"Agnostics are Nowhere Men"

[Beth]

Why oh why am I posting in an atheist/agnostic thread I don't know. But here I go again.

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:
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?

I am one. I not only don't find his argument compelling, I find it either incredibly ignorant or idiotic. I am quite certain there is a 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.

Even though I personally don't find the evidence for god compelling, it's clear to me that many people do. And there are people at all stages of that spectrum.

I've always been under the impression

"There is no god" = atheist
"I don't know if there is a god" = agnostic

Actually, I think these are the most commonly accepted meanings for the term. That's why I consider myself agnostic. But there are other definitions for both, so if I really wanted to know, I'd ask what the person using the term meant by it.

If I ask "Do you believe in God" you'd have to be pretty daft if you'd sincerely didn't know weather you did.

Why is it that some people feel compelled to make such statements about other people based on their beliefs regarding the unknown and unknowable? Some people feel that theists are daft. That Dr. House guy for one. Theists think, well, they often think (and call) worse things of atheists than merely daft. And some of them, like some atheists, despise and scorn the agnostics more than their counterparts at the other end of the spectrum.

The human mind is a complex thing and I myself am not quite certain whether I do or don't believe in any sort of god. About all I can say definitely is that I am atheistic regarding any sort of 'personal' god as that term is typically used. Albert Einstein's quotes regarding religion and belief resonate well with me. Was he theist or atheist? I think that he, like me, was in a religious family but did not care for the religion he was raised in. He did not consider himself an atheist though.

Just because there is a spectrum of belief doesn't mean that people, like the OP, can't decide to split the spectrum and force the two categories on everyone. After all, the old 'there's two sorts of people in this world' is as recognizable joke type as 'knock, knock, who's there?

If you must categorize my beliefs, pick which definition you want to use. Some people put me in the theist/deist box. Some people put me in the atheist box. It all depends on the definitions you are using. But please don't call me daft just because you don't like my position on the spectrum of belief and find it difficult to categorize me into your two separate boxes.

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.

And why should I care about playing into their mindset? They could similarly tell me that if I assume there is no god, I'm playing into the atheist mindset. What difference does it make to you?

 

[MikeSun5]

I think people like the OP are the type that can't stand others having opinions different from their own. What is the point of using some weird logic loophole to say agnostics are really atheists? "Silly agnostics. You're either one of us or one of them!!!"

Science has proven that our entire universe and all the matter in it came from a single atom-sized point. Was that point the other end of a black hole, a new kalpa, universes banging together, or the whim of a bearded old white man on a cloud? Nobody knows. Until science gets to a point where things can be proven or disproven, nobody can make a definitive statement without invoking what they believe.

I'm what is known as a Militant Agnostic. I don't know and neither do you.

 

[Alan]

But do you actually believe in any gods?

Whether it is knowable is a different question.

Treating them as different questions is entirely correct.

 

[Tumblehome]

And why should I care about playing into their mindset? They could similarly tell me that if I assume there is no god, I'm playing into the atheist mindset. What difference does it make to you?

For the same reason I care about not playing into the invisible pink unicorn mindset. It makes just as much sense rationally.

I don't personally care if people want to believe in a god, or consider its possibility. A few of my best friends do (seriously), and it's no skin off my nose that they do. I'm just saying that they have no rational foundation for it.

 

[MikeSun5]

But do you actually believe in any gods?

I believe it's arrogant to have an opinion on the matter. Like a man having an opinion on abortion. It's arrogant. That is my belief.

Don't get me wrong, I totally see the point you guys are trying to make. I don't "believe" in any one particular deity, so by that definition you'd call me an atheist. But again, I think it's arrogant to have an opinion. Also, I will not say "There is no God," as atheists do because I do not believe that. I believe that nobody knows. Not even you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think there are semantic agnostics. These are atheists who believe they are sticking to the scientific principle that one cannot prove the negative, "there are no gods". Some of these folks annoy me when they declare their approach to the god question the only way to approach the problem. Supposedly science forbids me to draw a conclusion. These folks don't seem to notice they are not agnostic about a whole slew of other fictional things. If you press them they'll say they are equally agnostic about fairies, but fairies just don't garner an equal argument from folks when someone says fairies don't exist. There is a double standard in practice regardless it is denied in principle.

And then there are true agnostics who probably have some lingering doubt left nagging them in the back of their minds that they can't quite say they are really atheist.

If you are agnostic and don't fit in one of these categories, I leave open that possibility for your version.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I believe it's arrogant to have an opinion on the matter. Like a man having an opinion on abortion. It's arrogant. That is my belief.

Don't get me wrong, I totally see the point you guys are trying to make. I don't "believe" in any one particular deity, so by that definition you'd call me an atheist. But again, I think it's arrogant to have an opinion. Also, I will not say "There is no God," as atheists do because I do not believe that. I believe that nobody knows. Not even you.

And I believe you are wrong. Oh well.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

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.

Wrong. If you ask me that question, I can perfectly well answer it with "I don't know". Why? Because someone who doesn't waste time overanalyzing the concept of God and of belief or not belief in God, is less likely to bother to have sat down at some point and said "Lets see... are there actually any Gods I believe in or not?", and have a thought out answer. Meaning, their answer would most likely lean toward "I just don't know" when faced with the Gotcha-type of "Which god or gods do you believe in?" question. Especially considering the very concept of God is as uncertain and undecided by different people as the concept of qualia.

Personally I can't bother myself to keep arguing concepts we, as humans, haven't even bothered to agree on. I'd rather argue the topics of Bigfoot or Aliens. There's no doubt nor dichotomy about what people refer to when using those words.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Usually when I hear the label "agnostic" I tend to wonder agnostic what?
An agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? That's because I use the definition of agnostic that describes knowledge and not belief.

Agnostic Atheism & Agnostic Theism

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.

In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm


Personally, I tend to lean toward Ignostic. Mainly because no matter how many times I try to get a definition of "God" I never get a definition that tells me what it is.
Usually, it's a definition of what the entity does, ie; makes universes, smites the wicked, parts the sea...whatever.
But I'm not interested in this things hobbies, I'm interested in its composition.

 

[OrangeCatz]

If I see a red car, I say, "That car is red". I don't say, "That car is probably red, but I cannot prove that it is red at this time".

I say, "God does not exist", I don't say, "God probably does not exist, but I cannot prove his non-existence at this time".

I think atheism is more about what you believe. Sure, the existence of god cannot be proven one way or the other, but I firmly believe that he does not exist.

 

[jiggeryqua]

But I'm not interested in this things hobbies, I'm interested in its composition.

'Snips and snails and puppy dogs' tails'... no, hang on...'sugar and spice and all things nice'...no, not that one...ah, yes - 'campfire fiction and blind conviction, that's what gods are made of'.

 

[Sledge]

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

So you have to stop and think about whether you're hungry?

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

No, it's a sign of not having thought about the question. Why are you so determined to paint people who don't care about gods as stupid?

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.

There is if you haven't thought about it. This would be the state I was in for probably half of my life: I was aware of religion, I'd been to a Church of England school, but I had no idea if I believed or not because it simply didn't matter. There were better things to spend my time thinking about, like giant robots.

ETA: I agree with Ron Tomkins' post above, apart from the not being bothered to argue bit. That we are posting here generally indicates that we: have an interest in religion and wish to discuss it. There are so many people for whom this simply isn't the case.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Just because there is a spectrum of belief doesn't mean that people, like the OP, can't decide to split the spectrum and force the two categories on everyone. After all, the old 'there's two sorts of people in this world' is as recognizable joke type as 'knock, knock, who's there?

There are two types of people in the world - those who split the world up into two types of people and those who don't.

I'm what is known as a Militant Agnostic. I don't know and neither do you.

I've always said there's nothing an agnostic can't achieve, as long as he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not.

 

[MikeSun5]

As the majority of posts in this thread prove, many people are unable to accept an individual's perspective if it doesn't fit in with their preconceived labels and generalizations. It's like a person can claim to be agnostic, but eventually someone will ask a leading question to "prove" the person to be an atheist or a theist, or to place them in some other category of the critic's choosing. The people who do that are the same types of people who NEED to know if you're a liberal or conservative, and will quickly label you as such, not based on what YOU say, but what THEY believe.

Belief and faith are things I choose to ignore when it comes to religion. I honestly don't care if there's a God or not. When asked if there is one, the only correct answer is, "I don't know." Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong. No God = likely, but until it's proven, that answer is incorrect.

 

[noreligion]

Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong. No God = likely, but until it's proven, that answer is incorrect.

If there is a supernatural god it can't be detected by science (otherwise it wouldn't be supernatural) so it is not only correct to live life as if there is no god it is also pretty accurate to say there is no god. Anything else is simply wrong. There isn't a natural god otherwise there would be a ton of evidence. If you want to redefine god as an advanced alien or the universe or physics that is just begging the question. Tell you this, if there ever was a god (there wasn't) he is long dead.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

When asked if there is one, the only correct answer is, "I don't know." Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong. No God = likely, but until it's proven, that answer is incorrect.

When there is no coherent, consistent, non contradictory definition, then
"I don't know" isn't necessarily the only option remaining. You could also say..."the question is meaningless."

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

If I see a red car, I say, "That car is red". I don't say, "That car is probably red, but I cannot prove that it is red at this time".

I say, "God does not exist", I don't say, "God probably does not exist, but I cannot prove his non-existence at this time".

You do realize, though, that's a false analogy, don't you?

 

[phantomb]

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.
.
.
.

I think the way you're defining "certitude" is how I define "belief", and the way you're defining "positive belief" is how I define "claim of knowledge". When I say that I "believe" that gods don't exist I mean that I'm very, very certain that they don't exist. When I say I don't "know" that gods don't exist I mean that I can't objectively demonstrate that all gods do not exist beyond any dispute.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think the way you're defining "certitude" is how I define "belief", and the way you're defining "positive belief" is how I define "claim of knowledge".

Perhaps with the former, but not with the latter. I'm distinguishing between belief - which is an act of faith and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with evidence - and knowledge. I don't have a positive belief in there being no gods, I simply have a lack of belief in their existence. Absolute knowledge is something I think we're both conceding is impossible, in the strictest sense.

 

[noreligion]

Absolute knowledge is something I think we're both conceding is impossible, in the strictest sense.

It is? You mean you can't know with absolute 100% certainty that the baloney in the bible is false?