Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[ynot]

To say it can't be known whether gods actually exist or not is to be an atheist. Atheism doesn't require knowledge of the non-existence of gods, it merely doesn't accept unsubstantiated theistic beliefs that claim gods actually exist. Theism doesn't require knowledge of the actual existence of gods, it merely accepts unsubstantiated beliefs that claim gods actually exist.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

As far as I'm concerned there are two answers to the question "Do you believe a god(s) exist?" If the answer is anything but yes than you're an atheist.

I have a feeling this thread will be more about how people choose to label themselves.

 

[ynot]

As far as I'm concerned there are two answers to the question "Do you believe a god(s) exist?" If the answer is anything but yes than you're an atheist.

I have a feeling this thread will be more about how people choose to label themselves.

Exactly. The question isn't "CAN you believe a god actually exists?" It’s "DO you believe a god actually exists?"

Besides - If you can't, then by default you don't.

 

[wollery]

<sigh>

Agnostic is a term descriptive of knowledge.

Atheism is a term descriptive of faith.

One can be a Gnostic Theist, Agnostic Theist, Gnostic Atheist or Agnostic Atheist.

Anyone not understanding this needs a lesson in linguistics and basic philosophy.

I mean, seriously, how many times does this have to be explained?

Buy a dictionary.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

<sigh>

Agnostic is a term descriptive of knowledge.

Atheism is a term descriptive of faith.

One can be a Gnostic Theist, Agnostic Theist, Gnostic Atheist or Agnostic Atheist.

Anyone not understanding this needs a lesson in linguistics and basic philosophy.

I mean, seriously, how many times does this have to be explained?

Buy a dictionary.

I'm well aware of the Knowledge/Belief difference, I even have a handy chart.

http://i1.wp.com/2.bp.blogspot.com/_MDZPs8ROJXE/TNx7UFqbaII/AAAAAAAAB9M/XDfxPwyBVpA/s1600/Gnostic_Agnostic_Atheist.png

What the op is saying is that people who label themselves agnostic are also by proxy atheists.

 

[ynot]

<sigh>

Agnostic is a term descriptive of knowledge.

Atheism is a term descriptive of faith.

One can be a Gnostic Theist, Agnostic Theist, Gnostic Atheist or Agnostic Atheist.

Anyone not understanding this needs a lesson in linguistics and basic philosophy.

I mean, seriously, how many times does this have to be explained?

Buy a dictionary.

Should I take my philosophy lesson from philosopher William L. Rowe?

“In the popular sense of the term, an "agnostic", according to the philosopher William L. Rowe, is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God”

 

[wollery]

What the op is saying is that people who label themselves agnostic are also by proxy atheists.

Really, because that wasn't what the OP actually said -

To say it can't be known whether gods actually exist or not is to be an atheist.

I've known several agnostic theists, including a Catholic monk and a Jesuit priest, both of whom were quite clear on the point that they didn't, and indeed couldn't, know if God actually existed, but took it purely on faith.

Should I take my philosophy lesson from philosopher William L. Rowe?

“In the popular sense of the term, an "agnostic", according to the philosopher William L. Rowe, is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God”

Relevant part highlighted.

 

[John Jones]

To say it can't be known whether gods actually exist or not is to be an atheist. Atheism doesn't require knowledge of the non-existence of gods, it merely doesn't accept unsubstantiated theistic beliefs that claim gods actually exist. Theism doesn't require knowledge of the actual existence of gods, it merely accepts unsubstantiated beliefs that claim gods actually exist.

OMFG! You're back again!


Where is that popcorn icon?

 

[ynot]

Really, because that wasn't what the OP actually said -

Quite correct. The title should have more correctly read - "Agnostics are Atheists in Denial". And the OP could have been better written to refer only to people that claim to be "agnostics" (in the popular sense of the term of course).

 

[ynot]

OMFG! You're back again!


Where is that popcorn icon?

Have I been here before? . . . Bloody Alzheimer’s.

 

[MontagK505]

<sigh>

Agnostic is a term descriptive of knowledge.

Atheism is a term descriptive of faith. Belief might be a better term to use here.
One can be a Gnostic Theist, Agnostic Theist, Gnostic Atheist or Agnostic Atheist.

Anyone not understanding this needs a lesson in linguistics and basic philosophy.

I mean, seriously, how many times does this have to be explained?

Buy a dictionary.

An atheist might believe there is no God (faith) or not believe there is a God. (knowledge)

 

[wollery]

An atheist might believe there is no God (faith) or not believe there is a God. (knowledge)

Neither of those is a statement of knowledge, they are both statements of belief (or lack thereof).

 

[ynot]

An atheist might believe there is no God (faith) or not believe there is a God. (knowledge)

I wouldn't call complete lack of credible evidence for a god, complete lack of credible reason for a god, and complete lack of scientific possibility for a god a belief of mere faith.

 

[stanfr]

As far as I'm concerned there are two answers to the question "Do you believe a god(s) exist?" If the answer is anything but yes than you're an atheist.

I have a feeling this thread will be more about how people choose to label themselves.

I don't have a belief one way or the other. It's like asking me, do you believe there is intelligent life on another planet? I simply don't have enough knowlege to come to a conclusive belief. Even if you put a gun to my head, id be hard pressed to answer (i guess i would answer in the way most likely to keep you from pulling the trigger...) That's why i prefer the term 'agnostic'

 

[ynot]

I've known several agnostic theists, including a Catholic monk and a Jesuit priest, both of whom were quite clear on the point that they didn't, and indeed couldn't, know if God actually existed, but took it purely on faith.

True. It should have read something like – “Agnostics that claim they neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God are atheists by default as they don’t have a belief in the existence of God.”

 

[wollery]

So, you're saying that your OP should have read "Agnostics who are also atheists are atheists by default".

Well, that's cleared that up then...

 

[Brian-M]

To say it can't be known whether gods actually exist or not is to be an atheist.

Not true. Many theists claim that the existence of God must be taken on faith alone, and that you can't know whether or not God exists. These are agnostic theists.

(ETA: I see you posted something to this effect while I was composing this response.)

Usually the excuse they give for God withholding evidence of his existence is that to prove he exists would take away your free choice to choose whether or not to believe in him.

Atheism doesn't require knowledge of the non-existence of gods, it merely doesn't accept unsubstantiated theistic beliefs that claim gods actually exist. Theism doesn't require knowledge of the actual existence of gods, it merely accepts unsubstantiated beliefs that claim gods actually exist.

True.

Agnosticism is a position about whether or not these claims of God are substantiated. Atheism is a position about whether or not these claims are true. These are positions on two different things, as Wollery pointed out.

So your assertion that agnosticism is "atheism in denial" is false.

Should I take my philosophy lesson from philosopher William L. Rowe?

“In the popular sense of the term, an "agnostic", according to the philosopher William L. Rowe, is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God”

That's how Thomas Huxley originally defined the term, and some people still use that definition today.

But lack of belief or disbelief in God is now known as "soft atheism" (or "weak atheism" or "negative atheism", depending on who you're talking to).

Actual disbelief in God is known as "hard atheism" (or "strong atheism" or "positive atheism", depending on who you're talking to).

Buy a dictionary.

Sadly, many dictionaries give very poor definitions for atheism.

Here's the definition from Webster's:

atheism
noun athe·ism \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Definition of ATHEISM

1. archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2.
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity​

 

[ynot]

I don't have a belief one way or the other. It's like asking me, do you believe there is intelligent life on another planet? I simply don't have enough knowlege to come to a conclusive belief. Even if you put a gun to my head, id be hard pressed to answer (i guess i would answer in the way most likely to keep you from pulling the trigger...) That's why i prefer the term 'agnostic'

But if there were people that believe there is intelligent life on other planets despite the lack of credible evidence (let’s call them “alienists”), and then there is people that don’t accept that belief (let’s call them “a-alienists”), would an a-alienist be any different than an “agnostic-alienist”?

 

[wollery]

But if there were people that believe there is intelligent life on other planets despite the lack of credible evidence (let’s call them “alienists”), and then there is people that don’t accept that belief (let’s call them “a-alienists”), would an a-alienist be any different than an “agnostic-alienist”?

Yes.

 

[ynot]

Not true. Many theists claim that the existence of God must be taken on faith alone, and that you can't know whether or not God exists. These are agnostic theists.

(ETA: I see you posted something to this effect while I was composing this response.)

Usually the excuse they give for God withholding evidence of his existence is that to prove he exists would take away your free choice to choose whether or not to believe in him.



True.

Agnosticism is a position about whether or not these claims of God are substantiated. Atheism is a position about whether or not these claims are true. These are positions on two different things, as Wollery pointed out.

So your assertion that agnosticism is "atheism in denial" is false.



That's how Thomas Huxley originally defined the term, and some people still use that definition today.

But lack of belief or disbelief in God is now known as "soft atheism" (or "weak atheism" or "negative atheism", depending on who you're talking to).

Actual disbelief in God is known as "hard atheism" (or "strong atheism" or "positive atheism", depending on who you're talking to).



Sadly, many dictionaries give very poor definitions for atheism.

Here's the definition from Webster's:

I have already admitted to my many mistake and have tried to correct them to suit my original intent.