"Agnostics are Nowhere Men"

[Sledge]

What about people who haven't thought about the question? I think the trap of posting here is it's possible to forget that there are people who just don't think about religion at all. Ask them if they believe and you'll get an answer along the lines of "Sorta, maybe, I dunno." It's not a sign of stupidity to say "I don't know."

 

[Rasmus]

What about people who haven't thought about the question?

How much thought does it require for you to answer the question "are you hungry?"

I think the trap of posting here is it's possible to forget that there are people who just don't think about religion at all. Ask them if they believe and you'll get an answer along the lines of "Sorta, maybe, I dunno." It's not a sign of stupidity to say "I don't know."

Yes, i still think it's a stupid answer. At the very least, it is a sign of not having understood the question.

 

[Bikewer]

As noted there are several different flavors of "agnosticism". Ranging from the fence-sitting "I can't make up my mind" to the shoulder-shrugging "I don't know!" to the more classical "human beings cannot know with certainty."

The last is the flavor I prefer, and it does have some intellectual merit. IF there were some sort of supernatural being, it could hide from us if it wished to. Or just go away and create some other sort of universe somewhere else.

Even Dawkins says we cannot state with absolute certainty that there is not some sort of god, somewhere. As well, the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient, super-powerful god is not the only model that would work. At it's simplest, we could have an idiot god who's only talent is causing "bang" events.
All that being said, I don't have any trouble labeling myself "atheist". I see no evidence of any gods, nor any evidence of any necessity for one, and plenty of evidence that "god" is an invention of human beings. So, I don't "believe" in god(s). That's pretty much a definition of atheism.

 

[phantomb]

If we're playing the definition game, I think these are the best:

Theist: believes in a god
Atheist: does not believe in a god
Gnostic: claims knowledge
Agnostic: does not claim knowledge
Strong: has belief
Weak: lacks belief

From these we get:

Gnostic theist: "I believe in a god and I know the god exists"
Agnostic theist: "I believe in a god but I don't know the god exists"
Gnostic atheist: "I don't believe gods exist, I believe gods don't exist, and I know that gods don't exist"
Agnostic atheist (strong): "I don't believe gods exist, and I believe gods don't exist, but I don't know gods don't exist"
Agnostic atheist (weak): "I don't believe gods exist but I don't know gods don't exist"

I dislike the definition of agnostic as "one who knows of gods but has no belief about them either way", because it implies that beliefs are something that you have to consciously choose, and can opt out of, when really they're not. I believe that gods don't exist. I can't by sheer force of will make myself stop believing that they don't exist or make myself believe that they do exist any more than I could by sheer force of will make myself believe that M. Night Shyamalan is president of the United States. I don't, however, know that gods don't exist (whereas I do know that M. Night Shyamalan is not president).

 

[The Norseman]

What about Ignostics?

Theist: God exists.

Atheist: God does not exist.

Ignostic: What are you two blathering on about?







Edited to Add:

I am more and more being comfortable with calling myself Ignostic as I think it's important to define just what exactly is being talked about. Huge KUDOS to Skeptic Ginger for her posts in which she states that -- so far -- every thing that has been brought forth as evidence for the existence of a god/gods has been either logically or physically disproven. She says it better than I do, though.

 

[Irony]

Which is why, if the general division is atheist or theist (or even agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, gnostic theists and gnostic atheists), it's more accurate to call yourself an atheist. Otherwise you're giving too much credence to highly unlikely probabilities.

Which it's more accurate to call myself depends on the question asked.

Do you believe in god(s)? No. I am an atheist.

Do you know for certain that (no) god(s) exist(s)? No. I'm agnostic.

Granted, my agnosticism towards gods is rather like my agnosticism towards giant invisible intangible purple hippopotamuses dancing around in my living room.

 

[Rasmus]

giant invisible intangible purple hippopotamuses dancing around in my living room.

... don't you just hate it when that happens?

 

[Irony]

... don't you just hate it when that happens?

The worst part is the droppings. Since they're invisible you can't see them, and since they're intangible you can't even tell when you've stepped in them. So you just go around unknowingly tracking potential hippo dung all over the house.

 

[Nonpareil]

There's a chapter in the Australian Book of Atheism called Agnostics are Nowhere Men, and it's written by David Horton (author, retired zoologist and archaeologist).

In it, he writes:

"If you understand that there is no evidence, absolutely no evidence, no evidence of any kind, not even a scintilla of a suggestion that there might be some evidence - if only we knew where to look - for the existence of anything you might call God (or indeed anything of any supernatural kind), then you are an atheist, not an agnostic. And if you think there is such evidence, then you are a theist, not an agnostic. Let's see, that means the place for agnostics is ... nowhere. Or at least in a surreal queue waiting for evidence that there isn't even a suggestion of. A bit like waiting at a blank wall in the vain hope someone will build an ATM in front of you ... at some point, maybe.

"Being agnostic is [...] like being a little bit pregnant. Either you believe that something supernatural called "God" exists or you don't. There isn't any halfway house in this element of human culture. There is no spectrum of proof for the existence of a supernatural being ranging from no proof, through to sort of more-or-less suggestive proofs, through to strong, hard evidence. If there was such a spectrum then an atheist would be one who believed that none of the proofs were any good, a theist that all the proofs were really believable, and an agnostic that there was no hard evidence, but that some of the suggested proofs had some merit. But there isn't such a spectrum. Accepting any of the so-called proofs for the existence of God makes someone theist, not agnostic, and accepting none of them makes someone atheist, not agnostic."


I find this argument quite compelling.

What's your opinion of agnostics?

Depends on the definition of "agnostic" being used.

I think this guy is broadly correct. Most of the people who refer to themselves as agnostics are, in actuality, no such thing. They're simply atheists who don't actually know the definition. In other cases, they're atheists who don't want to be atheists, and so refuse to admit that the definition of "atheist" is simply "one who lacks belief in gods", and keep shouting that it means that you actively deny the existence of all gods all the time everywhere.

But these are the people who call themselves agnostics without actually knowing the definition of the word. I don't think the author is as far from the mark as a few posters here have said he is. This is, after all, a quote largely out of context, and we don't know what he said before or after this. He may have gone on to add that he is perfectly aware of the fact that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, and that the people who commonly refer to themselves as agnostics are simply kidding themselves. People who actually understand the definition of "agnostic", and who include it as part of their position, are fine in my book.

I mean, they should be. I'm one of them. Agnostic atheism is actually the most common kind.

Agnosticism isn't fence-sitting, it's a statement about what we can and cannot know. If you believe that you cannot know whether gods exist, you're an agnostic, whether you conclude from that the gods exist or not. Atheism, in contrast, is a statement about one's believe as to whether or not a particular type of entity (gods) exists or not. The two are not comparable in the way the author is trying to compare them. One can be an agnostic atheist just as easily as one can be a red-bearded Irishman.

In case my own post failed to get the point across, this.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ignostics are cool.

*Phew*

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Theist: God exists.

Atheist: God does not exist.

Ignostic: What are you two blathering on about?

Exactly. I feel like I'm reaching that point in my life. I think discussions about God always end up being philosophical wastes of time. I've decided I will try to only argue about cases where actual evidence can be presented.

 

[Gregoire]

Depends on the definition of "agnostic" being used.

I think this guy is broadly correct. Most of the people who refer to themselves as agnostics are, in actuality, no such thing. They're simply atheists who don't actually know the definition. In other cases, they're atheists who don't want to be atheists, and so refuse to admit that the definition of "atheist" is simply "one who lacks belief in gods", and keep shouting that it means that you actively deny the existence of all gods all the time everywhere.

You make some good points, but I have to ask, who is to say what the correct definition of the word "atheist" is?

Yes, I personally know the definition of the word "atheist" as it is used here on the JREF forum and in other circles of nonbelievers. But I also know how the word is used by the majority of people in our culture. And it is not the way you are describing.

So how can you say someone who uses the word the way the majority of people use the word "doesn't know" the definition?

Furthermore, as skeptics here have pointed out in other contexts, language is a lot more slippery than we usually realize (e.g. cold reading). And over the years, I have come to accept this with other words as well.

So the last time someone asked me if I was an atheist, I answered "define atheist".




Similarly if some asks me if I believe in god, I respond by asking which god or gods? If they say Jesus or Jehovah or Allah etc or if they say an all loving, all knowing, personal god, I say no. There is clearly no evidence and hence no reason to believe in it. I am an atheist in that sense.

But if they define god as the "first cause" of the universe or as an answer to the question "why there is something rather than nothing", I say I am agnostic to that concept. There might be a first cause of the universe which we could refer to as "god" or there might not. Who is to say?

We are talking about the beginning of space and time here, so the very concept of a first cause seems to me to break down. As of 2011, I don't see this as being a question with a knowable answer. And while there has been a great deal of speculation about this, how can any be tested empirically?

(Of course, I reserve the right to changing my mind about this as new information comes to my attention. I had a discussion with Laurence Krauss on this very subject a couple years ago. )

Now most theists don't like that definition, but I have met some who at least understand what I am and am not saying. And I personally think the precision in language with well laid out definitions is the way to go.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If I ask "Is there a god?" you might well not know - but if you then start rambling about how you cannot know anything with absolute certainty I'm just going to remind you about the twelve million dollars you owe me...

Accepting the limits of what it is possible to know with absolute certainty is not the same as believing anything without evidence.

I've never understood the "what if we're in the Matrix" or "what if this is just a dream" argument. Well, so what? Even if that is the case, we make scientific statements about THIS world, not whatever "real world" might be outside. As long as this world adheres to empirism, it doesn't matter if it's a computer simulation or a dream, we can still make statements about it.

None of what you've written contradicts anything I've written or any position I hold. I'd agree with you on every point.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I believe that gods don't exist. I can't by sheer force of will make myself stop believing that they don't exist or make myself believe that they do exist any more than I could by sheer force of will make myself believe that M. Night Shyamalan is president of the United States. I don't, however, know that gods don't exist (whereas I do know that M. Night Shyamalan is not president).

My position seems similar to yours, but I'd not say that I have a positive belief in the non-existence of God(s), any more than I have a positive belief in the non-existence of Santa Claus. I'm certain that they don't exist*, but I don't have a positive belief in that direction.

*And this doesn't contradict my agnosticism, either. That just means that I recognise that my certitude isn't necessarily a true indicator of what the real world is like, that I can be mistaken, and indicates that I would be willing to change my stance if I were presented with compelling evidence for the God hypothesis. Although, given my certitude and the weight of evidence against the God hypothesis, the new evidence for it would have to be absolutely overwhelming - something I can't conceive of ever happening.

 

[OrangeCatz]

I feel that if agnostic means you accept the tiniest probability that god may exist, then I am "agnostic" about absolutely everything.

Things like flipping heads 10,000 times in a row are so improbable, that they are not really even worth considering.

That is how I feel about god.

 

[jimtron]

I consider myself an atheist, but I realized that most people (mainly believers) have a different definition of that term than I do--they think it means something like, "I'm absolutely certain that god doesn't exist," which is not my view. I don't believe in god, but can't and wouldn't absolutely rule it out--of course I can't say with certainty that there is no god.

 

[Aepervius]

Agnosticism isn't fence-sitting, it's a statement about what we can and cannot know. If you believe that you cannot know whether gods exist, you're an agnostic, whether you conclude from that the gods exist or not. Atheism, in contrast, is a statement about one's believe as to whether or not a particular type of entity (gods) exists or not. The two are not comparable in the way the author is trying to compare them. One can be an agnostic atheist just as easily as one can be a red-bearded Irishman.

I rather think agnosticism is an ADD ON over atheism and theism. We had this sort of thread before.

"declared" Agnostic live their live either like a theist or an atheist. That is why I think it is more like there are ;
* gnostic theist (your classical theist which know god exists)
* agnostic theist (those which think there might/there is something but we cannot find evidence for it, we cannot ever know)
* true neutral alignement (hehe) agnostic agnostic , think there is a 50%/50% chance of gods existence but we can't know either way
* agnostic atheist (those which think there is probably nothing but it can't ever be proved)
* gnostic theist (strong atheist declaring 100% sure there is no god).

Where "probably" vary from 0% to 100% with all sort of probability , aka it is not a 50/50 only you have all sort of behavior toward potential deistic existence.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist, because I think it cannot ever be proved that "gods don't exists", the burden of the claim is on theist, but I also think "they cannot ever prove it" either too. But I stay open for an infinitesimal chance I am wrong.

Bottom line is that there isn't a "pure agnostic" they either live their life as agnostic theist (something might exists but can't ever be proved) or as agnostic atheist (no deistic belief and in addition think it can't be ever proved). ETA : those which say they are agnostic without the theist/atheist addenda, might not *explicitely* want to declare that they disbelieve gods, and just say it is not knowable either way, but they are in their live virtually undistinguishable from agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, only they did not really think it thru IMHO. True neutral are extremly rare and in reality all agnostic I ever encountered were either agnostic atheist or agnostic theist in their action.

 

[Wowbagger]

Some folks call themselves "agnostic" as merely a diplomatic label, because too many pompous a-holes call themselves "atheist".

Some agnostics claim that atheists are really agnostic, because even they can not truly prove God does not exist.

Science, in fact, is fundamentally agnostic: It can not test for the existence of God, since the entity would probably not be in an empirical form.

"True Atheists" could even exist, in theory: Those who really are on the fence, even if you think they are kinda kooky for doing so. Though, I doubt there would be many of them, if any. But, that doesn't leave them "no where".

If you understand that there is no evidence, absolutely no evidence, no evidence of any kind, not even a scintilla of a suggestion that there might be some evidence - if only we knew where to look - for the existence of anything you might call God (or indeed anything of any supernatural kind), then you are an atheist, not an agnostic. And if you think there is such evidence, then you are a theist, not an agnostic. Let's see, that means the place for agnostics is ... nowhere. Or at least in a surreal queue waiting for evidence that there isn't even a suggestion of.

In fact this author's own argument belies the fact that there can be agnosticism. He even suggests where to find them: "in a surreal queue".



What's the point of this article? Why the rant against agnostics? What did they do to you?

"Being agnostic is [...] like being a little bit pregnant. Either you believe that something supernatural called "God" exists or you don't.

By the way, you can be "a little bit pregnant":
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140563

 

[Tumblehome]

I've never understood why so many people think "I don't know" is in some way an unacceptable answer.

We don't give creationism the time of day because there's absolutely no indication that the universe was created that way, and we would properly challenge anyone who'd say, "We don't know for sure, there's still the slimmest of all chances in the universe that evidence will be found to support it".

So I agree with the Australian Book of Atheism. There's no intellectual point in saying "God might exist" when there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. That's playing into the theist mindset.

 

[Darat]

What about people who haven't thought about the question? I think the trap of posting here is it's possible to forget that there are people who just don't think about religion at all. Ask them if they believe and you'll get an answer along the lines of "Sorta, maybe, I dunno." It's not a sign of stupidity to say "I don't know."

It's easy to clarify any confusion by asking:

"Which god or gods do you believe in?"

There isn't a "Don't know" answer to that question given what "believe" means.