Agnostic or Atheist?

[Mosquito]

Sometimes people make distinctions between agnostics and atheists, many(?) religious people seem to be more comfortable with labelling the unbeliever as agnostic rather than atheist.

Dunno about you guys, but I make the assumption that an agnostic is an atheist. The agnostic does not believe in any god(s), thus is an atheist.

I think this is one of those cases where you really are either a theist or an atheist. And if you're not a theist, you have to be an atheist.

Agnostic thus becomes a sub-group of atheist, kind of like weak/strong atheists.

Anybody disagree?


Mosquito

 

[Iacchus]

Sometimes people make distinctions between agnostics and atheists, many(?) religious people seem to be more comfortable with labelling the unbeliever as agnostic rather than atheist.

Dunno about you guys, but I make the assumption that an agnostic is an atheist. The agnostic does not believe in any god(s), thus is an atheist.

I think this is one of those cases where you really are either a theist or an atheist. And if you're not a theist, you have to be an atheist.

Agnostic thus becomes a sub-group of atheist, kind of like weak/strong atheists.

Anybody disagree?


Mosquito

It's strictly a matter of belief.

 

[Hutch]

Anybody disagree?


Mosquito

Yep. I think your definition of Agnostic is poor.

An Agnostic neither believes or disbelieves that there is a God(s)(esses) out there, they simply say there is no evidence on either side that is strong enough to convince them, so they will adopt a wait and see attitude.

The way I see it, it goes something like this (IMHO, as always):

Religious--Believes in a particular manifestation of God, usually based on certain Holy writings. Based on faith, and faith trumps logic.

Deist--Believes in the concept of God, but does not subscribe to any particular religion or writings about God. Based on faith, but logic will alter faith or force it to adapt. Many people who think they are religious are often deists but don't know it.

Agnostic--Neither believes or disbelieves in God. Does not feel there is sufficient evidence to prove the case either way.

Atheist--Believes there is no God. Has faith that the evidence shows that there is no God.

What say you?

 

[phildonnia]

Too often, arguments between theists and atheists, and even between atheists of different stripes, break down into semantic quibbling over the meaning of the terms "atheist", "agnostic", and even "believe".

I don't know what the technical terms are supposed to be, and I don't think anyone else has reached an agreement either.


Here's four completely different definitions, which are all variously described as 'atheist'. We can sort them out:

1) A person who positively knows that there is no God
2) A person who believes that there is no God
3) A person who thinks there probably is no God, but doesn't really know
4) A person in willful ignorance or denial of God.

"Believe" is also a troublesome word; here I'm using it to mean "to temporarily or tentatively accept as true." In this sense, most theists don't "believe" in God, but rather "know" God.

---

Ok then, if I may presume to place words in the mouths of others:

1inC's understanding of "atheist" is #4, yet most atheist counterarguments understand sense #2.

Lifegazer's "atheist = stupid" argument (also known as 'atheists are arrogant bastards') assumes sense #1.

And finally, the OP of this thread assumes #3 = agnostic and #2 = atheist. I don't think it's necessarily true that ignorance (#3) is a subset of disbelief (#2).

 

[Mosquito]

Re: Re: Agnostic or Atheist?

Yep. I think your definition of Agnostic is poor.

An Agnostic neither believes or disbelieves that there is a God(s)(esses) out there, they simply say there is no evidence on either side that is strong enough to convince them, so they will adopt a wait and see attitude.

The way I see it, it goes something like this (IMHO, as always):

Religious--Believes in a particular manifestation of God, usually based on certain Holy writings. Based on faith, and faith trumps logic.

Deist--Believes in the concept of God, but does not subscribe to any particular religion or writings about God. Based on faith, but logic will alter faith or force it to adapt. Many people who think they are religious are often deists but don't know it.

Agnostic--Neither believes or disbelieves in God. Does not feel there is sufficient evidence to prove the case either way.

Atheist--Believes there is no God. Has faith that the evidence shows that there is no God.

What say you?

So, basically what you are saying is that you can have a "half-belief" in a god? "I don't believe in your god, but I don't dis-believe in it either"? = "I don't think your god exists, but I don't think it doesn't exist either"? Or am I strawmanning you?

I find that weird. Can anybody actually fulfill the first sentence of your agnostic definition? I have no problems with the second sentence.

Also, isn't theism (of any flavour) a positive belief that there is a(some) god(s)? Thus the opposite (a-theism) becomes the lack of belief AND the belief that there is no god(s). (weak and strong atheists).

This (my) definition would put the agnostic in the "lack of belief" in god(s) category, though they would be different from weak atheists, somehow (I'm no definition expert).

Mosquito (still thinking that if you don't have something, you are without it)

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

It is far more interesting to find out what someone believes or disbelieves (and why) than to know what label they choose to affix to their certain set of beliefs/disbeliefs.

 

[Iacchus]

Well, when we're all dead gone, what is there to believe in? Certainly not in the fact that we exist, correct? So, what I would like to know, is who is this grand illusionist -- and certainly it must be nothing but grand -- which makes life so believable while we're here?

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Agnostic or Atheist?

So, basically what you are saying is that you can have a "half-belief" in a god? "I don't believe in your god, but I don't dis-believe in it either"? = "I don't think your god exists, but I don't think it doesn't exist either"? Or am I strawmanning you?

I find that weird. Can anybody actually fulfill the first sentence of your agnostic definition? I have no problems with the second sentence.

There are lots of things about whether I have neither belief nor disbelief. For example, if you ask me to compare two restaurants in a city I've never visited, I do not believe the first is better, nor do I believe the second is better, nor do I believe the first is worse. For that matter, I don't believe they're the same. I have, literally, no belief, because I have, literally, no evidence upon which to base such a belief.

Usually the word "atheist" is restricted to those who deny or actively disbelieve in the existence of a God or gods. Under this conventional restriction, an agnostic is not an atheist, as he holds no beliefs regarding the subject, but does not deny the existence of a God.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well, when we're all dead gone, what is there to believe in? Certainly not in the fact that we exist, correct? So, what I would like to know, is who is the grand illusionist -- and certainly it must be nothing but grand -- which makes life so believable while we're here?

The grand illusionist is Sy Sperling, not only the president, but also a member!

 

[Mosquito]

Too often, arguments between theists and atheists, and even between atheists of different stripes, break down into semantic quibbling over the meaning of the terms "atheist", "agnostic", and even "believe".

I don't know what the technical terms are supposed to be, and I don't think anyone else has reached an agreement either.

This is true, and I was hoping to not having to go into a definition war. I do however think that there is no definition of agnostic that includes the belief (or knowledge as you define it below) in god(s).

Here's four completely different definitions, which are all variously described as 'atheist'. We can sort them out:

1) A person who positively knows that there is no God
2) A person who believes that there is no God
3) A person who thinks there probably is no God, but doesn't really know
4) A person in willful ignorance or denial of God.

"Believe" is also a troublesome word; here I'm using it to mean "to temporarily or tentatively accept as true." In this sense, most theists don't "believe" in God, but rather "know" God.

---

Ok then, if I may presume to place words in the mouths of others:

1inC's understanding of "atheist" is #4, yet most atheist counterarguments understand sense #2.

Lifegazer's "atheist = stupid" argument (also known as 'atheists are arrogant bastards') assumes sense #1.

And finally, the OP of this thread assumes #3 = agnostic and #2 = atheist. I don't think it's necessarily true that ignorance (#3) is a subset of disbelief (#2).

If you are ignorant of something, do you believe/know it? I don't think so. But this does not preclude that you would believe/know it if you came to be enlightened of the subject.

I still think that agnostics are atheists, in the sense that they are not believers/knowers of god(s). They may be easier to persuade (though not necessarily, there are different stripes of agnostics too) one way or the other, but they have no gods, and are thus godless. IMHO.

Maybe my definition of atheist is too inclusive? (As I think all 4 of your examples qualify, except the denial, which I think may or may not be an atheist).


Mosquito (may not have the grasp definitions in order to win this thread )

 

[Iacchus]

The grand illusionist is Sy Sperling, not only the president, but also a member!

Actually, my response wasn't in reply to your post, so don't get too alarmed, Okay?

 

[Mosquito]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Agnostic or Atheist?

There are lots of things about whether I have neither belief nor disbelief. For example, if you ask me to compare two restaurants in a city I've never visited, I do not believe the first is better, nor do I believe the second is better, nor do I believe the first is worse. For that matter, I don't believe they're the same. I have, literally, no belief, because I have, literally, no evidence upon which to base such a belief.

Usually the word "atheist" is restricted to those who deny or actively disbelieve in the existence of a God or gods. Under this conventional restriction, an agnostic is not an atheist, as he holds no beliefs regarding the subject, but does not deny the existence of a God.

Your restaurant-analogy makes sense to me, can I claim victory of this thread now?

If I get it right this is a usable set of definitions (YMMV):

Strong atheist: Believes there is no god.
Weak atheist: Does not believe there is a god.
Agnostic: Unable to answer the question (Data not available).
Deist: There is god(s) but we don't know them.
Theist: Believes there is a specific (set of) god(s).
Fundie: Believes they are god (can't really differentiate between themselves and their concept of god)

Mosquito

 

[Bruce]

Good arguements by philidonia and new drkitten.

I can understand how one can "believe", and how one can "not believe", but the word "disbelieve" makes no sense to me. It sounds like some sort of super power. If I disbelieve in Satan, he will cease to exist.

The definition of "atheist" that I am comfortable with is "One who does not believe in a God." This is very different from
"One who disbelieves in God.", "One who doubts the existance of God", "One who denies God", or "One who knows there is no God".

I say that Agnostic and Atheist are the same thing.

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Agnostic or Atheist?

There are lots of things about whether I have neither belief nor disbelief. For example, if you ask me to compare two restaurants in a city I've never visited, I do not believe the first is better, nor do I believe the second is better, nor do I believe the first is worse. For that matter, I don't believe they're the same. I have, literally, no belief, because I have, literally, no evidence upon which to base such a belief.

Usually the word "atheist" is restricted to those who deny or actively disbelieve in the existence of a God or gods. Under this conventional restriction, an agnostic is not an atheist, as he holds no beliefs regarding the subject, but does not deny the existence of a God.

Back in the days when I was around alt.atheism, a discussion group for atheists, the general view was that atheism consisted of a lack of belief in god or gods. The active disbelief ("deny" is a terrible word here, by the way, because it implies there is an existence of god to deny) is not required, but also applies.

In your restauraunt example, if we consider the belief that A is better than B to be "A-over-Bism" and the belief that B is better than A to be "B-over-Aism," then I could call you aA-over-Bist and aB-over-Aist, where the prefix a- indicates that you lack the properties AoverBism or BoverAism. Kind of like amoral and asymmetric indicate the lack of the morals and symmetry, respectively (notice that asymmetric is NOT the same as antisymmetric).

"agnostic" was more used with respect to knowledge, as opposed to belief, where "agnostic" ("without knowledge") was used to describe the position that the knowledge of God's existence was unknowable. IMO, that necessarily includes atheists (although others argue this) but it would also include those would say something like "You just have to believe on faith."

From my view, what I usually would do would be to ask you list all the god(s) in which you believe. If that list is empty, then I would call you an atheist, because you lack theism.

In the end, though, these words are just labels. It doesn't matter what you call it, what matters is what you believe or don't believe.

 

[Mosquito]

Good arguements by philidonia and new drkitten.

I can understand how one can "believe", and how one can "not believe", but the word "disbelieve" makes no sense to me. It sounds like some sort of super power. If I disbelieve in Satan, he will cease to exist.

The definition of "atheist" that I am comfortable with is "One who does not believe in a God." This is very different from
"One who disbelieves in God.", "One who doubts the existance of God", "One who denies God", or "One who knows there is no God".

I say that Agnostic and Atheist are the same thing.

Your definition of atheist is the same as mine then, though I don't agree that agnostic = atheist (because atheist != agnostic). I still think that agnostics are atheists, but I understood the restaurant-analogy as "one does not really hold any beliefs for or against something one is ignorant of". They therefore hold no belief in god(s) nor do they believe there isn't any. A somewhat weird thing, but it seems to me to work. Insufficient data.


Mosquito (slightly confused now, but will work it out)

 

[drkitten]

I can understand how one can "believe", and how one can "not believe", but the word "disbelieve" makes no sense to me. It sounds like some sort of super power. If I disbelieve in Satan, he will cease to exist.

Well, look at my restaurant example again.

"Disbelieve" usually simply means "to reject the reality or truth of."

I don't believe that the first restaurant is the better of the two, but neither do I reject that it is. If you simply parse "disbelieve" as "believe the opposite of," then you can see that the statement "I disbelieve that God exists" is a much stronger statement than "I do not believe that God exists."

 

[pgwenthold]

Your definition of atheist is the same as mine then, though I don't agree that agnostic = atheist (because atheist != agnostic).

heh, heh

To expand my post above, I do think that atheists are necessarily agnostic, as well. If you do not _believe_ that God exists, then you cannot say that you believe that the existence of God can be _known_. Moreover, since you cannot know an existential negative (especially when it comes to something as undefined as god) then I argue that as an atheist, you cannot believe the existence of god can be known (the only way we can know if god exists or not is if he does exist). If you don't believe god exists, then you can't believe that we can know whether he exists or not, which would make you agnostic by the definition I gave.

But this is why I note that others disagree with me.

I still think that agnostics are atheists, but I understood the restaurant-analogy as "one does not really hold any beliefs for or against something one is ignorant of". They therefore hold no belief in god(s) nor do they believe there isn't any. A somewhat weird thing, but it seems to me to work. Insufficient data.

That's why we focus on positive beliefs. See my test above: list all the gods in which you believe?

It doesn't make sense to ask about all the gods in which you _don't believe_ because there an infinite number of them.

 

[Mosquito]

heh, heh

To expand my post above, I do think that atheists are necessarily agnostic, as well. If you do not _believe_ that God exists, then you cannot say that you believe that the existence of God can be _known_. Moreover, since you cannot know an existential negative (especially when it comes to something as undefined as god) then I argue that as an atheist, you cannot believe the existence of god can be known (the only way we can know if god exists or not is if he does exist). If you don't believe god exists, then you can't believe that we can know whether he exists or not, which would make you agnostic by the definition I gave.

But this is why I note that others disagree with me.

Like I do I don't believe in any god(s) but I do think that the existence of one can be known (like if one shows up). This may put me in the weak-atheist box. But it does not make me an agnostic (god's existence = unknowable)?

That's why we focus on positive beliefs. See my test above: list all the gods in which you believe?

It doesn't make sense to ask about all the gods in which you _don't believe_ because there an infinite number of them.

On this we agree fully.

Mosquito (narrowing himself down to agree with OP)

 

[Correa Neto]

I think there are more graduations.

One can be atheistic when it comes to a certain concept of a deity (example - the god of the fundies), but belive in another concept. Unfortunately, it seems that when people think about god, they are actually thinking in some interpretation based on the Bible.

I consider myself an agnostic with strong atheistic tendencies. I consider that the only concepts of deity that are possible inlight of todays science are those where god created the universe and then became a mere passive observer. Regarding these types of concepts, I am an agnostic, since I think its hard (or impossible) to prove or disprove. But if this is the case, what does it matter if there is a god or no? And is it really necessary that such a deity exists to explain the universe? So, this brings me to a position where I can´t completely deny the possibility of god's existence, but I think the odds are small.

 

[drkitten]

To expand my post above, I do think that atheists are necessarily agnostic, as well. If you do not _believe_ that God exists, then you cannot say that you believe that the existence of God can be _known_. Moreover, since you cannot know an existential negative (especially when it comes to something as undefined as god) then I argue that as an atheist, you cannot believe the existence of god can be known (the only way we can know if god exists or not is if he does exist).

That's gibberish. I can easily "know" existential negatives. For example, there are no even prime numbers greater than two, and I can prove it. I can similarly prove that there are no married bachelors and no four-sided triangles, because the concepts themselves are provably incoherent.

If the notion of "God" is provably incoherent, as many atheists have claimed, then in fact one can legitimately know that God does not exist.