-existence of God are unprovable. If people who hold this viewpoint choose to identify themselves as atheists, fine with me.

As to those who are absolutely certain that there is no God, I can only hope that their faith gives them comfort and does not lead them to do harm.

 

[fls]

I've recently decided that I am best described as a gnostic atheist. I don't understand claims of agnosticism (that it is not possible to know whether or not gods exist), as it seems to indicate a state of certainty about what can and cannot be known which is at odds with the evidence. So I don't happen to believe in gods, and I think that it is possible to discover whether or not there are gods. I would like to understand why agnostics exclude the possibility out-of-hand, though.

Linda

 

[Dunstan]

I find the agnostic stance far more rational than the atheistic one which of necessity requires the claim of omniscience.

It must be funny when a doctor asks for your family medical history:

"I am not omniscient and do not claim to be, so I cannot answer your question. I can only say that the man who raised me, and who claimed to be my father, though of course I cannot say for sure whether or not he is in fact my biological father because I never saw a DNA test, and even those tests are fallible anyway, allegedly died of lung cancer. I, of course, cannot say for certain whether he did in fact die of lung cancer. Certainly he smoked three packs a day for twenty years, and he told me that his doctor had diagnosed him with lung cancer, and the medical staff at the hospital claimed that cancer was the cause of death, but no autopsy was conducted. Now, as to the woman who claimed to be my mother...."

and at this point, the doctor is calling for a psych consult. But hey, at least you've made clear that you aren't claiming omniscience!

 

[Richard Masters]

I've recently decided that I am best described as a gnostic atheist. I don't understand claims of agnosticism (that it is not possible to know whether or not gods exist), as it seems to indicate a state of certainty about what can and cannot be known which is at odds with the evidence. So I don't happen to believe in gods, and I think that it is possible to discover whether or not there are gods. I would like to understand why agnostics exclude the possibility out-of-hand, though.

Linda

I've never claimed that it is not possible to know whether or not gods exist. That's not agnosticism the way I understand it.

Instead, I'm open to evidence. But none is forthcoming. Since you can't prove a negative, the atheistic position is stronger by default.

 

[The Atheist]

Since there are no Unicornians to challenge, I don't use the word agnostic when I talk about unicorns.

Are you sure about that? Lots of people think they used to exist.

I find that the phrase "show me some evidence" serves that function admirably, thus avoiding the need to invent a new definition for an existing word.

15 Grammar Points! (Just a guide to the points system value, 10 buys you three nights in Vegas with two hookers.)

I find the agnostic stance far more rational than the atheistic one which of necessity requires the claim of omniscience.

Damn right.

It's obvious that to be an atheist, one must know everything, just as, to be a theist, one must know nothing.

I'm The Atheist, and yes, I do know everything.

You, I take it, are a theist.

Over the years have come to the conclusion that "agnostic" really doesn't say much of anything about a person's actual beliefs.

I dunno about that.

I perceive it as being used mostly as a more socially acceptable substitute for "atheist" by those who want to avoid being ostracized or worse.

Quite right.

My 2¢ worth.

Selling yourself short - good post.

Easily worth a quarter.

As to those who are absolutely certain that there is no God, I can only hope that their faith gives them comfort and does not lead them to do harm.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Sorry, but this is bollocks. I'm so sick and tired of this tripe, the next time I see it, I'm going to arrange for a flock of ducks to fly over the house of whoever said it and crap all over anyone who comes outside!

I think a good case can be made for the certainty that there are no gods, and while I don't bother with it myself, it is as much a relation to theistic faith as a tin of biscuits is. At the very best, you are seriously misusing the "faith" argument as fervently as any slavering BAF christian.

And what's with the "lead them to harm" garbage? Are people who deny the existence of god/s susceptible to self-harm?

Maybe emos deny god?

[/shruggy emoticon goes here]